Will the 997's depreciate as badly as the 996?
#46
Three Wheelin'
You're kidding right? The 997's Gen1 suffered from IMS and RMS problems! I wouldn't touch one out of warranty! It gradually improved from 2006 onward, but the trouble still lurks!
The Gen2 997 will hold its value much better because of the engine redesign which is FAR better than the Gen1 version!
#47
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I wonder how much the "internet reputation" of engine failures really influences the prices these cars dictate in the used car market...
Used car depreciation is very hard to predict, I -as a person who buys his Porsches used- welcome any drop!
BTW, the last true Porsche was the 356, pfft, please.
Used car depreciation is very hard to predict, I -as a person who buys his Porsches used- welcome any drop!
BTW, the last true Porsche was the 356, pfft, please.
#49
Rennlist Member
I've not read of a 2006+ car that had an IMS/RMS failure. Pretty bold to make that prediction on the Gen2 car being much better given that it is so new. I think I've read about more HPFP failures on the new car than I have IMS failures on the old car. Regardless I have seen way more failed RMS and other problems on the 996. You can't tell me with a straight face you think the 997s are anything near what the 996 was in terms of quality. No way.
Also carbon build up on valves is other DFI issue to consider. Once '09 DFI cars will start hitting 50K miles mark in 4-5 years I guess we will know how good they are in reality, but so far I would not hurry with any suggestions.
'06+ 997.1 cars seem to run mostly OK based on lack of complaints on forums. RMS leak seem to be more common among garage queens than on cars that are actively driven. So, so far so good with 997.1s.
#50
If I were leasing the car I really would not care but I purchased mine as a keeper. I went with the leftover 2008 because it 1) was a very good deal, 2) is the last of the 997.1 so things like the IMS shaft have been improved and the RMS has been also improved 3) does not include the new unknowns such as the DI technology with HPFP and possible carbon buildup or the new alloy surface for the engine. I know that the 997.2 eliminates the IMS and RMS issues. Also, it has more HP and a bit more mpg but these are not so important. Only time wil tell.
#51
.org
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 7,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem of porous engine blocks, which was a Boxster specific problem, and required engine replacement back in the 98-99 models has been linked to the 996 repeatedly, even though not a single 996 suffered from that issue.
#52
Nordschleife Master
lol talking about the red headed step child. The 997.1 is ugly because of the increased engine compartment's height making it look like a basket ball rear was shoved in the rear end. The lines of the rear lid don't line up and there is no rear red reflector like the early 911's. If you throw a GT3 wing on it, it will hide the hideous changes they made. Still the 911 classic lines are broken and its just plain ugly without the wing. Those wana be 993 lights and that fugly front bumper can also be fixed by fitting it with a GT3 front bumper . With the increased weight, extra sensors, electronics, air bags, alarms and fancy interior a base 997.1 is no faster then a 3.4L 996. Sorry but your 997's will depreciate just as bad as the 996.
#53
Rennlist Member
lol talking about the red headed step child. The 997.1 is ugly because of the increased engine compartment's height making it look like a basket ball rear was shoved in the rear end. The lines of the rear lid don't line up and there is no rear red reflector like the early 911's. If you throw a GT3 wing on it, it will hide the hideous changes they made. Still the 911 classic lines are broken and its just plain ugly without the wing. Those wana be 993 lights and that fugly front bumper can also be fixed by fitting it with a GT3 front bumper . With the increased weight, extra sensors, electronics, air bags, alarms and fancy interior a base 997.1 is no faster then a 3.4L 996. Sorry but your 997's will depreciate just as bad as the 996.
#54
Nordschleife Master
LOL is this the same copy/paste message you've posted elsewhere? You're pretty much the only person I've seen who complains about the rear of the 997, especially with that silly basketball analogy. Anytime someone mentions "egg yolk headlamps" or "ugly interior" or "step child 996" this tirade seems to appear.
#55
Race Car
lol talking about the red headed step child. The 997.1 is ugly because of the increased engine compartment's height making it look like a basket ball rear was shoved in the rear end. The lines of the rear lid don't line up and there is no rear red reflector like the early 911's. If you throw a GT3 wing on it, it will hide the hideous changes they made. Still the 911 classic lines are broken and its just plain ugly without the wing. Those wana be 993 lights and that fugly front bumper can also be fixed by fitting it with a GT3 front bumper . With the increased weight, extra sensors, electronics, air bags, alarms and fancy interior a base 997.1 is no faster then a 3.4L 996. Sorry but your 997's will depreciate just as bad as the 996.
<<<<<what's not to like about this ***?
#56
Rennlist Member