Local (ROW) consenus :1994/5 993 best!
08-08-2003, 01:54 AM
#1
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Local (ROW) consenus :1994/5 993 best!
Now that will get the flame throwers primed for sure!
This is of interest mainly for ROW owners.
Downunder a few of us got together recently to disuss our NA 993's. Ownership was spread over all generations and type of NA 993.
In conclusion we (finally agreed) that the 1994/5 cars represented the best overall ownership proposition for an enthusiast.
These considerations were based on the experience of 10 owners (most who had had their car for a few years). We conducted this in order to help new 993 oweners at the club answer the question "what 993 should I buy". It must be remembered these are ROW cars, and we were considering the reliability of 5-10 year cars to someone new who may still be enjoying them regularly in 5+ years trime:
The findings:
1994/5 Benefits
Cheaper to purchase (generalisation)
More choice (more cares seem to have been sold in our region in the first 2 years before people were aware of the 996 replacement)
OBD1 - No carbon issues. Reduced CEL trigerring.
ECU - easy replacement of chip. More tuner friendly
Cats - 1994/5 NZ cars had "no catalytic converters" from factory (i.e. "dirty"). The engine does seem less restricted and more responsive to basic tuning as a result (it is also slightly louder)
No varioram - less likelihood of mechanical faliure (a few had started to giuve problems in this group), and a potential reliability issue in the future.
Less engine bay clutter - (no vario ram manifold and on early cars no extra HVACS equipment). Overall this was felt to be better for cooling and easy of entry for maintenance and tuning.
Better gearing - 1997 onward ROW manual cars had taller gearing as used in the US, which most agree provided with a less thrilling drive.
Unfortunately the assessment was pretty subjective. However most agreed that in 10 years there would no disernable premium for a 1997 car over a 1994 car (lets face it condition and miles will be the key factors by then), and therefore "future value" was not really considered as part of the equation.
The later cars scored points for extra power (varioram + points), more variants (C2S/C4S etc).
The wiring loom issue was apparent to all models up to late 1996 and the steering wheel brace for early cars using 18" wheels was written down as being of little/no consequence and still seems debatable on this forum even today (many has run 18"s for years without the brace with few issues).
Thought this might interest those of you with early cars. Overall I think there is much to be said for them.
I have a 1993 build 993 C2 and a 1996 MY 993 RS incase anyone was wondering about bias.
Cheers
Macca
This is of interest mainly for ROW owners.
Downunder a few of us got together recently to disuss our NA 993's. Ownership was spread over all generations and type of NA 993.
In conclusion we (finally agreed) that the 1994/5 cars represented the best overall ownership proposition for an enthusiast.
These considerations were based on the experience of 10 owners (most who had had their car for a few years). We conducted this in order to help new 993 oweners at the club answer the question "what 993 should I buy". It must be remembered these are ROW cars, and we were considering the reliability of 5-10 year cars to someone new who may still be enjoying them regularly in 5+ years trime:
The findings:
1994/5 Benefits
Cheaper to purchase (generalisation)
More choice (more cares seem to have been sold in our region in the first 2 years before people were aware of the 996 replacement)
OBD1 - No carbon issues. Reduced CEL trigerring.
ECU - easy replacement of chip. More tuner friendly
Cats - 1994/5 NZ cars had "no catalytic converters" from factory (i.e. "dirty"). The engine does seem less restricted and more responsive to basic tuning as a result (it is also slightly louder)
No varioram - less likelihood of mechanical faliure (a few had started to giuve problems in this group), and a potential reliability issue in the future.
Less engine bay clutter - (no vario ram manifold and on early cars no extra HVACS equipment). Overall this was felt to be better for cooling and easy of entry for maintenance and tuning.
Better gearing - 1997 onward ROW manual cars had taller gearing as used in the US, which most agree provided with a less thrilling drive.
Unfortunately the assessment was pretty subjective. However most agreed that in 10 years there would no disernable premium for a 1997 car over a 1994 car (lets face it condition and miles will be the key factors by then), and therefore "future value" was not really considered as part of the equation.
The later cars scored points for extra power (varioram + points), more variants (C2S/C4S etc).
The wiring loom issue was apparent to all models up to late 1996 and the steering wheel brace for early cars using 18" wheels was written down as being of little/no consequence and still seems debatable on this forum even today (many has run 18"s for years without the brace with few issues).
Thought this might interest those of you with early cars. Overall I think there is much to be said for them.
I have a 1993 build 993 C2 and a 1996 MY 993 RS incase anyone was wondering about bias.
Cheers
Macca
08-08-2003, 08:44 AM
#4
Rennlist Member
Hi Macca,
As a 1995 owner myself I am obviuously in favour of your comments but I do believe that we already moving into the realms of condition versus price and hence age/mileage become less of a concern. Let's face it, they are all great cars!
Cheers,
David
As a 1995 owner myself I am obviuously in favour of your comments but I do believe that we already moving into the realms of condition versus price and hence age/mileage become less of a concern. Let's face it, they are all great cars!
Cheers,
David
08-08-2003, 10:35 AM
#5
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coming from a completely objective, unbiased, non-prejudiced, open-minded viewpoint, I agree wholeheartedly. 
