RangerMan Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Any forum members have experience with the 3.2L air cooled Porsche 911s? As indicicated in other posts my wife and I are looking for a fun weekend/project car. The front runner is an old Mustang. Biggest downside is time and cost may be prohibitive to actually get something that we can drive without needing to completely restore from the get-go. Still the front runner, and I am not giving up on the car but was wondering if anyone had any experience with the 911? The 3.2L (and to a lesser extent the 3.0L, though I am not as interested in those) offers a light, good handling car with decent power and I have wanted a 911 since I was a kid. The 3.2L ran from '84 to '89 and they average around $16k - 20k. Comparisons to a Legacy would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 Not too terrified of repair costs - part of the joy of buying an older car is working on it myself. How would you compare the experience in the 84 3.2L to say the LGT or another more modern car? For example, I have driven an '89 Corvette numerous times (father-in-law's) - how does it compare to that? The "rawness" of those years with a bumped up power plant is what makes it desirable to me. I have heard a 911 and love the sound... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I've driven an older 911 that belongs to a friend quite a bit. They're wonderful to drive and pretty comfortable for long trips as well as tearing around with your hair on fire. They also attract a lot of police attention - my friend once got three tickets in one trip! But Mustang GT's have a pretty high profile as well. They are much lighter than the older Corvettes and the handling is quick. They have transient oversteer that can bite you if you are not ready for it, but that's part of what makes them fun to drive. Porsche has increased tire section over the years and improved suspension control so that you can dial the tail in and out. A lot of them still get crashed backwards, though. They have quite a bit of suspension travel and handle rough roads well - not harsh or rough riding at all. The shifter is better than most remotely mounted shifters - but it's not on top of the gearbox like a front engine, RWD car. You get serious respect from any enthusiast driver you see. Part costs are astonishing and many mechanical projects are challenging because of the layout. On the flip side, there are a lot of active PCA chapters with plenty of real enthusiast help. Personally I'd never own a Porsche on a budget. Other People's Porsches are the best of all. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted October 21, 2006 Author Share Posted October 21, 2006 Hey Guys! Thanks for the input. I am talking about a 60's Mustang and on those the prices are just going up. The down side is rust since they didn't start galvanizing panels yet and rust is one cost I am terrified of. It is what my wife wants though. The 911 and a 60s GT are two different beasts. I honestly can't say that I have ever driven a "good" handling car. The LGT comes about as close to that as I can say. The '89 Corvette is a fun car and the seats are incredible - the whole interior is very cockpit like and the seats are like a glove. It could be a handler but the car is probably only at about 60% of its potential and at this point really makes a better cruiser. With better tires and replaced shocks it would handle about as well as the LGT. The big thing that the 'vette has is TORQUE...the '89 has the L98 which is 345 lb. ft at like 2000 RPM or something ridiculous. Makes for a decent cruiser. ANd that is what the classic mustang would be to us...a cruiser. Slightly upgraded suspension (I mean it will have to be replaced and anything made now will be better than from the 60s) but without pretty much making it a race car it won't handle...V8, long tubes and some cherry bombs... I envy you guys that got to drive a 911. Been my dream car since I was little. I respect the 80s mustangs since they can be made to go VERY fast, but they are not what I want. Ultimate goal is a fun head turner to drive on the weekend. Something unique that I can wrench on. heightsgtltd, I like your statement "they are much more visceral than driving a new 911". That is the draw to the older one. They also seem to have plateau'd in price between 15 and 20k. The Mustangs are anything under 5 needs pretty much everything to sky's the limit on a survivor. Generally 15k-20k for something that is good to go. heightsgtltd, you said that to approach the 3.2L power level would cost a lot, care to expand? Need to convince wife or just buy one...she is really set on a mustang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mand3j Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 I owned a 1980 911SC for about 3 years and made the mistake of upgrading to a 350z. Loved the hell out of the porsche, Nissan can keep the Z. 911s are known for being really reliable. (believe it or not), bullet proof engines, loads of character, great sound, great throttle response, a serious fun 2nd or 3rd car. Drive it to the track, beat the hell out of it and drive it home. They even do great in the snow. Even though my wife had a Subaru Outback, I never had any problems even in 6" of snow. However, it does ride hard, and if you live in the midwest, the roads will have you visiting the chiropracter. No heat in the winter, the clutch takes a bit of getting used to, the car is starting to age so window seals and sunroofs love to leak. Definately, know a decent mechanic that knows 911s. Don't let some knucklehead that works on subarus try and do the work. Best