The 996 legacy
12-20-2012, 11:00 AM
#31
Race Director
its a car. since when do inanimate objects deserve defense? are their feelings going to be hurt? Are they going to weep (maybe from the rms).
give me a break. some people are realistic.
12-20-2012, 11:47 AM
#32
Rennlist Member
I went from a gorgeous '83 SC to a pristine '04 C2 and couldn't be happier...
The SC was a beautiful 'classic' car. It wasn't particularly fast, but it looked great. Yes, it probably got more attention than the '04, if thumbs-up on the highway or comments when parking are the metric.
For $25K, I picked up a 55K late model 100% original and dealer mantained '04 996 that looks like it just rolled out of the showroom. Performance is fantastic, AC actually works, and to my eye she is gorgeous in all narrow body Polar Silver over Black splendor.
$2,500 will get me an LN IMS bearing, OEM clutch, and preventativelly replaced RMS installed. Chump change compared to the cost of repairing typical airhead issues, like a front main o-ring leak (Split the cases!), worn valve guides, or worn syncros. Heck, it would have run me nearly $2K just to get working (read effective) AC in my SC!
I have no illusions that my 996 is an "investment". But I predict the cost of ownership for a car that will actually be driven, let say 4 years + 30K miles, factoring repair/maintenance costs as well as any depreciation or appreciation, is easily as good as a typical $25K aircooled 911.
My recipe for a great Porsche experience on a budget:
The SC was a beautiful 'classic' car. It wasn't particularly fast, but it looked great. Yes, it probably got more attention than the '04, if thumbs-up on the highway or comments when parking are the metric.
For $25K, I picked up a 55K late model 100% original and dealer mantained '04 996 that looks like it just rolled out of the showroom. Performance is fantastic, AC actually works, and to my eye she is gorgeous in all narrow body Polar Silver over Black splendor.
$2,500 will get me an LN IMS bearing, OEM clutch, and preventativelly replaced RMS installed. Chump change compared to the cost of repairing typical airhead issues, like a front main o-ring leak (Split the cases!), worn valve guides, or worn syncros. Heck, it would have run me nearly $2K just to get working (read effective) AC in my SC!
I have no illusions that my 996 is an "investment". But I predict the cost of ownership for a car that will actually be driven, let say 4 years + 30K miles, factoring repair/maintenance costs as well as any depreciation or appreciation, is easily as good as a typical $25K aircooled 911.
My recipe for a great Porsche experience on a budget:
- $22-$27K budget
- 2002-2004 C2 Coupe
- 40K-75K miles
- No cabs
- No tips
- No widebodys
- No/minimal previous owner mods
- After purchase, budget $2.5K for RMS, IMS, clutch. Maybe budget a bit for an AOS and coolant tank replacement as well.
- Add fuel, tires, miles & smiles, repeat.
Last edited by pfbz; 12-20-2012 at 12:07 PM.
12-20-2012, 11:52 AM
#33
Rennlist Member
Also agree that a 996TT is an even better idea if you can stretch to a $35K-$40K budget, which should net you a no tip/no cab/no salvage clean 40K-60K mile TT.
That's what you would need to budget for a nice non-turbo 993...Personally, I'd take the 996TT in a heartbeat!
That's what you would need to budget for a nice non-turbo 993...Personally, I'd take the 996TT in a heartbeat!
12-20-2012, 12:01 PM
#34
My recipe for a great Porsche experience on a budget:
- $22-$27K budget
- 2002-2004 C2 Coupe
- 40K-75K miles
- No cabs
- No tips
- No widebodys
- No/minimal previous owner mods
- After purchase, budget $2.5K for RMS, IMS, clutch. Maybe budget a bit for an AOS and coolant tank replacement as well.
- Add fuel, tires, miles & smiles, repeat.
The only bullet I would add is "as many high-priced original options as possible (ex. PSM, full leather, bi-xenon, etc.)
12-20-2012, 12:16 PM
#35
Rennlist Member
But personally I hate the cars loaded up with $$$ worth of wood accents, supple leather and the like. Ugly/worn/dated interior's seem to be a real flaw of 996's. A basic black well preserved interior seems to stand the test of time a bit better.
I'm also not a fan of the aero package on non-turbo cars, but that's more personal preference.
12-20-2012, 12:49 PM
#36
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Delaware, OH
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-20-2012, 02:08 PM
#38
Nordschleife Master
I'll continually love them, specially the areo kitted narrow bodies and the wide bodies.
12-20-2012, 02:29 PM
#39
Contrary to popular belief, it's not the headlights (by themselves) that kill the looks of the 996. It's the bumper.
