RE: 993 prices more than 997?
03-05-2011 | 08:49 PM
#17
Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 521
Likes: 3
From: USA
..
Nonsense.
1. Not much engineering went into them huh? Have you had a look at the 964 rear suspension compared to the 993 suspension? Furthermore, there wasn't much more engineering to do. It had the same basic bits and bobs as the 60s cars. How many ways must you re-engineer a engine carrier for example when its worked for 30 years? Thats like saying a 997 has little if any further engineering than a 996.
2. Talk to me about this body engineering issues...like what? If all you have is the door check straps, this is a hugely weak argument.
3. How, pray tell is a 996 a better engineered and manufactured vehicle. The fact that you bring up JIT makes me laugh as it has no impact on the actual build quality of the vehicle. It might make for a more efficient production line, but who cares when you are talking about the build quality. I certainly don't care if my door panels were sitting at the factory for 3 weeks or whether they just got there from a supplier when they were bolted into the car. What I do care about is that the 993 interior is screwed together, whereas the 996+ are snapped together.
4. Power production was severely limited. 282bhp out of a 2v sohc engine is severely limited? What do you call 296bhp out of DOHC 4v engine with variable valve timing. Wow, a whole 14bhp out of much better flowing heads, better valve timing operations, and much more efficient cooling. Talk about severely limited. 320bhp by the end of the production run? Wow, talk about steps forward.
5. Lets talk about those hidden expenses...you can list them at any time. Yes, the valve guides are total crap....what else you got? The door check straps? Welding? Oh my god. If you aren't a concours person, you can have this problem adequately repaired for less than $300 by a good bodyshop.
6. Furthermore, valve guides are easy to identify with a PPI, and are not an instant failure problem. They slowly get worse and make themselves known with ever increasing oil consumption. Dual distributors? https://rennlist.com/forums/964-foru...r-rebuild.html A whopping $125 for a rebuild on that unit. Do they regularly fail? You tell me?
When your IMS is getting ready to grenade your M96/7, you get no warning and need to replace the entire motor. Gee, I wonder what i'd want.
The bottom line is that you may have owned 911s since 1965, but your knowledge seems to be fading or you are simply overlooking the 997s issues.
All these cars are well built and well engineered, but there is zero doubt in my mind which one was built to a higher standard.
1. Not much engineering went into them huh? Have you had a look at the 964 rear suspension compared to the 993 suspension? Furthermore, there wasn't much more engineering to do. It had the same basic bits and bobs as the 60s cars. How many ways must you re-engineer a engine carrier for example when its worked for 30 years? Thats like saying a 997 has little if any further engineering than a 996.
2. Talk to me about this body engineering issues...like what? If all you have is the door check straps, this is a hugely weak argument.
3. How, pray tell is a 996 a better engineered and manufactured vehicle. The fact that you bring up JIT makes me laugh as it has no impact on the actual build quality of the vehicle. It might make for a more efficient production line, but who cares when you are talking about the build quality. I certainly don't care if my door panels were sitting at the factory for 3 weeks or whether they just got there from a supplier when they were bolted into the car. What I do care about is that the 993 interior is screwed together, whereas the 996+ are snapped together.
4. Power production was severely limited. 282bhp out of a 2v sohc engine is severely limited? What do you call 296bhp out of DOHC 4v engine with variable valve timing. Wow, a whole 14bhp out of much better flowing heads, better valve timing operations, and much more efficient cooling. Talk about severely limited. 320bhp by the end of the production run? Wow, talk about steps forward.
5. Lets talk about those hidden expenses...you can list them at any time. Yes, the valve guides are total crap....what else you got? The door check straps? Welding? Oh my god. If you aren't a concours person, you can have this problem adequately repaired for less than $300 by a good bodyshop.
6. Furthermore, valve guides are easy to identify with a PPI, and are not an instant failure problem. They slowly get worse and make themselves known with ever increasing oil consumption. Dual distributors? https://rennlist.com/forums/964-foru...r-rebuild.html A whopping $125 for a rebuild on that unit. Do they regularly fail? You tell me?
