daniel the tiger

Hello
I rarely post on r-list but am fairly active on the bird board. Here's the deal:
I presently own a 1971 2.2T I've had since 2007. I rescued it from a bad owner and have been bringing it back to health ever since. I find myself at a crossroads as the car needs rocker repair work and I'm wondering if a later 911 would be better suited to my interests (more driving, less wrenching).

I'm an average joe. 32 with a decent job, little debt etc. I am generally frugal and big on personal finance. So here's the Q: Is the increased cost and complexity of the 964 worth it over the 78-89 cars for someone like me? I'm not looking to go racing, just drive the car whenever possible. I'm attracted to the 964 for the following reasons:

- the big 3.6
- G50
- ABS/airbags
- implied better ride quality/suspension due to coil over vs t bars
- somewhat more modern interior

Aside from removing the underbody panel, is doing a valve adjust on the 3.6 the same basic procedure as earlier cars?

I am familiar with the possible trouble spots on the 964 (early 3.6 issues etc). Of course, the 3 & 3.2 liter cars have their own potential issues. In general, are ownership costs higher for the 964 vs the 3.2 or similar?

Is the coilover suspension truly better on rough roads? I live in RI and our roads aren't the best.

My impression is that the 964 is somewhat more tolerant of ham-fisted drivers vs t-bar cars. Is this true or no?

Bottom line: If I sell my 71, I'm going to buy another 911. I realize this is a 964 forum, but I am trying to figure out what car is best for me. I want a car that will tolerate the daily grind and that I can trust for road trips.

Your advice is greatly appreciated.

-Dan

Makmov

Nope not unless you are used to a Turbo car. You do have to drop the exhaust, and there are plugs and plug wires in the lower set of valve covers as well.

Cost is higher. It was the first high tech 911 with a short production run and in limited numbers. For whatever reason I have found that 964 parts are more expensive and in some cases a lot more expensive.
Absolutely! the coil overs are better, not withstanding they are progressive and T-bars are not.
Somewhat, but you can still get yourself into trouble even with a C4. However, you do kind have to work at it with a C4.

I am sure you'll get a whole different opinion on the 911 boards, but I find it a very easy car to live with as an every day driver. I would also trust mine on a road trip.

The older car, not so much. More than just the T-bar ride quality, the clutch pedal in traffic, no power steering, HAVAC system that is marginal at best, the 915 gear box, ABS - which works wonderfully. I can promise you I wouldn't want to drive an older 911 daily.
As far as the interior, you really wouldn't know the difference if you were sitting in a 964 or a 3.2 Carrera other than the climate control and the center console. Dash layout is exactly the same, door panels are the same, view out is the same. Porsche really didn't do anything to update the interior on the 964.

Is a 964 right for you? I really do not know how to answer that.

If you are looking at a 964 you might want to look at a 993 as well. Yes more money, but you get things like six speeds, AFAIK they are all widebodies, and hydrolic valves.

marcel964

The interior looks familiar to earlier 911s. But isn't exactly the same. What Makvov says is right. But the Dash is backlighted so in the dark the meters are much better to read, in the dash itself there are all kinds of warninglights that old 911 doesn't have. Climate control is far more sophisticated and works much better. I you need to take often luggage with you an old 911 has much more space under the bonnet. And not to forget powersteering is overhere!

Greg964

Having the coilovers, 3.6, G50 and power steering make the 964 the best 911. I think the 993 went a little too far towards comfort/isolation plus I don't love the shape as much as the classic 911/964. 964 is much more forgiving to drive close to the limit than the earlier cars but can still bite you. The maintenace and repairs will be more expensive with the 964. But if you buy one that has been well maintained and passes a thorough PPI you should be good. If you haven't driven a well set up 964 you should do so!

911Jetta

Checkout this thread over at early911s registry. Over 40 pages of 964 comments from longhood owners. It will answer a lot of your questions!

http://www.early911sregistry.org/forums/showthread.php?60034-90s-R-Gruppe-911

I always laugh when people start talking about 12 instead of 6 spark plugs, etc. Some of the part prices are scary, and there will be times you have to replace something expensive... that said, it seems as though I go for months and months where I just enjoy driving the car with no problems at all. A well sorted 964 just feels so solid.


There's a different sound to a 3.6, meatier and more gruff but it revs very freely and really has a lot more torque around town and great two-lane passing power. The G50 feels so smooth, and the brakes are like anchors with a very nice ABS pulse. I think the car one of the best power steering systems ever made, it's consistent and very nicely weighted. I've very impressed with how well all the systems work together (steering, brakes, shifting)!

Yes! Though a 993 would be even softer...but much more complicated to align correctly.

Thank exactly what I use my car for...take the kids to school, grocery shopping, and weekly thrashings on the local twisties!

One day I'll have a (R Gruppe style) longhood!

Again, checkout the thread over at realy911s:
http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...s-R-Gruppe-911

J richard

There has been a continual progression of higher limits, more power, higher speed and more isolation. From a 71 to a 964, you are skipping a few generations, the difference is substantial. For a DD the 964 will most definitely be a better car, all round, if it's a weekend car and something you enjoy tinkering with then is a whole different deal. Then it has alot to do with personal preference, every time I get in an early car I remember what attracted me to a pcar in the first place. Light, connected to your environs, and the simplicity of it, fun to tinker on a set of carbs (unless their still zeniths...) If in good repair a 71 even a T will be a valuable car that will continue to appreciate, the 964s are just starting to be appreciated by the people that want a classic with true comfort features.

Underneath they are surprisingly the same just more stuff in the way...

altarchsa

I think I have a pretty good perspective of your questions based on ownership history, as you can see in my signature below. Therefore, IMHO:


I'm wondering if a later 911 would be better suited to my interests (more driving, less wrenching).
I think you'll find the 964 more enjoyable and less work, for cars of similar condition from the start.

