964 - used and insurance values
Discussion
Hi All,
I'm in the market for a 911 and have seen a 964 relatively locally that looks like it could be a good buy. It was written off as Cat D some years ago due to wing/drivers door damage and has covered a low mileage since.
I'm a bit of a loss to ascertain the market value of this car for future resale - I guess if an early 964 commands £15k on average - cat D would be 60-70% of this?
saw from another post that prices of 964s were falling
is this a fashion thing or symptom of posts like this talking down what is fundamentally a sound motor that has had a couple of issues which the internet magnifies?
Also - could someone give me an idea about how to go about getting an inspection done by a specialist, and the approximate cost of this.
Cheers
I'm in the market for a 911 and have seen a 964 relatively locally that looks like it could be a good buy. It was written off as Cat D some years ago due to wing/drivers door damage and has covered a low mileage since.
I'm a bit of a loss to ascertain the market value of this car for future resale - I guess if an early 964 commands £15k on average - cat D would be 60-70% of this?
saw from another post that prices of 964s were falling
is this a fashion thing or symptom of posts like this talking down what is fundamentally a sound motor that has had a couple of issues which the internet magnifies?
Also - could someone give me an idea about how to go about getting an inspection done by a specialist, and the approximate cost of this.
Cheers
BERGS2 said:
I'm a bit of a loss to ascertain the market value of this car for future resale - I guess if an early 964 commands £15k on average - cat D would be 60-70% of this?
Yes, that's about right. I would say 11-12k ballpark for a RHD car, assuming the repair has been done well.
BERGS2 said:
saw from another post that prices of 964s were falling
is this a fashion thing or symptom of posts like this talking down what is fundamentally a sound motor that has had a couple of issues which the internet magnifies?
No, they're not falling much. They've been low for a wehile. Basically they are about as low as they go, but the 3.2 is rising a bit against them.
They are a sound car, and in my opinion, a far better car than the 3.2. Much more modern to drive. People get carried away because of the dual mass flywheel issue etc. when virtually every 964 on the planet will have had this issue sorted now. And even then it wasn't that catastrophic. (Unlike porous blocks on some 996s!!!). Don't worry about the internet opinion - they are the biggest bargain out there at the moment.
BERGS2 said:
Also - could someone give me an idea about how to go about getting an inspection done by a specialist, and the approximate cost of this.
Look in Porsche Post (PCGB club mag) in the classifieds at the back. Or ring up a local Porsche independent. Cost will be approx 200 GBP. My tech Andy at AmD would put it on the ramps and the rolling road (good engine health check as being down on power may mean a problem) if you were near Bicester, Oxon; call him on 07730 989895 if required.
I guess you're about right - if the car's advertised for the £8k mark and it checks out, I think it's a good buy - assuming it's RHD. Be nice to know just what the extent of the damage was though - did it need jigging, for example.
Whoever checks it out should have access to a 4 poster to allow them to check it thoroughly underneath. Your local OPC may be willing to inspect it, your local specialist most certainly will. Let us know where the car is from a gepgraphical perspective and I am sure someone will point you in the direction of the nearest specialist/OPC.
Whoever checks it out should have access to a 4 poster to allow them to check it thoroughly underneath. Your local OPC may be willing to inspect it, your local specialist most certainly will. Let us know where the car is from a gepgraphical perspective and I am sure someone will point you in the direction of the nearest specialist/OPC.
I have to disagree with domster on the 964 v's 3.2 issue but if you're comparing car against car you have to ask yourself whether you want a pure 911 as Ferdinand Porsche intended it, or if you want the first stage towards the current and modern driving 997 (no longer a true 911 in that it no longer carries that factory model number).
As you can guess I am a 3.2 owner but have been tempted by a 964 in the past and there are a few things to consider, especially when looking at a low cost car.
Whilst the 3.2 is the end result of 20 years of development and is therefore pretty bomb proof, the 964 is the first stage of development towards the modern car and was therefore largely new. As such it did have many teething problems and remains a more fragile car than the 3.2. It is also more expensive to maintain - check servicing costs with your local specialist.
Also, as the 964 became the first "modern" driving 911 it attracted and still attracts those owners who are less caring about their cars. This means that there are now many less than perfect 964s out there and you have to be very careful what you buy - what sounds like a bargain may end up as a money pit that costs you more than a good example would have cost.
