Actually we all agree a 99 with one MK I light and other as MK II an 8 chain 3 row bearing with rear window in glass with plastic covering. Cup holders added.

 

My 6/98 996 is not quite the most reliable car I have owned, but close. My 2005 Toyota 4runner gets that award. The 996 is second.

But that's only because I preemptively changed the IMSB and AOS on the 996, although both were working fine. Oh yeah, I just replaced a window regulator too.

And yes, most of my friends think my '99 is still a new car, it looks new and still drives tight. Best bang for the buck I've ever had.

 

To this, I suggested the OP buy the "newest" 996 he can afford.

BUT I do not know much about cars so disregard what I suggested and listen to Cefalu instead.

 

I would drive a Mk I & a Mk II and see which you like the feel of better.
Then buy the Mk (whichever you choose) car in the best condition with the options you like best - regardless of the year.

 

Might not be bad idea to also listen to Brian Heck, make this a sticky

 

Born date of 3/99 with 63k miles with original xxx.

 

Good post.

Y'all help a Texas RL-er out here. I have had a 951 for years and it is in top show winning shape cosmetically and mechanically. While I truly like the car, I have been looking to change to something I would drive more for a while. But I have been looking at Caymans.

Recently I looked at a 2003 Carrera and while it had the color I wanted and it felt "nice" I did not spring for it as it had only a sketchy history and had a couple of large engine works under warranty. But very few records over all, so I passed on it. But I was surprised at how great it felt from the wheel. Heavier, but planted. Great for real road driving.

I have recently seen a couple of very nice 1999's. My other Porsche buddies think I am going from one step child (the 951) to another ( the 996). I have been here before.

But this thread, and especially with Jakes endorsement emboldens me on the 1999's I saw. Enough to go for a real look and with a checkbook.

Of course I would look for records and some PPI, but besides the IMS, what are the deal killers for a 1999. Or a 2003 for that matter, as those would about bracket it for me. RMS is a problem but not the end of the world I would guess. And it goes with the clutch I would suspect.

My indie shop here says all 996's need a clutch. All the time. If you drove it since you put a clutch in, you are at 50% , or while you are in there is always a clutch. Ok maybe on that.

He also feels that every switch and electrical component will fail. Yikes - my 1986 951 has had no such problems and only now is the instrument cluster out for bulbs at 92,000 miles and 27 years.

He says look for the 2003's. For interior, for electricals and for better mechanicals.

But I like Brians approach too.

I am out looking - so pile in here if you want. I might soon be in the 996 Forum . Thanks.

 

Love your speed yellow with RUF wheels!

 

My 2002 has treated me very well, but the original owner not so much. He had the engine replaced in 2005 (an M97( and I've been reaping the benefits.

I actually prefer the MkI lights too, but not enough to base a decision on them, and my car weighs in at 3000 # dead - so light enough.

LSD sounds good though.

 

According to blown engine stats and early M96 problems, the best years are 2002+.

 

Is May of '98 early enough?

 

Is there an objective accounting of blown engine stats somewhere, or are you referring to the random rantings of Rennlist postings?

 

I guess you could use this:

 

You said "Blown Engines" Are you inferring that a repair trip equals a blown engine?

What was the source of your cite?

 

There are several mag/tech articles about the 3.4's problems vs. 3.6. The general consensus is 3.6 solved many of the 3.4 problems even though it had its own issues as well.