fotorelics

The 993 I was looking at to be "imported" from Texas into California had a bad PPI so I passed on it. I now am looking at 2 cars here in CA, both coupes with about 70K miles on them - one is a 1995 and the other a 1996 and both look to be pretty reasonable examples Any +/- on the two would be appreciated.

Scott 1996 993c2

The '96-'98 models have the OBDII ... cannot "chip" them like the '95 models ... but might be able to re-flash ... if done right. However, the '96-'98 models start life with something like 12-13 hp more ... has the "Varioram" system. But, the '96-'98 can be prone to pesky CEL (check engine light) issues with the SAI's (secondary air injections) getting clogged ... not an issue with the '95 models. Bottom line is ... slight differences ... none of which would make or brake a deal for me given everything else being equal ... I have a '96 cab ... my wife has the '95 cab. Have fun searching, and get the best car for the best money deal you can find.

Oh yah ... and hang here and read a good bit ... always lots to learn.

Scott

Napa Valley Realtor

I know the varioram only added 12 peak horsepower, but the reviews I have read all seem to relay a significantly better 0-60 time for the 96 and above, over the 95. I believe I recall 5.7-5.8 for the 95 and 5.0 to 5.3 for the 96. I know that the test driver plays a HUGE role and that Motor Trend usually seems to post some pretty pie in the sky numbers. None the less I have seen similar numbers from a wide variety of sources.

Has anyone else found this to be true? And if so is there another possible reason for the difference? Different transmission or rear gearing? It just seems like a fairly big gap for 12 peak hp, unless it is 12 hp throughout the entire rev range.

Thoughts?

Amfab

1995 has quite a few performance increases over 1966. A '95 has a stiffer chassis, longer wheelbase and the motor in the '95 is 3.6 liter while the 1966 is 2 liter and puts out a bit more horsepower. The body is all galvanized in the '95--other notable improvements in the 1995 are: head rests integral to the seats, airbags, the rear seats in the '95 don't have to have the strap to hold them up, the '95 has a cassette in the stereo (while the cassette as an audio playback format was debuted in 1963 it wasn't an option in a car stereo in 1966). The '95 has electric mirrors, climate control, fuel injection (F.I. didn't show up in U.S. Porsches until '69) , AC is standard in the '95 ( in the U.S.) and in '95 electric seats were an option but not an option in the '66. The '95 had wider wheels and spring suspension vs. the 1966 torsion bar set up. The '95 has a lack of houndstooth upholstery as an option. Multiple speakers in the 95 vs. the single one in the dash in the 1966. You don't have to worry about an imobiliser malfunctioning in the '66- but you do have to worry about toasting your feet with the heater in the '66, which isn't an issue in the '95. You have the basket weave dash vinyl in the '66 and you are always sure what model you are are driving in a '66 because it tells you on the dashboard. No cruise control in the '66 although you may be able to find one with the optional hand throttle, so you can fake it. The '95 has galvanized body panels, and the '66 doesn't. Two belts in the '95 , one for the fan and one for the alternator. The' 66 uses one for both. The '95 has more fan blades for better cooling especially at lower RPMs. The glass is a bit more flush in the '95, but you can't pop open the front 1/4 windows or the rear side windows in the '95 as you can in the '66. A set of golf clubs fit in the trunk of a '66 but not in a '95. You can get a Targa in '66 but not in '95. The '66 has a full sized spare. Alloys are standard on the 95. I'm not sure if they were even offered in 1966. There are no SAI issues in either car. They are both beautiful automobiles-- if you can find a low mileage well taken care of version of either I think that they would both be amazing cars to own.......

OK, I'm kidding with this post but as I was writing it I realized what phenomenal cars all the 911s have been.

TroyN

I was thinking the same when I saw the post title.

WHB Porsche

Varioram works in that it changes the effective length of the intake manifold depending on the RPMs. A non-varioram engine will have a rev range where the intake is most efficient. Varioram engines are more efficient throughout the entire range, making more low-end and mid-range power (in fact, more power throughout the whole RPM range).

That being said, I'm sure SAI is a bitch, and the '95 might be nice and simple.

One note on '96 versus '97/'98. I believe that only 1995, 1997 and 1998 ECUs can be reflashed. The 1996 ECU was a little quirky, and there's only one tuner that I know of who can work on them, but he doesn't do anything with the N/A cars. Sorry.

Cactus

95...See sig.

95 C4 993

Quit abusing that 95 and drive it some more!!

95 is a great year and whatever year you settle on, Im sure you will be happy.

jimbo3

'96 (and some very late '95's) got rid if the (ugly) basket handle. The ECU in the '96 is not "chip-able", but the ECU's in '95, '97 and '98 are. Varioram in '96 and later makes the car MUCH more drivable in the real world with much greater mid-range torque. SAI CEL can be a pain, but not really that big of a deal.
All in all, '95's seem to be a little lower priced than the '96 and later.

95_993

I was looking at both 95 & 96 before purchasing. The SAI just seemed like a potential frustration for a daily driver. Early 95 need steering rack brace if you're considering 18" wheels, but it's a cheap (less than $250) to add. I went with the '95 w/ 29k miles and I am very happy so far. Very drivable on a daily basis. Agree with most here....can't go wrong with either. Which ever is more mechanically and cosmetically sound...that's the better choice.

mesa87

I went for a 95 after speaking to a dozen mechanics, not owners...my conclusion was based on their advice that the 95 cars are simpler machines and no OBDII problems. That is not to say the any Porsche does not suffer from valve guide wear it's just that the 96+ cars tell you about it.

In reference to HP & torque, sure the 96+ cars have more and they offer a creamier delivery of power earlier in the RPM range. Personally, I like have to keep the revs high to get the most of the car so to me that was not a deal breaker. After I chipped my car, the power delivery came earlier in the RPM range and was not as 'peaky' as the stock setup...plus you get back some the HP & torque that the 96+ have already.

Either way, you'll be stupid happy with any 993 as they are in my humble opinion the best air cooled car. Oh, get a black one...they are significantly faster

Per usual, by the best one you can afford, be prepared to walk away, insist on a car with records, get setup with a shop to do a proper PPI. I took almost a year to find mine and well worth the wait...it's one the best decisions I've ever made, the absolute best was deciding to take it to a track (now I'm hooked)

Cheers,

Dudley

95

Cactus

Easy there Kill Billl! I have racked up 1400 miles since the beginning of August! That's not grounds for an abuse charge is it? Alright then I guess I'll go out and go for a drive since you twisted my arm

cabrio993

Get a white one..they are the fastest regardless of year.

jdistefa

Steering rack brace is $40 and you can instal it yourself