If buying a low cost car, go for a C2, not a C4 as the 4WD adds to maintenance costs and is expensive to fix - it also understeers quite badly. Make sure that flywheel has been updated as well.
For buying 3.2s I've used Adrain Crawfords buying guide and he also does one for 964's - it will really help you if it's as good as the 3.2 one. Go to www.performance2and4.co.uk/.
With regard to inspections just speak to your local specialist and he'll tell you how he goes about it - best to take it to the specialist to put on a ramp and if the seller refuses to do this then walk away. If you're in the Reading area then Northways are superb.
Lastly, please don't think that I'm saying the 964 is a bad car, it's not and later ones are probably as good as an early 993 - but just be very careful and don't assume that a cheap car is a bargain. With 911s you normally only get what you pay for.
As you can guess I am a 3.2 owner but have been tempted by a 964 in the past and there are a few things to consider, especially when looking at a low cost car.
Whilst the 3.2 is the end result of 20 years of development and is therefore pretty bomb proof, the 964 is the first stage of development towards the modern car and was therefore largely new. As such it did have many teething problems and remains a more fragile car than the 3.2. It is also more expensive to maintain - check servicing costs with your local specialist.
Also, as the 964 became the first "modern" driving 911 it attracted and still attracts those owners who are less caring about their cars. This means that there are now many less than perfect 964s out there and you have to be very careful what you buy - what sounds like a bargain may end up as a money pit that costs you more than a good example would have cost.
If buying a low cost car, go for a C2, not a C4 as the 4WD adds to maintenance costs and is expensive to fix - it also understeers quite badly. Make sure that flywheel has been updated as well.
For buying 3.2s I've used Adrain Crawfords buying guide and he also does one for 964's - it will really help you if it's as good as the 3.2 one. Go to www.performance2and4.co.uk/.
With regard to inspections just speak to your local specialist and he'll tell you how he goes about it - best to take it to the specialist to put on a ramp and if the seller refuses to do this then walk away. If you're in the Reading area then Northways are superb.
Lastly, please don't think that I'm saying the 964 is a bad car, it's not and later ones are probably as good as an early 993 - but just be very careful and don't assume that a cheap car is a bargain. With 911s you normally only get what you pay for.
Fair comment 
I wouldn't worry about the 'understeering' C4 though. I drove a 964 C4 balls out (although my balls are not as big as some
) at the nurburgring in the dry and it was sublime. Beautifully balanced and not a trace of understeer, just a lot more friendly on the limit. That said, it was running lowered suspension, so it may have been the set up or spring/struts used. To be honest, I was expecting it to be rubbish compared to the C2 but it was a (nice) revelation.
I wouldn't worry about the 'understeering' C4 though. I drove a 964 C4 balls out (although my balls are not as big as some
) at the nurburgring in the dry and it was sublime. Beautifully balanced and not a trace of understeer, just a lot more friendly on the limit. That said, it was running lowered suspension, so it may have been the set up or spring/struts used. To be honest, I was expecting it to be rubbish compared to the C2 but it was a (nice) revelation.Sounds like fun
I have to say that I've not experienced a C4 but I know that their understeer is notorious and the guy who I bought my current 3.2 from moved on to one and confirmed that he'd had it on the track - said he'd practiced lifting to dial in some oversteer though which sounds like a laugh anyway.
I have to say that I've not experienced a C4 but I know that their understeer is notorious and the guy who I bought my current 3.2 from moved on to one and confirmed that he'd had it on the track - said he'd practiced lifting to dial in some oversteer though which sounds like a laugh anyway.
We've had the C4 argument (sorry discussion) before. In standard form, the C4s that I have driven were appalling understeerers. I've never driven a lowered etc one so can't comment.
The other comments are accurate IMHO. The 3.2 is an old school Porsche, the 964 far more modern and a good deal quicker too.
Like Dom, I think that a good 964 is a performance bargain, but don't forget the issues with top end oil leaks on the earlier cars!
The other comments are accurate IMHO. The 3.2 is an old school Porsche, the 964 far more modern and a good deal quicker too.
Like Dom, I think that a good 964 is a performance bargain, but don't forget the issues with top end oil leaks on the earlier cars!
rubystone said:
We've had the C4 argument (sorry discussion) before. In standard form, the C4s that I have driven were appalling understeerers. I've never driven a lowered etc one so can't comment.
The other comments are accurate IMHO. The 3.2 is an old school Porsche, the 964 far more modern and a good deal quicker too.