Seriously though, I wrestled with the '95 vs '96+ debate when looking for mine and ended up with a '95 in great condition with all the right mods. As others has pointed out, service history and condition might end up being the tie-breaker. All else equal, after having owned mine for a few months, I'm certainly not losing any sleep over having a '95. To each, his or her own!
Thanks for the review though. Wish we didn't get stuffed with the higher geared transmission!
Seriously though, I wrestled with the '95 vs '96+ debate when looking for mine and ended up with a '95 in great condition with all the right mods. As others has pointed out, service history and condition might end up being the tie-breaker. All else equal, after having owned mine for a few months, I'm certainly not losing any sleep over having a '95. To each, his or her own!
Thanks for the review though. Wish we didn't get stuffed with the higher geared transmission!
08-08-2003, 12:27 PM
#6
You’ll get no argument from me. Not that I’m biased or anything…
Most of your pros for ROW 94/95 993’s apply to US cars, except the lack of a cat and the gearing.
I don’t know about ROW cars, but the ’95 US cars didn’t have that drive block feature that’s the source of so many headaches.
Tom
’95 993
Most of your pros for ROW 94/95 993’s apply to US cars, except the lack of a cat and the gearing.
I don’t know about ROW cars, but the ’95 US cars didn’t have that drive block feature that’s the source of so many headaches.
Tom
’95 993
08-08-2003, 12:46 PM
#7
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom,
I think the late '95s came with the immobilizer (and w/o the basket handle center brake light). Thankfully, mine doesn't. I'll take the basket handle w/o the immobilizer anyday.
I think the late '95s came with the immobilizer (and w/o the basket handle center brake light). Thankfully, mine doesn't. I'll take the basket handle w/o the immobilizer anyday.
Trending Topics
08-08-2003, 03:41 PM
#8
Three Wheelin'
Tom and Rezal,
The late '95s did come with the immobilizer (though not the "switchblade" key) and with the '96+ style 3rd brake light. Although the immobilizer is a royal pain, I'll take it to get rid of the basket handle anyday.
The late '95s did come with the immobilizer (though not the "switchblade" key) and with the '96+ style 3rd brake light. Although the immobilizer is a royal pain, I'll take it to get rid of the basket handle anyday.
08-08-2003, 03:47 PM
#9
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todd,
Aaah, but I can always install a highmounted brake light. As far as I know, there's no fix for the immobilizer!
Btw, thanks for the recommendation on J&J Motors. The location is very convenient (a few miles down from where I live and a short walk to the train station). Jay re-teched my car for Watkins Glen (he was also at The Glen last weekend) and I'll probably take my car to him for the 60K service if I chicken out of the DIY route.
Aaah, but I can always install a highmounted brake light. As far as I know, there's no fix for the immobilizer!
Btw, thanks for the recommendation on J&J Motors. The location is very convenient (a few miles down from where I live and a short walk to the train station). Jay re-teched my car for Watkins Glen (he was also at The Glen last weekend) and I'll probably take my car to him for the 60K service if I chicken out of the DIY route.
08-08-2003, 09:11 PM
#10
But there is one "small" problem with the '95's...........
IT'S GOTTA HAVE THAT BIG FAT BUTT!
IT'S GOTTA HAVE THAT BIG FAT BUTT!
08-08-2003, 09:17 PM
#11
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Peter,
You may be right.
Personally I like the narrow body (it looks wide enough and many observers wouldnt know the difference). O believe the symetry of the narrow body is perfect - however I contribute this to the treatment of the rocker panels as mucg as anything - I think the way they cruve under the body from the rear wheel arch makes the rear look more fluid when viewed front to back down the side of the car - just one mans opinion.
Wide body without the flared rocker panels would look pretty cool!
Hey - they are all great cars - Id own any one of them personally (but I love my RS).
Cheers
Macca
You may be right.
Personally I like the narrow body (it looks wide enough and many observers wouldnt know the difference). O believe the symetry of the narrow body is perfect - however I contribute this to the treatment of the rocker panels as mucg as anything - I think the way they cruve under the body from the rear wheel arch makes the rear look more fluid when viewed front to back down the side of the car - just one mans opinion.
Wide body without the flared rocker panels would look pretty cool!
Hey - they are all great cars - Id own any one of them personally (but I love my RS).
Cheers
Macca
08-09-2003, 01:06 PM
#12
Three Wheelin'
Rezal,
Glad to hear you like J&J -- it's a great shop. Tell them I say hello next time you see them.
Personally, I don't get the big deal about the wide-body thing on the 993 series. The earlier wide-body cars looked very different from their standard-body siblings, but all 993s are wide. MHO.
Glad to hear you like J&J -- it's a great shop. Tell them I say hello next time you see them.
Personally, I don't get the big deal about the wide-body thing on the 993 series. The earlier wide-body cars looked very different from their standard-body siblings, but all 993s are wide. MHO.
08-09-2003, 02:09 PM
#13
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pete, Nice car! The widebody looks will remain a taste thing though. But, as mentioned in many a thread here, you do pay for the looks with a weight penalty and increased aerodynamic drag.
Admittedly, when the opportunity arose I did change my '95 to the TT nose, for the "looks" only.
Enjoy
Nol
Admittedly, when the opportunity arose I did change my '95 to the TT nose, for the "looks" only
.Enjoy
Nol