When your IMS is getting ready to grenade your M96/7, you get no warning and need to replace the entire motor. Gee, I wonder what i'd want.
The bottom line is that you may have owned 911s since 1965, but your knowledge seems to be fading or you are simply overlooking the 997s issues.
All these cars are well built and well engineered, but there is zero doubt in my mind which one was built to a higher standard.
03-06-2011 | 02:37 AM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,925
Likes: 6
From: Westlake Village, CA
91 C2,
That would be a "yes"
Dan is totally wrong. In dollar terms the depreciation loss on a new 997 is far worse than the depreciation and potential repair costs of a 993. couple that with the opinion of most mechanics I've spoken to that believe the long term durability of the standard 997's motor is not on par with the 993's motor. Any of you who have owned a 993 and a 997 know how much more solid the construction of a 993 feels versus the 997.
I've driven both cars and each are excellent, but I think the 993 body and bits will hold together much better over the long term. Not too many press to fit bits and pieces in the 993. 997 has tons of press to fit bits that saved tons of time (and money) to produce them. I also watched that National Geographic documentary on the Porsche factory and saw some of this myself.
For the record, I surveyed a number of very experienced porsche mechanics about the long term motor durability question BEFORE I purchased my 993. I was also told that 997 GT3's and Turbos are a different story and have much more durable motors relative to the standard 997 motors.
No question the 997 performs better and the 993's look better
That would be a "yes"
Dan is totally wrong. In dollar terms the depreciation loss on a new 997 is far worse than the depreciation and potential repair costs of a 993. couple that with the opinion of most mechanics I've spoken to that believe the long term durability of the standard 997's motor is not on par with the 993's motor. Any of you who have owned a 993 and a 997 know how much more solid the construction of a 993 feels versus the 997.
I've driven both cars and each are excellent, but I think the 993 body and bits will hold together much better over the long term. Not too many press to fit bits and pieces in the 993. 997 has tons of press to fit bits that saved tons of time (and money) to produce them. I also watched that National Geographic documentary on the Porsche factory and saw some of this myself.
For the record, I surveyed a number of very experienced porsche mechanics about the long term motor durability question BEFORE I purchased my 993. I was also told that 997 GT3's and Turbos are a different story and have much more durable motors relative to the standard 997 motors.
No question the 997 performs better and the 993's look better
03-06-2011 | 03:04 AM
#21
Rennlist Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 220
Likes: 1
From: Torrance, CA
I am going to make a statement that will probably live in infamy. I love the 964's and more so the 993's but if I had my choice I would currently choose to drive a 997-1, they are pretty damn good cars for which have proven themselves to me. Having said that, I would prefer a wide-body with all wheel drive (C4S) and Chrono (Sport) package...
03-06-2011 | 04:22 AM
#23
Burning Brakes
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 27
^Lights still on at my house. Quoted here now to live in infamy...
I am going to make a statement that will probably live in infamy. I love the 964's and more so the 993's but if I had my choice I would currently choose to drive a 997-1, they are pretty damn good cars for which have proven themselves to me. Having said that, I would prefer a wide-body with all wheel drive (C4S) and Chrono (Sport) package...
03-06-2011 | 06:12 AM
#24
Rennlist Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,696
Likes: 93
From: New England
I am not going to sling any doo doo here-I like the 997 a lot and could see myself adding an S at some point. Not sure if I could ever sell my car though-I have been pretty impressed with the low maintenance. Although I have done a lot of voluntary mods, I think the only parts that have failed on my car are a window switch and cigarette lighter. That's over 11 years of ownership, 60K miles total.
As far as the previous comments about 993 being only incremental to the 964-the suspension geometry, HP and varioram in the 993 are pretty big differences to consider-
As far as the previous comments about 993 being only incremental to the 964-the suspension geometry, HP and varioram in the 993 are pretty big differences to consider-
When you decided to put your 997 out with the morning trash, please let me know.