thing of all, if you buy right, you don't loose much money. It's typical for mid 80's 911s to retain all of its value despite putting miles on the car. After 3 years of owning the car and putting 20,000 miles on the car, I sold it for $2k less than what I paid for. Could of gotten more, but was happy my mechanic wanted it, so I gave it up. If and when I get another one, it will definately be a 993 (1995-1998). If you've always wanted one, you won't be dissapointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted October 21, 2006 Author Share Posted October 21, 2006 I owned a 1980 911SC for about 3 years and made the mistake of upgrading to a 350z. Loved the hell out of the porsche, Nissan can keep the Z. 911s are known for being really reliable. (believe it or not), bullet proof engines, loads of character, great sound, great throttle response, a serious fun 2nd or 3rd car. Drive it to the track, beat the hell out of it and drive it home. They even do great in the snow. Even though my wife had a Subaru Outback, I never had any problems even in 6" of snow. However, it does ride hard, and if you live in the midwest, the roads will have you visiting the chiropracter. No heat in the winter, the clutch takes a bit of getting used to, the car is starting to age so window seals and sunroofs love to leak. Definately, know a decent mechanic that knows 911s. Don't let some knucklehead that works on subarus try and do the work. Best thing of all, if you buy right, you don't loose much money. It's typical for mid 80's 911s to retain all of its value despite putting miles on the car. After 3 years of owning the car and putting 20,000 miles on the car, I sold it for $2k less than what I paid for. Could of gotten more, but was happy my mechanic wanted it, so I gave it up. If and when I get another one, it will definately be a 993 (1995-1998). If you've always wanted one, you won't be dissapointed. That sounds like the perfect car... I live in Texas, no need for heat in the winter. There is a Porsche club and a bunch of mechanics around me. I have seen MANY classified ads for 911s with well over 100k miles and they still look mint. Yeah the 60s 'stangs have very little stock power. Even the 289 and 302 never topped 300hp and that was a gross rating. From this thread it would appear - 60s stang gives you something to wrench on and enjoy that part of the hobby (I mean a 302 with long tubes and glass packs...that is a pretty cool sound too) and the 80s 911 gives you something to drive hard and really experience the road, and they are reliable (except the 2.7L of the mid 70s I have read about). One more 911 question - aftermarket? It appears to be pretty large is that true? Any project/weekend car I get has to have a pretty large aftermarket. Learning from my uncle who purchase a Lotus Elite II and there are no parts available, basically the parts are worth more than the car... The only solution is to buy both - which kidney do we use less so I can sell it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostcow Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Generally, your Right kidney is set a little lower and is a little smaller because of the location of your liver. So definately sale that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
looneycanuk Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 ...looking for a fun weekend/project car... Get a STI, gut the interior, modify the engine, have a brawtwurst with sauerkraut and say oom papa to the 911 while you strut around in lederhosen I had a modified 5.0 back in the day. Talk about raw power and a raw arse in the winter/rain! Would I suggest a Mustang? Nope. Shoddy build, "rustang" and slippery when wet. If you are simply looking to rebuild a 60s Stang (a la Eleanore from Gone in 60 Seconds?), please do. Those are beautiful but require a LOT of work. If you get a 911, keep it virginal. They are plenty fine from the factory and unless you go bonkers with turbo modifications. To me, a modified Porsche violates the Porsche panache. FWIW, a buddy of mine has an late 90's 911 and a '05 LGT wagon. The 911 is his track car and he feels that the LGT could shake its bratwurst at the 911 in terms of acceleration. On the twisties, the LGT would give the 911 a good run for the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psi365 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I used to be a Porsche apprentice and would work between Audi's and Porsche when work demanded it. I went with Audi but remember plenty about Porsche's. As cool as you might think they look......personally I'd stay away from an 80's 911. 3.2's never felt that super fast, but you get that "its fast" feeling cause it is a Porsche. Add to that the older ones used torsen bar suspension and the bars would break cause the car to bottom out and crack the engine case, it gets real expensive. Oil changes are going to be expensive cause if I remember right they take 9qts of oil and you have to drain the oil filter otherwise it leaks all over the passenger side tire and makes a huge mess. They have tons of oil leaks that could come from one of 4 valve covers, oil lines going to the front oil cooler, or any other place. In 84 they finally went to EFi from CIS. On major services the valves need to be adjusted. Old 911's aren't a real good garage mechanic tinker type of car. If you mess up adjusting something, it may get expensive. Add to that its at best a 17 year old car (89's are actually a different body) it might not be the best choice. The only 911 I still want other then a turbo is a 993 (95-98 911). Super reliable, fast, agile, still air cooled, and still