Originally Posted by sandwedge

Confusing thread, at least to me. If I understand all you're saying correctly you currently own a 997.2 C4S and you're you're going through all these maintenance, insurance cost and depreciation figures between a 997.1 and a 991.2. Why you would even consider backtracking to a 997.1 from a 997.2 C4S I'll never know for a number of reasons. First off, if you can afford a 991.2, why would you give up your 997.2 C4S for a 997.1 and going back into the rare but still possible IMS failure with any 997.1 which basically turns the car into a $7,000 to $8,000 roller. So with that in mind, why does $125/month or $80/month in insurance cost even matter when you have to enter that possibility - no matter how rare and unlikely - into the equation? Sorry.....I can't make any sense out of this.

Originally Posted by raidersfan

I posted this as a curiosity, based on the recent Targa 4S thread upgrade. I am not selling my 997.2, as it would only net me $8k over a comparable 997.1. I thought 997.1 vs 991.2 was interesting question and wanted to see what others thought, and has nothing to do with me personally. I bought my 997.2 C4 with 31,000 miles for about $45,000, so if I were shopping, that is where I would look, but again, 997.2 really has nothing to do with the thread. I am more interested in the rationale behind "new car, more reliable perhaps, warranty included, lots of depreciation" vs "very reliable for a decade+ old car, very little depreciation" and how people rationalize their choice . I also understand that many people here can "afford" either car, but to them, one isn't necessarily more desirable than the other.

It is a well-worn saying around here to "buy the newest car you can afford", but is that really true, or is it just an easily quotable trope?

Originally Posted by raidersfan

It is a well-worn saying around here to "buy the newest car you can afford", but is that really true, or is it just an easily quotable trope?

Originally Posted by Petza914

Unless there's a 100% chance of a .1 engine failing or needing a rebuild, you can't factor in a $20,000 expense into the analysis, that's not how probability and statistics works. With a 6% chance of failure (according to your poll numbers) you'd need to factor in $1,200 and if you find the right car early 05 with replaced IMS bearing early in its life, prior to an actual failure, or a mid 05 on that has the larger bearing, that is a warm climate car, with good service history, no range 3 or above overrevs, and a clear PPI (sump pull and boroscope) and then your odds of failure probably drop to 1%.

Or if you don't like that argument, take the $20,000 991 price difference and put it in an investment account. When the 991 depreciation would have equalled that $20,000 you would have already lost on depreciation of that car, see what the balance in that account is - now you're way ahead of the game unless your engine failed in those 3 years, in which case you broke even but also now have a better 997 with Nickies and a 4.0.

My wife's 05 C2S (large bearing car) is the lowest operating cost vehicle we've ever owned - lower than my GMC pick-up and lower than our Infiniti QX56 and she DD'd it from 40,000 miles in 2013 to the current 105,000 miles. Brakes, tires, and 1 waterpump is all it has needed, and probably a clutch in the next 10,000 miles as the pedal is getting stiffer and stiffer. I bet I could sell it within $2,500 of what I paid for it 5 years ago - find a 991 owner that can say that.

Originally Posted by Petza914

For it to be true, you'd actually have to want to buy the newest one you can afford. In my case I'd prefer not to and stay in the 997 generation.