Like Dom, I think that a good 964 is a performance bargain, but don't forget the issues with top end oil leaks on the earlier cars!
I think "a good deal quicker" is a slight exaggeration but, yes, definitely quicker. I have to say though that, as a performance bargain and a modern Porsche to boot, the 968 beats the 964 hands down IMHO - it's just that its not a 911.
ICSD said:
Make sure that flywheel has been updated as well.
can someone explain the nature of the alleged curse of this Dual Mass flywheel?
I'm recalling all the 'debate' around the TVR speed six and the feathers that this ruffled....
dont want to open a can of worms.....
thanks for all the advice thus far!
Earlier cars had a dual mass flywheel made by company A (can't remember who), and as they age (heat cycles, etc) the rubber breaks down and the flywheel starts to CLANK and THUNK (technical terms ).
The '93 model year cars and those cars which have had the DMF replaced had a company B flywheel (made by LUK i think) which has a different type of rubber in it which doesn't suffer (or certainly not as quickly) as the original.
Someone else will be able to fill in the finer details i'm sure.
VS
). The '93 model year cars and those cars which have had the DMF replaced had a company B flywheel (made by LUK i think) which has a different type of rubber in it which doesn't suffer (or certainly not as quickly) as the original.
Someone else will be able to fill in the finer details i'm sure.
VS
verysideways said:
Earlier cars had a dual mass flywheel made by company A (can't remember who), and as they age (heat cycles, etc) the rubber breaks down and the flywheel starts to CLANK and THUNK (technical terms
The '93 model year cars and those cars which have had the DMF replaced had a company B flywheel (made by LUK i think) which has a different type of rubber in it which doesn't suffer (or certainly not as quickly) as the original.
Someone else will be able to fill in the finer details i'm sure.
VS
Motronic I think??
Re DMF - it was never as serious as the Speed 6 problem. It's just been overexaggerated over the years, all it meant was a new flywheel FFS! If you drove around with it for thousands of miles then the vibration would do some damage to the engine, I'm sure, but it would feel seriously wrong. It was more an annoyance (especially if you had just fitted a new clutch at vast labour cost )
Re 968 vs 964, I think the 964 is - overall and even taking into account the benign handling balance of the 968 - endowed with far greater overall performance. The 968s I have driven (even CSs) have always felt a bit gutless and that characterless engine note bored me to death. The only water cooled front engined Porsche that felt really gutsy to me was the 944 Turbo. The 964 always felt rapid, in comparison.
I think the 968s are quite dated now, interior wise, and lack the classic 911 interior 'character'. An interesting choice 968 vs 964 but I'd always go for the 964 for the same or similar money. One was 20k more when new, and it still shows IMO.
Personal preferences and all that.
) Re 968 vs 964, I think the 964 is - overall and even taking into account the benign handling balance of the 968 - endowed with far greater overall performance. The 968s I have driven (even CSs) have always felt a bit gutless and that characterless engine note bored me to death. The only water cooled front engined Porsche that felt really gutsy to me was the 944 Turbo. The 964 always felt rapid, in comparison.
I think the 968s are quite dated now, interior wise, and lack the classic 911 interior 'character'. An interesting choice 968 vs 964 but I'd always go for the 964 for the same or similar money. One was 20k more when new, and it still shows IMO.
Personal preferences and all that.
domster said:
Re DMF - it was never as serious as the Speed 6 problem. It's just been overexaggerated over the years, all it meant was a new flywheel FFS! If you drove around with it for thousands of miles then the vibration would do some damage to the engine, I'm sure, but it would feel seriously wrong. It was more an annoyance (especially if you had just fitted a new clutch at vast labour cost
Re 968 vs 964, I think the 964 is - overall and even taking into account the benign handling balance of the 968 - endowed with far greater overall performance. The 968s I have driven (even CSs) have always felt a bit gutless and that characterless engine note bored me to death. The only water cooled front engined Porsche that felt really gutsy to me was the 944 Turbo. The 964 always felt rapid, in comparison.
I think the 968s are quite dated now, interior wise, and lack the classic 911 interior 'character'. An interesting choice 968 vs 964 but I'd always go for the 964 for the same or similar money. One was 20k more when new, and it still shows IMO.
Personal preferences and all that.
Can't disagree with you and if I had the choice I'd probably end up with the 964 just because it's a 911, but bang for bucks wise and especially when it comes to overall maintenance, the 968 is the better car IMHO.
