981 six cylinder residuals
Discussion
So we all know the four cylinder versions are coming, and it's probably fair to say a lot of people on this forum are not thrilled about this and want the sixes to stay. However... It's got me wondering, outside of opinion on this forum, is there any historical evidence that the current 981s might hold their value better than, for example, the 987s?
Has anyone been following values from any other performance cars that have had their engines downsized, is there any truth in the last of the larger engines holding their values better (I'm thinking Audi RS and BMW M)?
Has anyone been following values from any other performance cars that have had their engines downsized, is there any truth in the last of the larger engines holding their values better (I'm thinking Audi RS and BMW M)?
Very interesting... Are you suggesting that the 981's production numbers are the only reason for a 987 possibly being a safer bet, or is there something tangibly worse about the 981s that makes the earlier ones more desirable?
(I should say I'm asking from a position of not historically knowing a lot about Porsches, but currently open to buying a used 981 Cayman S in the near-ish future.)
(I should say I'm asking from a position of not historically knowing a lot about Porsches, but currently open to buying a used 981 Cayman S in the near-ish future.)
If you look at the 993, the last year heavily optioned, near zero mileage examples are commanding huge prices. But how long will that continue. The cars of our youth that we couldn't afford then but only dream about are what the older folks are buying. But as we die off, who will there be lusting after them?
Will this also be true of the 6-cylinder models from Porsche? Once the car mags show that the lap times of a 4-cylinder turbo are less than the older models, how many will vote for nostalgia?
Buy for enjoyment, not for investment.
Will this also be true of the 6-cylinder models from Porsche? Once the car mags show that the lap times of a 4-cylinder turbo are less than the older models, how many will vote for nostalgia?
Buy for enjoyment, not for investment.
To be fair I was just broadly interested to know how people thought values might go, rather than using it to decide which model to get myself.
I actually find myself somewhere in the middle of this debate, inasmuch as I currently drive a four cylinder turbo and shan't pretend I don't enjoy its ability to just launch up to great speed with minimal work. Also I'll freely admit that I often just want to pop to the shops or visit a friend without being at 10/10ths, so I have no issue with electric steering, etc, as I think these are sensible compromises to be had for a road car. However despite all that, a large amount of the appeal of a Cayman to me is to have a couple of years in something with more than four cylinders, as there's no doubt there will be fewer and fewer options for this as time goes on (at least for half sensible money). I also like to do a couple of track days a year, and love the idea of being able to fully let the NA engine rev.
It's certainly going to be interesting to see how the 981.2s are received when they land.
I actually find myself somewhere in the middle of this debate, inasmuch as I currently drive a four cylinder turbo and shan't pretend I don't enjoy its ability to just launch up to great speed with minimal work. Also I'll freely admit that I often just want to pop to the shops or visit a friend without being at 10/10ths, so I have no issue with electric steering, etc, as I think these are sensible compromises to be had for a road car. However despite all that, a large amount of the appeal of a Cayman to me is to have a couple of years in something with more than four cylinders, as there's no doubt there will be fewer and fewer options for this as time goes on (at least for half sensible money). I also like to do a couple of track days a year, and love the idea of being able to fully let the NA engine rev.
It's certainly going to be interesting to see how the 981.2s are received when they land.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It doesn't, of course, but I mean that I have no issue with the manufacturers' choice of moving to electric assistance for the majority of my driving (presuming it's not so light it feels entirely disconnected, like modern city cars). So therefore, like we're speculating future Porsche customers won't care about having a F4, steering assistance is not something for me that would influence a car purchase decision, as long as it feels sensibly weighty, etc. I agree with cmoose.
As for prices, my 2010 987.2 S depreciated by almost nothing over 2 years and 18,000 miles. I think prices on those cars are very firm indeed at the moment and may hold up well.
The 987 is a more 'modern' feeling car than the 986 (and, to me, the 997) which is great for most people. 981 takes it a step too far for me, but I think people like me and cmoose are a tiny minority.
As for prices, my 2010 987.2 S depreciated by almost nothing over 2 years and 18,000 miles. I think prices on those cars are very firm indeed at the moment and may hold up well.
The 987 is a more 'modern' feeling car than the 986 (and, to me, the 997) which is great for most people. 981 takes it a step too far for me, but I think people like me and cmoose are a tiny minority.