03-06-2011 | 08:50 AM
#26
Banned
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,299
Likes: 12
From: Arlington Heights, IL
In 2006 I paid over $64K for a brand new, custom ordered Boxster S.
In 2009 I paid over $64K for a lightly used, Rennlist owned, 30,000 mile 1997 993 Turbo.
I LOVE both Porsches. They are night & day. I plan to own both for a long time. Here, in 2011 the Boxster is not worth 1/2 of what I paid. The Turbo could be easily sold for what I paid for it. I'm fine with this.
Some day, I hope to add a 997.2 or GT3 to my garage.
In 2009 I paid over $64K for a lightly used, Rennlist owned, 30,000 mile 1997 993 Turbo.
I LOVE both Porsches. They are night & day. I plan to own both for a long time. Here, in 2011 the Boxster is not worth 1/2 of what I paid. The Turbo could be easily sold for what I paid for it. I'm fine with this.
Some day, I hope to add a 997.2 or GT3 to my garage.
03-06-2011 | 11:08 AM
#27
Race Car
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,899
Likes: 222
All these cars are well built and well engineered, but there is zero doubt in my mind which one was built to a higher standard
I bought my first 911 in 1970 and my '95 993 was very similar to my 1970 911, even down to the gauges. I don't think anyone could seriously question the build quality of the 993 vs the 996 or 997. If I recall Porsche had some serious financial problems in the mid 90s and they had no choice but to reduce build costs since raising the 911's MSRP significantly to offset rising costs would have been very risky, especially for a company already in financial trouble.
So is a 997 superior to a 993? Certainly the 997 has significantly more measurable performance, has more accouterments , it's roomier, and is much easier to drive at the limits. I recently saw a 993 parked next to a 997, and I couldn't believe how much larger the 997 was. Moreover, I just read a news article stating that the 998 will be even larger than the 997. So Porsche's direction is clear.
Being an old timer I prefer the smaller air cooled 911s. They were certainly spartan, especially when compared to the 997, but the sound of the engine and the way they handled were as good as it gets. Sure they were tough to handle at the limits, but I took a great deal of pride in mastering that skill set. Many the 993 owner learned those 993 handling at the limit lessons literally from the school of hard knocks, and a trip to their local body repair shop.
Bottom line is both 911s are great cars. The reason that the 993 retains so much of its value is that it's the last and best iteration of the essentially hand built 911s with air cooled engines.
I bought my first 911 in 1970 and my '95 993 was very similar to my 1970 911, even down to the gauges. I don't think anyone could seriously question the build quality of the 993 vs the 996 or 997. If I recall Porsche had some serious financial problems in the mid 90s and they had no choice but to reduce build costs since raising the 911's MSRP significantly to offset rising costs would have been very risky, especially for a company already in financial trouble.
So is a 997 superior to a 993? Certainly the 997 has significantly more measurable performance, has more accouterments , it's roomier, and is much easier to drive at the limits. I recently saw a 993 parked next to a 997, and I couldn't believe how much larger the 997 was. Moreover, I just read a news article stating that the 998 will be even larger than the 997. So Porsche's direction is clear.
Being an old timer I prefer the smaller air cooled 911s. They were certainly spartan, especially when compared to the 997, but the sound of the engine and the way they handled were as good as it gets. Sure they were tough to handle at the limits, but I took a great deal of pride in mastering that skill set. Many the 993 owner learned those 993 handling at the limit lessons literally from the school of hard knocks, and a trip to their local body repair shop.
Bottom line is both 911s are great cars. The reason that the 993 retains so much of its value is that it's the last and best iteration of the essentially hand built 911s with air cooled engines.
03-06-2011 | 07:46 PM
#30
Instructor
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Hand Built......Fast has it down!
And I have to disagree with dan too, there was a completly new suspension, vram, and all kinds of new bits. The 3.6 evolved from the 964 to 993. So engineering was still a top pirority
And I have to disagree with dan too, there was a completly new suspension, vram, and all kinds of new bits. The 3.6 evolved from the 964 to 993. So engineering was still a top pirority