Is the increased cost and complexity of the 964 worth it over the 78-89 cars for someone like me?
Definitely worth it. The complexity is what results in the more enjoyable driving, better handling and more comfort.


I'm attracted to the 964 for the following reasons:

- the big 3.6
Definitely more grunt.

- G50
Smoother and more reliable.

- ABS/airbags
Not in mine.

- implied better ride quality/suspension due to coil over vs t bars
Yes, but you'll lose a little of the old sports car feel.

- somewhat more modern interior
Marginally more modern, really.


Aside from removing the underbody panel, is doing a valve adjust on the 3.6 the same basic procedure as earlier cars?
In addition to comments above, you will have to remove the heat shields around the engine if they're still installed. Also, there is less room to work from above. Two coils/dist's, larger intake in lieu of airbox, power steering pump and reservoir, etc.

I am familiar with the possible trouble spots on the 964 (early 3.6 issues etc). Of course, the 3 & 3.2 liter cars have their own potential issues. In general, are ownership costs higher for the 964 vs the 3.2 or similar?
Not significantly. Weak points in earlier models (valve guides, head studs, clutch cables, etc.) are offset by a different set of problems in 964s (sensors/plug wires, dist belt, A/C fan motors, etc.) Again, I think you'll find the 964 less expensive in the long run if you are familiar with the common problems and attack them directly without throwing a lot of unnecessary parts at it.

Is the coilover suspension truly better on rough roads? I live in RI and our roads aren't the best.
Don't know.

My impression is that the 964 is somewhat more tolerant of ham-fisted drivers vs t-bar cars. Is this true or no?
More control in the 964! Surgical as opposed to pocketnife feel.

I want a car that will tolerate the daily grind and that I can trust for road trips.
You want a 964.

Finally, I highly remcommend that you drive a C4 as well as a C2 before you buy. If you've ever pushed the earlier cars enough to worry about it swapping ends, you'll really like a C4, especially in the rain. Racers don't like them because of the weight and increased understeer, even though stock performance specs are almost identical. But for a daily driver there are a lot of us happy C4 owners that will highly recommend them. I'll never own another 2wd 911!

Good Luck with your decision.

altarchsa

To expand on the my comment above regarding the 3.6 having more grunt than an older car, it is also significantly faster.

When I bought my '75 S (11 years old with only 10K miles), I tried it out immediately. It climbed to 115 pretty quickly and then accelleration continually tapered off to a top end of 145, where wind resistance prevented it from using the last 1200 rpm's left on the tach..

When I tried the 3.6, it climbed to 130 without hesitation, and it seemed as if it still had as much power and was accellerating just as quickly as it was at 80. Scared the hell out of me, and I still haven't had the opportunity to get it to top end.

Bearclaw

This page should be "stickied" somehow, as there is a lot of really good summation and advice here.

The only thing I can emphasize is probably the most obvious: there are galaxies of difference between a well-maintained example, and a sad sack.
So the usual warnings about doing your groundwork, legwork and homework before you buy, absolutely apply. These cars fall into that age range where they can be in disrepair on the inside and still look good on the outside.
There have been a couple recent examples of that on this forum (although a bit "over-agonized", I would have to say), of owners held in a leg-hold trap by car purchase that was probably ill-advised. No matter how objective you are, that will definitely affect how you perceive what a 964 is or is not.

Regulatori

I used to have a 79 SC and much prefer my 964. The 964 has a classic but modern feel. The SC has more of pure classic feel with a tiny bit of modernity.

The 964 has way more grunt and the engine seems to pull a lot harder on the top end, I think the transmission is much better on the 964, and interior is quieter, car feels more solid, etc... You really need to drive both cars back to back to understand. I'm not saying the SC is a bad car, I think it's a great 911. I just personally like the 964 better.

doug751

Hello Dan,

Here is a link to 258 photos of my 1989 964, warts and all. This car has 19,000 miles on it, perhaps one of the lowest mileage 964s. I drive it on nice days, and it is certainly not a concourse car. This will give you a good idea of the complexity compared to an older 911.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/dkgreig...7625254958281/


Compared to a any older 911, the 964 is much better for a daily driver. The ventilation and AC system alone is a huge improvement.

springer3

I owned a 70 911T for 26 years and sold it shortly after I bought the 964. Both are seriously great cars, but the 964 has AC for the Atlanta Summer, and much better heat in the winter.

Extra power, safety, and comfort come at a price. The 964 weighs 1000 lb more than the 911T. There is some "low hanging fruit" for weight reduction, and you can get a 964 below the weight of a 911T if you have an unlimited budget (see the consolidated GS thread at the top of the 964 forum). Even at stock weight, the performance of the 964 is impressive.

I do far less wrenching on the 964, and it has proved more reliable despite its greater sophistication. Perhaps I have been lucky, but in 8+ years, only normal wear parts have needed replacement. My maintenance/repair costs have therefore been much less than they were in my first eight years with the 911T, which needed attention to body rust, exhaust system/heater box rust, fuel/carburetor issues, and ignition (it still had breaker points and cheap plug wires). The 911T needed an engine and transmission overhaul at 97,000 miles, A well-maintained street-driven 964 should reach 200,000 miles before it is going to need major overhauls. Reliability and durability are much greater in a 964. Valve adjustments are twice as much work because of all the prep work.

I know 3.2 owners who claim their cars run just as well and are much less expensive to maintain. They quote wildly exagerated prices for 964 parts to support their claim. It is laughable to think the cost of six extra spark plugs is a big deal. Twin-plugs and computer controls in the 964 engine make the engines in the earlier cars feel primitive.