has the Porsche feel to it. Old Mustangs are super popular since Gone in Sixty Seconds and the market is reflecting that. If you aren't worried about originality you could always either build up an engine or just get a Ford crate motor and put it in. Restomods are becoming popular were you take an old car and put newer things like 6spds and fuel injected engines in. Parts are super easy for Mustangs, hell you could almost build one from scratch with the aftermarket support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 Thanks Psi365. Yeah, the Mustang project if it happens will be a resto-mod. Compiled from ebay and craigslist - the 78-89 Porsche 911 go between 15k & 20k 89-93 (The 964) Porsche 911 go betwwn 20&30k 93-98 (The 993) Porsche 911 go between 30k&40k 996 goes between 30k&up 997 well they are new and start at $73k with no options. I really don't mind the 996 as much as everyone else. Any good Porsche forums? I'll see how much google is my friend later today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 I meant that I don't mind the 996 styling "that" much. I also can't afford one of those yet though so it really doesn't matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psi365 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 996's aren't terrible. They mount the pedels on top instead of the early ones that are mounted on the floor. The interiors are really a lot cheaper feeling then 993's. If I could afford a later 996 C4 or C4S I'd be happy. Stay away from 99-00 996's. They were a lot more problatic then the 01 and newer ones. They ride nicer and more of an everyday type of car then the olds ones. Old ones are more weekend fun cars then an everyday driver. The thing about 911's most people don't get over say a vette is that it is a balanced car. The handling, braking, and performance are all above the norm were as a vette is just fast. The biggest mistake in an old 911 is if you loose control in turn, completely let off the throttle. You do that especially in a turbo, and that back end just snaps around and you don't know what happened. I only almost lost one going to fast around a turn, but caught it at the last second. Personally there are a few fun Porsches out there that are fun to drive. 968's (92-95?), 944 S2 (89-90), and 944 turbo (86-89). They are all cheaper to maintain then a 911, and if played with a little a 944 turbo can be faster. The 944 turbo to get is a 88 turbo S or an 89 (which are all turbo S's). They put on a different turbo, fully adjustable suspension, limited slip diff, 928 brakes (huge brakes on that car), and increased power to 247hp. I know there are still places that you can get upgrade parts for. I had a 89 944 turbo and it was a ton of fun to drive. It again is at best a 17 year old car though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdisco Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I will/must have one before I die. Porsche there is no substitute. http://img.timeinc.net/officepirates/files/images/posters/porsche_425x328.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitetiger Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 993 FTW if you cant get a 997. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted October 23, 2006 Author Share Posted October 23, 2006 I too will have one. The Mustang project is gaining steam though, my wife really wants one. I need to find out if she just wants the style or if she wants performance. If an I-6 and a clean classic is all she wants that is a lot cheaper than a performance car and I "could" buy both :-) If we are only going to get the mustang I want it to be a V8 though. You weren't kidding about the power levels of the classic mustangs. Unless it was a Shelby it didn't have a lot of power. The switch from gross to net power says a lot. For example, the 2barrel 302 in 1971 produced 210hp (gross) and in 1972 with a "slightly" lower compression ratio (went from 9.0 to 8.5) only rated 136hp (net). Nothing that some good old fashioned hotrodding wouldn't fix (heads, headers, new carb, deck the block, etc.) but certainly nothing to write home about stock. Probably cheaper to just buy a crate motor. Reminds me of my first car a 1978 Cutlass Supreme with 260 V8 and about 120hp (or was it 100?). So basically to make early 80s 911 power will require a new engine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psi365 Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 You'd have to get either a HiPo 289 (271hp) or go a little newer 67-68 with a 390 (which I want to say is around 300hp stock.......going off memory though). Also there were Boss 302's, Mach 1's, Boss 429's, and Boss 351's. Classic Shelby's are completely out of reach now considering GT350's are around $80k+ now. You want a big block GT500 reach deep in those pockets for $100k+, and convertables go even higher. A 302 is stupidly cheap to build up if not lay down at most $5k and get a brand new crate motor that had been dynoed. I hate 928's. It's a giant pig to drive. It's about as nimble as a town car. I even have driven the rarest and best of the 928's being a 94 928 GTS and it was even stick. Didn't like it at all. I haven't driven a 997 turbo, but I have driven numerous 996 turbo's, a GT2, a 959 (about 20ft since it isn't street legal), every body style of Turbo S's.(94 964 3.6 Turbo S flat nose, 97 993, and 05 996), and several 993 turbos. My favorite is still the 993 turbo. My first ride in one the other tech asks if I have my seatbelt on. I say yes. The second I finished saying that he slammed on the brakes and I almost smacked the dash with my forehead. He was only doing 20 when he did that. Now thats some good brakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuxtaGT Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Having had a lot of time in both a 993 C4 and a 996 C4S, I think you should look for a 993 to work on. I don't know what heightsgtltd is talking about, both sound amazing (even better with a header back installed ). 996's are still a bit pricey. You can find good deals on 993's if you look hard and are patient. I wouldn't have to even think about it, Porsche vs. Ford? The winner is clear, and my father and I did talk about an older mustang or corvette. But, you are dealing with the female irrationality gene, so good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