Cannot remember exact numbers but I am sure more 981 were built 2012/13 than whole of 987.2 production(2009-11)and production of 981 at volume has carried on to date!
Remember also 987.2 was built in less volume due to the post 2008/9 slump!
Same can be said for 997.2 and manuals were less than a third of that production run!
Remember also 987.2 was built in less volume due to the post 2008/9 slump!
Same can be said for 997.2 and manuals were less than a third of that production run!
At the end of the day ( gosh did I really say that?) I have been privileged to own a number of my 'dream' cars. Those vehicles that, as a boy I would always like to own.
In 1990 I was in a position to change my Sierra XR4x4 (don't) for another vehicle. I was very taken with the new (then) E36? coupe BMW. Finances were tight and the dealer offered me a cracking deal on a 318 - the four cylinder car. I refused that, and took a lower spec on the 320. It was a six cylinder BMW. For me all BMs are sixes, or not at all; I do not WANT(lust after)a four cylinder BM. Lots of other manufacurers produce charismatic fours............
Fourteen years later, I had the opportunity to complete a dream and buy a flat 6 Porsche, not a flat 4 but a normally aspirated flat 6.
Just sums it up for me. BMs - s6; Porsche f6,Ferrari v8 and of course Sierra 2.9 v6. And if you like Ford XR/ST s4.
Friend of mine has a Stag......V8. Ok not Triumph but a Rover transplant. It is still a car I like. Another acquaintance has replaced (or prior to purchase someone...)the v8 with a s6 Triumph lump. Ok, a nice side step to 'issues' BUT it is not a Stag.............
IMHO
In 1990 I was in a position to change my Sierra XR4x4 (don't) for another vehicle. I was very taken with the new (then) E36? coupe BMW. Finances were tight and the dealer offered me a cracking deal on a 318 - the four cylinder car. I refused that, and took a lower spec on the 320. It was a six cylinder BMW. For me all BMs are sixes, or not at all; I do not WANT(lust after)a four cylinder BM. Lots of other manufacurers produce charismatic fours............
Fourteen years later, I had the opportunity to complete a dream and buy a flat 6 Porsche, not a flat 4 but a normally aspirated flat 6.
Just sums it up for me. BMs - s6; Porsche f6,Ferrari v8 and of course Sierra 2.9 v6. And if you like Ford XR/ST s4.
Friend of mine has a Stag......V8. Ok not Triumph but a Rover transplant. It is still a car I like. Another acquaintance has replaced (or prior to purchase someone...)the v8 with a s6 Triumph lump. Ok, a nice side step to 'issues' BUT it is not a Stag.............
IMHO
Edited by Bennachie on Sunday 30th August 21:01
At the end of the day ( gosh did I really say that?) I have been privileged to own a number of my 'dream' cars. Those vehicles that, as a boy I would always like to own.
In 1990 I was in a position to change my Sierra XR4x4 (don't) for another vehicle. I was very taken with the new (then) E36? coupe BMW. Finances were tight and the dealer offered me a cracking deal on a 318 - the four cylinder car. I refused that, and took a lower spec on the 320. It was a six cylinder BMW. For me all BMs are sixes, or not at all; I do not WANT(lust after)a four cylinder BM. Lots of other manufacurers produce charismatic fours............
Fourteen years later, I had the opportunity to complete a dream and buy a flat 6 Porsche, not a flat 4 but a normally aspirated flat 6.
Just sums it up for me. BMs - s6; Porsche f6,Ferrari v8 and of course Sierra 2.9 v6. And if you like Ford XR/ST s4.
Friend of mine has a Stag......V8. Ok not Triumph but a Rover transplant. It is still a car I like. Another acquaintance has replaced (or prior to purchase someone...)the v8 with a s6 Triumph lump. Ok, a nice side step to 'issues' BUT it is not a Stag.............
IMHO
In 1990 I was in a position to change my Sierra XR4x4 (don't) for another vehicle. I was very taken with the new (then) E36? coupe BMW. Finances were tight and the dealer offered me a cracking deal on a 318 - the four cylinder car. I refused that, and took a lower spec on the 320. It was a six cylinder BMW. For me all BMs are sixes, or not at all; I do not WANT(lust after)a four cylinder BM. Lots of other manufacurers produce charismatic fours............
Fourteen years later, I had the opportunity to complete a dream and buy a flat 6 Porsche, not a flat 4 but a normally aspirated flat 6.
