I am sure this is opening a can of worms with this...but...I have been in the market for a late 80's 911. I have driven 3.2's, SC's and a 964 and like them all for different reasons. I have been scared off of the 964's due to their somewhat legendary engine/mechnical issues.

I am looking for a weekend car, I will not be racing it, and will not be showing it - this is a fun factor thing. I am also not a mechanic, nor do I wish to spend time under the hood, or thousands on some one else being under the hood. This is why I gravitated to the 3.2/G50 option. My budget ideally is arounf $16k with a few thousand extra t fund needed repairs or upgrades.

As I search, there seem to be many more 964's in my price range than 3.2's, so I am wondering if that is for a good reason,( then stay away), or is it that the reputation is moving the market?

What should I look for interms of upgrades or repairs that would help to determine that the car I am looking for is not a money pit. In terms of looks, I actually really like the Carrerr2.

Thoughts? Thanks!

 

The 964 is a very reliable car. Do a search on Rennlist under the 964 section and you will see this has been discussed many times. Each model has its fans. If you ask the 964 guys (me included), we will say the 964 is a better choice. It has some nice modern conveniences such as the 3.6 motor, ABS, new suspension but has the classic styling of the traditional 911.

See https://rennlist.com/forums/964-foru...-or-964-a.html

 

impact bumpers are "classic styling of the traditional 911"???

 

It seems that the most noticeable change in the 911 line is the bumpers. At least it seems that way to me; perhaps I'm mistaken.

What was the design that lasted the longest and/or would be considered the classic styling?

 

In my mind, the 964 is the last of the "traditional" 911's. The 993 and newer are different in my mind's eye. I see the hood and upright headlights as classic design features on the 911-964's. The 993's lost some of that character. Other's may disagree.

 

It's an interesting debate.

I actually see the 89 3.2 as the last classic 911. The 964 is 85% new parts. Same lines (save the bumpers, of course) and that's what I like about it. It still "looks" (to me anyway) like a classic 911.

Still, I think of it as the first of the "new" 911's.

 

Absolutely agree. Drive a 993, a 964, and a 3.2 Carrera. Then drive any earlier model 911. The 3.2 feels like it belongs in the early group. The 964 drives very similar to the 993 and the later cars because of the power steering and the better handling. The 964 is modern, while the torsion-bar cars are the 1963 design. All are great cars, but a 964 is far safer and far more capable than the 3.2.

I am in year 7 of a trouble-free 964. The "legendary engine/mechnical issues" were teething pains in the new design. The problems were the distributor belt, dual-mass flywheel, and minor seepage at the cylinder head seals. The rubber belt inside the distributor is a once-per 60,000 mile maintenance item, and there are permanent fixes for the DMF and the cylinger seals. Most 964s were fixed a long time ago, and there are high-mileage examples out there still running great.

There is nothing more expensive than a cheap 911, so shop carefully. I don't know if $16,000 will get you a car with affordable maintenance and repair needs, but in this market, you might get lucky.

Good luck however you proceed.

 

I KNEW IT! -- my car's a legend! (oh...) legendary... 'issues'
... never mind...

3.2's have simpler/less expensive engines & chassis. (They also make 15% less power and their suspension is cruder/less forgiving.)
Neither car is less 'reliable'.
On strictly a price-on-purchase-and-maintainence basis -- for equal condition cars, I suggest a 3.2 as your fun driver.
(...Sorry, my brethren.)

Now, I would be hard pressed ever thinking of going back to a 3.2

Me, too.

 

I dont know about cheaper. It cost me $10K + when I rebuilt my 2.7 about 8 years ago. None of them are cheap anymore and parts for the older cars are probably going to continue going up in cost.

 

(ahem... talk about the Annals of Infamy, Jim: a 2.7?!! Good grief.)

My test: Show me a 3.6 part that doesn't cost more than a 3.2.
(It doesn't help there's more of 'em, too.)

Remember, this is a guy who doesn't want to wrench, wants fun, and wants least costly garage appointments.
Either car would work for him, but the tenor of his intro had me thinking of the simplicity of dual-distributor-less, standard steering option.
That, and I got a soft spot in my heart for the whole SC/3.2 lineup. Those old ladies are good.

I DO think he'll get slightly bilked by all the 3.2 fans who yang for a G50 -- hence their appreciation.
But a good (late) 3.2 equaling (approx.) the cost of a good 3.6 had me thinking the ongoing delta of parts cost.

 

Man you Virginians sure are a cranky bunch

 

Dave, I think we are saying the same things in different ways. I was trying to say that the 964 is the best of both worlds, classic looks and modern bits underneath.

 

Yup, we tend to agree on things . . .

Hey, you going to the try and get down to the aerodrome again? I'm planning on going this time. Will even try and get the family out.

 

There are some good deals out there on 964s, but for 16K you should be able to get a 3.2 in better mechanical conditions. Like Bruce Anderson always says "buy the best example you can afford".

Neither one is cheap to maintain, but 964 parts are definately steeper.

 

+1

Buy the best 3.2 you can find.