looneycanuk Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 ...you are dealing with the female irrationality gene, so good luck! A happy wife means a happy life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 I wouldn't have to even think about it, Porsche vs. Ford? The winner is clear, and my father and I did talk about an older mustang or corvette. But, you are dealing with the female irrationality gene, so good luck! Very true. The decision is simple - wife wants a Mustang, wife gets a Mustang. You'd have to get either a HiPo 289 (271hp) or go a little newer 67-68 with a 390 (which I want to say is around 300hp stock.......going off memory though). Also there were Boss 302's, Mach 1's, Boss 429's, and Boss 351's. Classic Shelby's are completely out of reach now considering GT350's are around $80k+ now. You want a big block GT500 reach deep in those pockets for $100k+, and convertables go even higher. A 302 is stupidly cheap to build up if not lay down at most $5k and get a brand new crate motor that had been dynoed. I want to start with the most common Mustang or else I will feel bad tearing into it. There are a few '65, '66 around with 289s. Yeah, they are only 225hp (gross, so net is closer to like 160hp and at the wheels is probably only 130hp or less), but they will be imediately drivable and sound cool. Long term would be to build up some sort of stroker probably a 347. If not a stroker perhaps some sort of 351 based crate engine. That part is up in the air. Right now I am looking for a failed resto-mod or just a car someone needs to sell. My hope is that after Christmas a bunch of people get their credit card bills and realize that they need to sell their toy before the bank repo's their real car. psi365, the 1967 390 produced 320hp, 1968 produced 325hp and 1969 produced 320hp. Those are all gross hp numbers. The FRPP 302 with GT-40 heads produces around 345hp and the 351 ($6300 for FRPP and $7000 for World Products) or 392 crate motors produce like 385hp or 430hp for the performance models and even the basic crate motors models produce like 250hp for under $3000. So basically not too worried about getting the slo-stang to start with and enjoy and then drop in a modern powerplant. Like I said the two cars are wildly different. The wife has spoken, my job is clear. Now to finish my garage work (like painting the floor, running extra electrical) so I can get a car in there. Funny thing is that she already has a Mustang. At least I get to satisfy my V8 desires with this one. Basically she wants something around a '66, red, green, blue or back and I want something that is a V8 and a manual. Suspension, tires and brakes will be the immediate mods to the car for obvious safety reasons. P.S. I still want a Porsche...so hopefully by being patient a good deal will come my way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdisco Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 A happy wife means a happy life. Amen, just keep the peace brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuxtaGT Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 The more I think about this, the more I like girls in Mustangs better. Girl in Mustang => you know she just a bit slutty (in the good way). Girl in Porsche => Eh, thinks she is better than you (in the bad way). Good luck RangerMan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTuner Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Stay away from anything 89' and down. I have a friend that is a Porche/Audi tech and he says the pre 89 911's are a POS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuxtaGT Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Stay away from anything 89' and down. I have a friend that is a Porche/Audi tech and he says the pre 89 911's are a POS. Most any pre-'89 car is tough to work on, 17 years of corrosion can do wonders to any bolt. Pre 964 911's may be tough to work on, but carry a different attitude than newer models. There is something in the rawness in such classics as the '72-'74 RS (saw a sky blue one on the road the other day, wow), the 930 turbo, and even the SC & 3.2. No electronics crap between you and your car. Drive like an ass, and you'll go ass-end into the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psi365 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Like I said.....I was going strictly off memory. I used to be big into Mustangs, but the whole work on your own car thing got burned out of me quickly. Plus I've been on Audi's/Porsche's for so long now its like taking a gallon of german info and pouring it into a shot glass full of american stuff. Something has to spill. 930's are very good at loosing if you hit boost in a corner. Those cars the boost was pretty much on or off. Nothing inbetween. So you go through a turn fast and accidently hit boost. You get an instant view of where you were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.