Just sums it up for me. BMs - s6; Porsche f6,Ferrari v8 and of course Sierra 2.9 v6. And if you like Ford XR/ST s4.
Friend of mine has a Stag......V8. Ok not Triumph but a Rover transplant. It is still a car I like. Another acquaintance has replaced (or prior to purchase someone...)the v8 with a s6 Triumph lump. Ok, a nice side step to 'issues' BUT it is not a Stag.............
IMHO
Edited by Bennachie on Sunday 30th August 21:07
Bennachie said:
At the end of the day ( gosh did I really say that?) I have been privileged to own a number of my 'dream' cars. Those vehicles that, as a boy I would always like to own.
In 1990 I was in a position to change my Sierra XR4x4 (don't) for another vehicle. I was very taken with the new (then) E36? coupe BMW. Finances were tight and the dealer offered me a cracking deal on a 318 - the four cylinder car. I refused that, and took a lower spec on the 320. It was a six cylinder BMW. For me all BMs are sixes, or not at all; I do not WANT(lust after)a four cylinder BM. Lots of other manufacurers produce charismatic fours............
Fourteen years later, I had the opportunity to complete a dream and buy a flat 6 Porsche, not a flat 4 but a normally aspirated flat 6.
Just sums it up for me. BMs - s6; Porsche f6,Ferrari v8 and of course Sierra 2.9 v6. And if you like Ford XR/ST s4.
Friend of mine has a Stag......V8. Ok not Triumph but a Rover transplant. It is still a car I like. Another acquaintance has replaced (or prior to purchase someone...)the v8 with a s6 Triumph lump. Ok, a nice side step to 'issues' BUT it is not a Stag.............
IMHO
I think that categorising a car as having X cylinders is a bit narrow. "Real" Ferraris HAD to have 12 cylinders - and having 6 or 8 was definitely not what afficionados would accept as Ferraris - indeed they were christened Dinos, and only were called Ferraris after some years. Porsches (956) had 4 cylinders long long before they had 6 (and UNassisted steering). You might well argue that Jaguars should have IL 6s - they did for a large part of their history. etc etcIn 1990 I was in a position to change my Sierra XR4x4 (don't) for another vehicle. I was very taken with the new (then) E36? coupe BMW. Finances were tight and the dealer offered me a cracking deal on a 318 - the four cylinder car. I refused that, and took a lower spec on the 320. It was a six cylinder BMW. For me all BMs are sixes, or not at all; I do not WANT(lust after)a four cylinder BM. Lots of other manufacurers produce charismatic fours............
Fourteen years later, I had the opportunity to complete a dream and buy a flat 6 Porsche, not a flat 4 but a normally aspirated flat 6.
Just sums it up for me. BMs - s6; Porsche f6,Ferrari v8 and of course Sierra 2.9 v6. And if you like Ford XR/ST s4.
Friend of mine has a Stag......V8. Ok not Triumph but a Rover transplant. It is still a car I like. Another acquaintance has replaced (or prior to purchase someone...)the v8 with a s6 Triumph lump. Ok, a nice side step to 'issues' BUT it is not a Stag.............
IMHO
Edited by Bennachie on Sunday 30th August 21:07
All that said I have no doubt that there will be enough who will pour scorn on the Turbo 4s (however good they may be) to aid residuals on the 981.1 and 987.2s. The 987.2 will have a following because of the steering - the 981.1 because it is the last of the 6s. However, unless the 981.2 is a real dog I can't see either previous model becoming a classic - there are simply too many of them. Spyders and GT4s are a diffent matter because of their rarity. It's a shame that rarity rather than genuine desirability has more influence on value in the classic car market, but that's the way it is.
Correct.
To me, a Jag has to have 6 pots. I have no interest in a four cylinder diesel Jag, no matter how 'brilliant' it is.
Yes,
to me, a Ferrari has to have 12 or 8 cylinders ( the argument - if it is that - was simplified in the interests of reduced typing in the original post.
MY Porsche is a 6 cylinder car, as is MY BMW. I would struggle to buy a Range Rover with less than 8 pots and four wheel drive.....
Nothing about steering, suspension design etc (all of which can be classed as someone's critera)
again, IMHO
To me, a Jag has to have 6 pots. I have no interest in a four cylinder diesel Jag, no matter how 'brilliant' it is.
