When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If you are already planning on unloading it in 2-3 years, I would skip PPF so as long as you can live with a few bite marks in the front. If you were buying a GT car that holds value / has a more particular buyer, I would say PPF it regardless.
Throw some DIY ceramic from Kamikaze on it to keep it relatively scratch/mar free when washing and go enjoy the car.
I will comment, but not a 992 but same outcomes. My last RS I did full PPF because the car was black and I didn’t want to deal with the washing, but my Speedster I did the front because I do lots of mountain driving. Had the car for a year and no issues, and I just believe it’s a car and you maintain it will be fine. PPF to me is sunk cost you will not get paid for it if you expect that to be the case. I’ve sold and traded 4 GT cars and a Ferrari 458, and PPF wasn’t a decision by the buyers. Do what makes you fell good. Oh yeah the 675LT is full front and contact arches good after 5 years, and again if your **** do 100%/but expecting a return is flawed in my experience just take care of the car it’s a consumable. Good luck on your choice there is no wrong or right answer it will be 50/50 here. My speedster has a couple of chips, but only I know and if I sell it I will still pull 125k over not because of the clear bra.
I'm leasing my 992 and I'm likely doing a full ceramic coat and front PPF. I appreciate that some view it as a waste of money, but this car will be my DD in the Northeast and I want to minimize paint chips, etched bird droppings, etc.
Everyone has a different opinion and no opinion is better than another. I took delivery of my first Porsche and first 911 in June I have lusted over a 911 for over 40 years and at 65 I was in a position to buy one. I am very fastidious about the way I look after my cars. No one wants or likes to get chips on their cars especially me. I did not get PPF on my car, to me at $6k it is a waste of money, I strongly believe that people like to tell themselves that the car will be worth more when they sell it. The amount extra that the car will be worth is negligible compared to the initial out lay. I have owned over 30 new cars in the years that I have been driving some have done high miles some low miles but even the ones that spent a lot of time driving on the road had minimal paint chips. The vast majority of used car managers and private buyers will not baulk at a few paint chips after 3-4 years, the overall condition of the car is what will affect the value. If getting the PPF gives you peace of mind and $6k is no big deal to you then get it, it will be worth it to you. If you are in the other camp, like me, that thinks they can do something better with $6k and some normal wear and tear is fine you will also be happy.
It is a personal decision with no right or wrong answer. My C2S Cab, first 911, arrives in January and it will get full PPF with Suntek Reaction for $6k. Why?
I want an easy and dumb proof wash it yourself experience (I hate washing cars) and protection from stone chips. I plan to keep the car until ICE is forbidden.
I think it really depends on where you live and drive. When I was in Southern California, I never had any issues w/ rock chips on any of my cars ever. As soon as I moved to AZ I get rock chips like crazy on my windshield and car. I have to replace windshields due to major cracks every 1-2 yrs and my brand new 992 got a major rock chip on the 3rd day that tore off a piece of the PPF on the front hood. Also picked up a small windshield crack in the first 2 months. As much as I’ve enjoyed living in AZ this is one of the main drawbacks so I PPFd the entire front of my car and up the A pillars and the strip in front of the sunroof.
My 992 has about 4,000 miles on it since delivery in June, no PPF. So far I have one stone chip on the front bumper about the size of a pinhead and I'm sure I'll get a few more. I'm ok with it, also understand that others might not be.
Depends where you live. I daily my car up and down the highway and we have gravel trucks spewing large rocks and hitting all the cars almost daily. I have a tear in my ppf on my driver side front fender already. I cracked my windshield 3 months into ownership. I had Clearplex installed on my new windshield (which took 14 weeks to come from Germany and I could only drive the car 20 mins a week just to keep the battery charged). Clearplex saved me 3 days later which picked up a big nick and saved my windshield. Ppf has saved me countless times. I would do full PPF and Clearplex again.
I also have no worries parking at the grocery store or anywhere else knowing a wild runaway shopping cart hitting my car wouldn’t cause damage. This allows me to drive the car more with less worries.
That said, I’d only do full ppf on cars costing over $100,000+. Below that it wouldn’t be worth it to me to pay $6,000+. I’d put Clearplex on every car I buy going forward.
Last edited by Master Deep; 11-05-2021 at 08:13 AM.
Financially there is no easily discernible benefit to PPF and/or ceramic but:
1. As a buyer I would choose the ppf’d car over one not installed as it points to a well cared for car.
2. there is a feeling of comfort driving the car anywhere without fearing damage.
in the Atlanta area Atlanta Protective Films, Derek, or AP3 are the best and very price competitive.
Depends where you live. I daily my car up and down the highway and we have gravel trucks spewing large rocks and hitting all the cars almost daily. I have a tear in my ppf on my driver side front fender already. I cracked my windshield 3 months into ownership. I had Clearplex installed on my new windshield (which took 14 weeks to come from Germany and I could only drive the car 20 mins a week just to keep the battery charged). Clearplex saved me 3 days later which picked up a big nick and saved my windshield. Ppf has saved me countless times. I would do full PPF and Clearplex again.
I also have no worries parking at the grocery store or anywhere else knowing a wild runaway shopping cart hitting my car wouldn’t cause damage. This allows me to drive the car more with less worries.
That said, I’d only do full ppf on cars costing over $100,000+. Below that it wouldn’t be worth it to me to pay $6,000+. I’d put Clearplex on every car I buy going forward.
How is the ClearPlex in the rain? Do the wipers work better, worse, no real difference?
The water based paint on the new Porsches is in fact more prone to chips vs. the older (and environmentally irresponsible) system. The facts are that PPF will help protect the vehicle against rock chips vs. naked paint. And although a ceramic spray will help enhance the appearance and offer some surface protection as well as make the vehicle easier to clear; it will do nothing to protect the paint surface like PPF.
It really boils down to value/cost determination and there are clearly solid arguments on both sides.
I see that the industry's Soft Paint Assimilation Program (or SPAP) has worked well on you
Call me crazy, but I'm going to go ahead and trust the PhDs at Porsche instead of some yuk-yuk named Randy that just handed me a quote for $5k to help "fix" my soft paint.
11-04-2021, 10:04 PM
