kraftykid

Hi all,

I've posted in the 911 section about my quandary, but I need additional expertise about the 964...

I am in the market for a new car to drive (and care for) daily. I am coming out of a 1998 turbo-charged Volvo, so am fairly familiar with how cars can be finicky and demanding of time and resources. I am prepared to deal with what I need to on a day to day, month to month, year to year basis with Porsche ownership.

I am debating between an '86 911 and a '90 964. I am simultaneously being swayed by the alleged bulletproof engine quality of the 3.2L, and the more "modern" characteristics of the 964--upgraded AC, ABS, power steering, interior look and feel, etc.

My question to this community is as follows:

I've been doing a bit of homework, and from what I have read, it seems that it is reported that:

1. Engine oil leakage will NOT occur (for a long while) after the "fix" has been installed for the pre-1991 engines. New gaskets and seals?
2. The DMF issues will be *solved* with the installation of a LUK DMF.

Can anybody attest to the above?

Also, what is the life expectancy of the 964 engine? The 911 3.2s seems to be lasting well into the 200k miles. How about the 964 3.6L? I am looking at a 3.6 with approx 90k on the clock...how much life can I expect from it? (Granted that I keep up to date with 15k mile valve adjustments, oil, and all other service/maintenance.)

Thank you all for your input...

User 040621

drive the 964.
issues associated with the 964 have trpically been addressed and corrected.
the 964 is much more comfortable to drive in your urban and suburban areas.
get a PPI completed by a shop you know or recommended by fellow rennlisters.
don't trust the selling dealer to honor whatever warranty they are offering
GET A PPI BEFORE YOU BUY

User 040621

did I mention the PPI?

kraftykid

I'm actually right in the middle of getting numbers for appraisal companies around my area (Los Angeles, CA).

Not to thread jack myself, but in addition to the original questions: Can anyone on Rennlist recommend a particular appraiser in SoCal?

Gelignite

You hear a lot about not touching a 100k mile plus car unless there is a rebuild but I have a different take. I would say that if a car this well built needs a rebuild at 100k it has possibly been abused and that sets alarm bells about what else needs doing. I drove my first car a Vauxhall Astra (not sure what that is in US) around the clock twice with no problem - 200k plus miles. I have 120k on my '90 964 and it seems strong, only minor oil leaks (i.e. no drips), and no smoke. I do have the servicing done properly and the history is good, if not perfect.
Of course there are always exceptions with manufacture defects or one overreving downshift could be enough to store problems for the future so it is difficult to generalise but I think there is too much worry about it.
So I think you have to take each car as a different case and buy or not on the evidence of that. Remember people are more likely to post their woes rather than "everything is going fine".
Steve

boxsey911

There are plenty of 964s that have been going for a long time. Here's some evidence:

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

Dave White

If both cars were equal in condition, the 964 would give you more performance, creature comforts, drive-ability. The 911 would probably hold its value better, be less expensive to maintain, less prone to electronic "troubles" as it doesn't have near the sensors, bells, whistles the 964's have, and since you could automatically get classic plates, lower insurance and license fees. If the 964 hasn't been updated with the sealing ring cylinders, it will, and it's very expensive. Likewise, the older gearbox in the 86 might give you troubles as opposed to the very good G50.

vasculardoc

My 1990 964 has got 220k km's without any engine issues - <3% leak down on all cylinders. Routine maintenance only. Dry as a bone from oil point of view (although that being said oil lines are beginning to look a little old now so they are due for replacement - no leaks though)
The 964 drive is Sooooo much more pleasant for a daily driver - don't need quite as herculean biceps as with a 3.2. Also creature comforts like A/c being better.
I'd go for the 964 every time.

My 2c worth

altarchsa

mitch 9000 offers the best advice you could get.

I've owned a 78SC and my current 89C4 blows it away in every respect, except maybe the "raw" sports car feel of the SC. I don't think there is much difference between the SC you're thinking of and my 78 other than the G50 trans, and I have that now in my 964 so I can interpolate.

There may be a few more quirky issues that the 964 computer and sensors generate, such as the ignition system "Christmas trees", but they are well worth sorting out for the more sophisticated handling and power of the 964.

I have a higher mileage car and have been completely through the engine myself, as well as the engines in my SC and other middle 70s era 911s. They're all equally bulletproof IMO. As mitch said, most of the basic issues like gaskkmketless head oil leaks have been fixed by now, and speaking as a pre-head gasket owner (still is gasketless), I think that issue is exaggerated, although maybe not by those who have experienced it.

The HUGE difference I experienced in moving from the SC to the 964, after the significant increase in power, is the
handling stability of the C4 and the confidence it has given me. I've done my share of 180's (and 360's) in my 70s cars and I can't express how much fun it is to have the confidence to drive the 964 to it's fullest capability in the wet and on tight curves and cloverleafs.

Drive em and PPI, PPI, PPI before purchase.

Good luck with your decision. You kinda can't go wrong!