As we all know a 996 MK1 looks like a Boxster from the front because it IS a Boxster from the front. Kiss of death. They will continue to spiral downward in value.
MkII 996 narrow bodies with the improved headlights still look Miata soft. Combine that with norrow body shape (ergo no shape) you have a very poor looking car. They may be great to drive, but aesthetically they are awful.
The wide body versions with the big turbo bumper combined with the updated headlights look great. I'm not alone when I say I think they look better than a typical 997 front end without a GT3 or turbo bumper.
Most non Porsche people can't tell the difference between a 996 C4S and a 997 C4S even when they're parked next to one another. It's the wide bodied cars that get 10 year old boys to dream of owning a Porsche when they grow up.
I appreciate the narrow bode guys defending their decision, but that's not the point of the thread. Do what you have to do to convince yourselves. The market has spoken and the non wide-bodied 996's are the loser.
The winners are guys that want an amazing track car.
As we all know a 996 MK1 looks like a Boxster from the front because it IS a Boxster from the front. Kiss of death. They will continue to spiral downward in value.
MkII 996 narrow bodies with the improved headlights still look Miata soft. Combine that with norrow body shape (ergo no shape) you have a very poor looking car. They may be great to drive, but aesthetically they are awful.
The wide body versions with the big turbo bumper combined with the updated headlights look great. I'm not alone when I say I think they look better than a typical 997 front end without a GT3 or turbo bumper.
Most non Porsche people can't tell the difference between a 996 C4S and a 997 C4S even when they're parked next to one another. It's the wide bodied cars that get 10 year old boys to dream of owning a Porsche when they grow up.
I appreciate the narrow bode guys defending their decision, but that's not the point of the thread. Do what you have to do to convince yourselves. The market has spoken and the non wide-bodied 996's are the loser.
The winners are guys that want an amazing track car.
12-20-2012, 02:50 PM
#40
I don't know if I have ever disagreed more strongly with a comment in the 12 years I have been on Rennlist.
12-20-2012, 03:10 PM
#42
Racer
He has a point. The front end is soft looking, but on a personal level, I don't consider that an issue. The car certainly is nowhere near "awful" aesthetically. I happen to think the car is very good looking overall.
However, everybody has, an is entitled to, an opinion.
However, everybody has, an is entitled to, an opinion.
12-20-2012, 03:22 PM
#43
See, now, I was totally supportive of you expressing your opinion on what is an entirely subjective question, right up until you implied that opposing opinions were delusional. Thus, the troll line is crossed.
No arguing with that. But the market is very often stupid about value, even if it gets to make the rules. And that's to the benefit of the people who are shopping for a 996. If you need to prove something by owning the thing the greatest number of people want, you're going to pay for it. But if you're not trying to impress anybody, I'd say the narrow body cars are pretty close to the opposite of being losers.
No arguing with that. But the market is very often stupid about value, even if it gets to make the rules. And that's to the benefit of the people who are shopping for a 996. If you need to prove something by owning the thing the greatest number of people want, you're going to pay for it. But if you're not trying to impress anybody, I'd say the narrow body cars are pretty close to the opposite of being losers.
12-20-2012, 03:54 PM
#44
Weathergirl
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
EVO magazine recently had a subjective "driving feel" comparo test of various 911 versions. The 996 did very well and surprised some of the testers.
I think as all these cars age, people are starting to realize that the torsion bar cars are incredibly primitive, and even the 964s and 993s are feeling the effect of being left behind by progress. The 996s and 997 may be the ultimate expression of what Porsche can build without all sorts of active/electronic gizmos. Time will tell.
I think as all these cars age, people are starting to realize that the torsion bar cars are incredibly primitive, and even the 964s and 993s are feeling the effect of being left behind by progress. The 996s and 997 may be the ultimate expression of what Porsche can build without all sorts of active/electronic gizmos. Time will tell.
12-20-2012, 04:19 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
Widebodies were significantly more expensive new, and slightly more expensive today. They have done no better in value retention than non-wide body's.
eg:
2004 C2 base price was ~$69,000, figure $10K in options so $79,000. Nice one worth about $26K today, about 33% of its original value..
2004 C4S base was ~$84,000, same $10K in options to $94,000. Nice one worth $31K today, the exact same 33% of its original value.
2004 Turbo was ~$119,000, $129K with $10 in options. 33%, or $43,000, sounds about market for 2004 Turbo as well.
I would call all those current prices "aggressive" and might take some searching for the right car, but by no means a lottery win. If there is any lesson to be learned, it's don't buy a new Porsche (or any other luxury/sport car) unless don't mind an extremely large depreciation hit.