>> Edited by ICSD on Tuesday 17th May 17:10
ICSD said:
but bang for bucks wise and especially when it comes to overall maintenance, the 968 is the better car IMHO.
LOL, but those are the bits I just don't get...
Say you can get a 968CS and a 911 C2 in LHD for 11k these days, I'd say the 911 offers more bangs per buck, surely? Much better performance in a straight line and although the 968 handles better on the limit, would it lap quicker than a 911 around a dry track with a half decent driver? I doubt it, but I'd like to be proved wrong
Maintenance wise, the 968 is no angel... I know many that have had to have camshafts done (not just the belts), waterpumps, power steering pumps... they make a 964 seem like a cheap option to run
Yikes, the camshaft bill can be a couple of grand just on its own. Interestingly, a sorted 3.2 is probably the cheapest to run of the bunch... you picked wisely!
domster said:
but bang for bucks wise and especially when it comes to overall maintenance, the 968 is the better car IMHO.
LOL, but those are the bits I just don't get...
Say you can get a 968CS and a 911 C2 in LHD for 11k these days, I'd say the 911 offers more bangs per buck, surely? Much better performance in a straight line and although the 968 handles better on the limit, would it lap quicker than a 911 around a dry track with a half decent driver? I doubt it, but I'd like to be proved wrong
Maintenance wise, the 968 is no angel... I know many that have had to have camshafts done (not just the belts), waterpumps, power steering pumps... they make a 964 seem like a cheap option to run
Interestingly, a sorted 3.2 is probably the cheapest to run of the bunch... you picked wisely!
I know that - I love the 964 and the 968 for what they are (rather than what they cost) but neither has tempted me out of a 3.2 which IMHO is THE number 1 911 of all time - it might not be the quickest or the best handling but as an overall package it is a perfect balance of fun over everyday drivability and it just feels so connected to the road - it is the only car I've ever driven that gives the same buzz as a bike.
ICSD said:
I know that - I love the 964 and the 968 for what they are (rather than what they cost) but neither has tempted me out of a 3.2 which IMHO is THE number 1 911 of all time - it might not be the quickest or the best handling but as an overall package it is a perfect balance of fun over everyday drivability and it just feels so connected to the road - it is the only car I've ever driven that gives the same buzz as a bike.
are you selling per chance?
sorry, i guess thats the trouble with these forums; 'fractal' opinion gets formed on the basis of other opinions - ad infinitum
(though your opinion as an owner is obviously more valuable than most
) I had set my sights on a 964 because:
1) It is (IMHO) the most modern, rounded, evolution of the 'classic' 911 shape
2) performance & sound of the 3.6 - all 911's sound good, my parents neighbour used to have an early nineties C4, and the sound was awesome!
3) car will be a daily driver at times so the 'mod cons' PAS/ABS etc. will come in handy
4) cost/running cost structure - I can't afford high purchase costs without levels of finance I'd be uncomfortable with - running costs I could handle - by the 'lentil soup for a month' mechanism
But I've just read the recent 911 & Porsche World article on 3.2's - hmmmmmmmm.
[quote=BERGS2]
(though your opinion as an owner is obviously more valuable than most)
[quote]
Oi! - I've owned 2 3.2s and one 964 - only just sold the second 3.2 as it happens.
Incidentally, I used my 3.2 as an everday driver over Christmas last year and loved it...BUT...that bloody salt ate away at the bolts in the bellows and I had some unsightly streaks of rust on the front valance as a result - moral there is that the construction of the impact bumper cars makes them more susceptible to the rigours of our climate than that of 964s (just compare the front and rear bumper construction for both cars for a clear indication of this!)
Your reasons for buying a 964 are eminently sensible. I think you may find it hard to buy a nice G50 3.2 for much less than £15k in any case, and if you use it everyday I think it'll weather more than perhpas a 964 would. All IMHO of course!
(though your opinion as an owner is obviously more valuable than most
) [quote]
Oi!
- I've owned 2 3.2s and one 964 - only just sold the second 3.2 as it happens. Incidentally, I used my 3.2 as an everday driver over Christmas last year and loved it...BUT...that bloody salt ate away at the bolts in the bellows and I had some unsightly streaks of rust on the front valance as a result - moral there is that the construction of the impact bumper cars makes them more susceptible to the rigours of our climate than that of 964s (just compare the front and rear bumper construction for both cars for a clear indication of this!)