Yes,
to me, a Ferrari has to have 12 or 8 cylinders ( the argument - if it is that - was simplified in the interests of reduced typing in the original post.
MY Porsche is a 6 cylinder car, as is MY BMW. I would struggle to buy a Range Rover with less than 8 pots and four wheel drive.....
Nothing about steering, suspension design etc (all of which can be classed as someone's critera)
again, IMHO
anonymous said:
[redacted]
itsybitsy said:
Cannot remember exact numbers but I am sure more 981 were built 2012/13 than whole of 987.2 production(2009-11)and production of 981 at volume has carried on to date!
Remember also 987.2 was built in less volume due to the post 2008/9 slump!
Same can be said for 997.2 and manuals were less than a third of that production run!
Hmm...interesting, I must admit I don't see many 987.2's running around that would explain why then.Remember also 987.2 was built in less volume due to the post 2008/9 slump!
Same can be said for 997.2 and manuals were less than a third of that production run!
About 2,000 Cayman registered in UK up to 2013 and 2.8k Cayman S and since 2013 another 0.4 Cayman and 0.5 Cayman S.....................
Means about 5,500 Caymans of all type registered in uK. 987.1/987.2/981; which suggests many more 987 Caymans(caymen/caymeni) in the wild than 981.
Please note that this is 'information' and IS NOT intended to suggest strong/weak residuals or anything else.
28 981 Cayman registered in q1 of 2015
13 981 Cayman S registered in q1 of 2015
202 981 Cayman GTS registered in q1 of 2015
Means about 5,500 Caymans of all type registered in uK. 987.1/987.2/981; which suggests many more 987 Caymans(caymen/caymeni) in the wild than 981.
Please note that this is 'information' and IS NOT intended to suggest strong/weak residuals or anything else.
28 981 Cayman registered in q1 of 2015
13 981 Cayman S registered in q1 of 2015
202 981 Cayman GTS registered in q1 of 2015
Edited by Bennachie on Monday 31st August 19:55
Bennachie said:
About 2,000 Cayman registered in UK up to 2013 and 2.8k Cayman S and since 2013 another 0.4 Cayman and 0.5 Cayman S.....................
Means about 5,500 Caymans of all type registered in uK. 987.1/987.2/981; which suggests many more 987 Caymans(caymen/caymeni) in the wild than 981.
Please note that this is 'information' and IS NOT intended to suggest strong/weak residuals or anything else.
28 981 Cayman registered in q1 of 2015
13 981 Cayman S registered in q1 of 2015
202 981 Cayman GTS registered in q1 of 2015
Looks like the GTS is the most popular - seems like an S might be more exclusive!! Ironic really - pick my CGTS up tomorrow, so Q3 probably high numbers as well!Means about 5,500 Caymans of all type registered in uK. 987.1/987.2/981; which suggests many more 987 Caymans(caymen/caymeni) in the wild than 981.
Please note that this is 'information' and IS NOT intended to suggest strong/weak residuals or anything else.
28 981 Cayman registered in q1 of 2015
13 981 Cayman S registered in q1 of 2015
202 981 Cayman GTS registered in q1 of 2015
Edited by Bennachie on Monday 31st August 19:55
Bennachie said:
About 2,000 Cayman registered in UK up to 2013 and 2.8k Cayman S and since 2013 another 0.4 Cayman and 0.5 Cayman S.....................
Means about 5,500 Caymans of all type registered in uK. 987.1/987.2/981; which suggests many more 987 Caymans(caymen/caymeni) in the wild than 981.
Please note that this is 'information' and IS NOT intended to suggest strong/weak residuals or anything else.
28 981 Cayman registered in q1 of 2015
13 981 Cayman S registered in q1 of 2015
202 981 Cayman GTS registered in q1 of 2015
Where does this data come from?Means about 5,500 Caymans of all type registered in uK. 987.1/987.2/981; which suggests many more 987 Caymans(caymen/caymeni) in the wild than 981.
Please note that this is 'information' and IS NOT intended to suggest strong/weak residuals or anything else.
28 981 Cayman registered in q1 of 2015
13 981 Cayman S registered in q1 of 2015
202 981 Cayman GTS registered in q1 of 2015
Edited by Bennachie on Monday 31st August 19:55
Would be interested to see the split of Gen 2 cars.
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff