eclou

Hypothetically, what would you prefer as a starting point for a dedicated DE car - no street usage whatsoever, no real plans for racing classification.

Say each car is at 100k miles with clean straight tub and no major mechanical issues. Discuss please!

jrotsaert

996 no question. Significantly quicker, very easy to maintain - broken engine = 9 grand vs 10 for a top end rebuild on a 964/993, very easy to find cheap parts if you decide to go racing and start trading paint with someone and just a better, more fun car on a track (on the street for "fun" my answer would be 180 degress different).
JM

Brian A.

296hp versus 247hp.......pretty easy call.

996

Veloce Raptor

OK: "each car is at 100k miles with clean straight tub and no major mechanical issues."

John H

996. If you pass on the $14K 996, let me know.

Gary R.

Go with the 996... please let me know where the $14K 964 is!

IcemanG17

Granted my knowledge of 911's is limited....but I would take the newer 996...more power and it should be more reliable.....however I bought this for $12k?? 2700lbs with 360hp?? However I have put a nice junk of $$$ in it since then, but still quite reasonable in "race car" terms

mglobe

996, and if you can get one for $14k, I hate you.

race911

Oh? Whenever your water cooled engine comes to a halt from an internal failure for whatever reason, you certainly do know what the end result might be to your wallet. (And it's seldom just the price of the mechanical component.) At least with an air cooled, I can repair whatever is amiss. Like the nifty AASE valve spring on the yellow car that someone in QC must have been asleep on. Pain that I had to fix it, but at least I could...........

In any case, for about the 10th time I'd like for someone to tell me definitively that these 996 reman engines are track worthy. My anecdotal experience was the one factory reman 2.4 I took apart about 20 years ago and found a crank that was .010/.010 (or maybe even .020 on the rods, I forget). No evidence we found that the crank was re-nitrided. I wouldn't put a turned crank in a 911 engine ever. And I'm just some dude from the 'hood in Oakland.

jrotsaert

Well, I tracked my street 996 (2001) (on slicks but with the machined valve cover) at Road Atlanta within 4.5 sec of my 993 Cup Car. There were MANY who said it couldn't be done but I did... I never had an engine failure in my street 996s - I had 3... But I did do an engine in a 996 Cup car.
Anyway, chalk and cheese. One is made to be reused over and over again, the other is seen as a disposable item at a fixed cost. I'm not making any judgment on which is better (my favourite car I owned was a street legal 964RSR - 1 of 7) with a Schmirler engine... And I had all cup cars from the 964 to the 996 and a Gt3 RS sequential too...
Anyway, the point is moot at the 996 at that price does not exist and it would cost 50% more than a beat up 964 anyway...

I'm an old dude from belgium living in Villanova, PA

race911

I absolutely believe you re: lap times. And as to the robustness of an original factory engine. I'm waiting to hear from a credible source as to how the reman units are assembled, quality of component-wise.

There was a 120Kish nice silver '99 coupe floating around forever here in the Bay Area mid '08 that started at about 20K and I THINK ended up selling in the $16K range. Now? Hell yes.

ltc

964 hands down...if for no other reason than the block/dry sump.
Sorry, the 996 is the Honda Accord of the 911 family.....mass produced commodity car.

sjanes

Does that make the Boxster a Honda Civic?

ltc

Toyota Camry.

Sorry, not a lot of love for the modern (non GT3, GT2, Turbo) 99x models.

NJcroc

dont let your love of history sway you, the 996 makes a better car for the same money just be weary of either one of those cars for 14k even in this economy