Your reasons for buying a 964 are eminently sensible. I think you may find it hard to buy a nice G50 3.2 for much less than £15k in any case, and if you use it everyday I think it'll weather more than perhpas a 964 would. All IMHO of course!
Ah, now we're getting into the 3.2 as a daily drive...well then.
I'm now on my second - the first being a Targa and I can absolutely vouch for them as a superb car for this purpose.
Rubystone, your experience of deterioration only seems to relate to the bumpers and I can confirm that these are the most vulnerable part of the car but if you clean it on a weekly basis it will not deteriorate abnormally and the rest of the car is incredibly sound. And let's face it - if you had to get the bumper repaired every 3 or 4 years it wouldn't be that expensive.
BERGS2, if you're looking to buy a 911 on a budget then buy a 3.2 and not a 964 - it will be more robust, cheaper to service and far fewer things are likely to go wrong simply because there is so little to go wrong. The 964 does sound nice, but I've just had a Dansk SS system fitted to my 3.2 with an 82mm outlet pipe and it sounds very nice. With regard to the power steering, you'll only ever notice its absence at parking speeds and you soon get used to that - it's really not that heavy. With regard to ABS, I've found the 3.2 brakes incredibly progressive and at no point have I experienced any nasty lock ups - ABS would of course be preferable but in it's absence I don't think you'd find a nicer system than on the 3.2.
A decent 3.2 will cost you 12-16k, anything over that is either something rare like a Turbo-bodied or a speedster, or it's a rip-off. If you get Adrian Crawfords buyers guide as mentioned previously then you'll be able to buy privately with confidence and you'll be nearer to the 12k than the 16k.
I bought my Targa for £12.5k and sold it 18 months and nearly 20,000 miles later for £12.25k which just goes to show you how cheap these cars are to keep when you bear in mind that depreciation is always your number one expense with cars.
Servicing on a 3.2 is £265 plus VAT every 12k miles and even with all the other bits that tend to need doing, my normal annual bill at the garage doesn't exceed £800. I very much doubt that 964 owners (other than those who work on their own cars) could say the same.
Insurance on the 3.2 at NU is £400 unlimited for me.
I'm having so much fun owning this car, I bloody love it and as I'm writing this I just can't believe how cheap it is - I'm sure you could spend more money on a Mondeo.
I'm now on my second - the first being a Targa and I can absolutely vouch for them as a superb car for this purpose.
Rubystone, your experience of deterioration only seems to relate to the bumpers and I can confirm that these are the most vulnerable part of the car but if you clean it on a weekly basis it will not deteriorate abnormally and the rest of the car is incredibly sound. And let's face it - if you had to get the bumper repaired every 3 or 4 years it wouldn't be that expensive.
BERGS2, if you're looking to buy a 911 on a budget then buy a 3.2 and not a 964 - it will be more robust, cheaper to service and far fewer things are likely to go wrong simply because there is so little to go wrong. The 964 does sound nice, but I've just had a Dansk SS system fitted to my 3.2 with an 82mm outlet pipe and it sounds very nice. With regard to the power steering, you'll only ever notice its absence at parking speeds and you soon get used to that - it's really not that heavy. With regard to ABS, I've found the 3.2 brakes incredibly progressive and at no point have I experienced any nasty lock ups - ABS would of course be preferable but in it's absence I don't think you'd find a nicer system than on the 3.2.
A decent 3.2 will cost you 12-16k, anything over that is either something rare like a Turbo-bodied or a speedster, or it's a rip-off. If you get Adrian Crawfords buyers guide as mentioned previously then you'll be able to buy privately with confidence and you'll be nearer to the 12k than the 16k.
I bought my Targa for £12.5k and sold it 18 months and nearly 20,000 miles later for £12.25k which just goes to show you how cheap these cars are to keep when you bear in mind that depreciation is always your number one expense with cars.
Servicing on a 3.2 is £265 plus VAT every 12k miles and even with all the other bits that tend to need doing, my normal annual bill at the garage doesn't exceed £800. I very much doubt that 964 owners (other than those who work on their own cars) could say the same.
Insurance on the 3.2 at NU is £400 unlimited for me.
I'm having so much fun owning this car, I bloody love it and as I'm writing this I just can't believe how cheap it is - I'm sure you could spend more money on a Mondeo.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff