RE: The Brave Pill: Porsche 911 (996)

[smithyithy]

mikey P 500 said:

Ahonen said:

mikeyr said:

Totally agree, kinda fun lording it up in car which costs less than your average Fiesta. But in all serious, isn't much else at the price range which non-car people will be so impressed by.

Our neighbours aren't really car people as such. They know what a Porsche is and they like the way it looks and sounds, but they don't know the different generations or anything about prices - quite understandably. The two things that amazed them about my 996 were that it really is 20 years old and that it cost the same as a new bottom of the range VW Polo. I'm not sure if I went up or down in their estimations after telling them...

This is main negative of them for me, being a school teacher, it attracts alot of comments from staff, pupils and parents about how teachers must be paid too much, I find myself explaining how cheap they are, and how even the running costs are far less than their pcp monthlies on their focus or similar.

This is the case in many professions. The company I work for has company cars and car allowances.. cast majority of people in recent years have opted for the company cars, and especially those in the higher tax bracket, end up paying a fair amount of BIK tax for relatively mediocre cars..

When someone has the initiative to lease or PCP a better value car, say an M-Sport BMW or S-Line Audi, all the inevitable 'they're paid too much' comments soon come out

[komakino]

Every version of the 911 has something going for it, but the only one I could not recommend to anyone is the 996. Especially the early versions.

Questionable looks, Rover interior build quality and serious reliability issues means this is the one to avoid. The market does not lie.

If you really must purchase the only unloved version of this iconic car, go for the facelift 2001 or as late as you can.

The 993 was the last 911 before the accountants came in. Had they had not done so, it would have been the last 911 full stop.

[Engelberger]

komakino said:

Every version of the 911 has something going for it, but the only one I could not recommend to anyone is the 996. Especially the early versions.

Questionable looks, Rover interior build quality and serious reliability issues means this is the one to avoid. The market does not lie.

If you really must purchase the only unloved version of this iconic car, go for the facelift 2001 or as late as you can.

The 993 was the last 911 before the accountants came in. Had they had not done so, it would have been the last 911 full stop.

I'm trying to count how many well worn myths are in your post. Have you ever owned one? My guess is that the answer is no. I also wonder if you've had a 993. Somehow I doubt it.

[LordHaveMurci]

komakino said:

Every version of the 911 has something going for it, but the only one I could not recommend to anyone is the 996. Especially the early versions.

Questionable looks, Rover interior build quality and serious reliability issues means this is the one to avoid. The market does not lie.

If you really must purchase the only unloved version of this iconic car, go for the facelift 2001 or as late as you can.

The 993 was the last 911 before the accountants came in. Had they had not done so, it would have been the last 911 full stop.

So much crap I'm not sure where to begin.

[Flanners]

A Money pit. Cheap to buy but relatively high maintenance costs and all the issues the engines can suffer no way! Not worth the risk to drive a car that's about exclusive as a Ford Mondeo.

Edited by Flanners on Thursday 23 May 21:06

[Ahonen]

Flanners said:

A Money pit. Cheap to buy but relatively high maintenance costs and all the issues the engines can suffer no way! Not worth the risk to drive a car that's about exclusive as a Ford Mondeo.

Edited by Flanners on Thursday 23 May 21:06

Uninformed crap.

[Touring442]

Why is a late 993 worth three times as much as an early 996?

[Flanners]

Ahonen said:

Uninformed crap.

IMS RMS Bore scoring, cracked cyclinder heads/liners, hardly uniformed now is it....any other car afflcited with such design and engineering issues would be deemed a POS.

Edited by Flanners on Friday 24th May 11:21

Edited by Flanners on Friday 24th May 11:22

[LordHaveMurci]

Flanners said:

Ahonen said:

Uninformed crap.

IMS RMS Bore scoring, cracked cyclinder heads/liners, hardly uniformed now is it....any other car afflcited with such design and engineering issues would be deemed a POS.

Edited by Flanners on Friday 24th May 11:21

Edited by Flanners on Friday 24th May 11:22

Oh dear, I guess the upside of people like you regurgitating crap like this is that 996's are affordable for many people & remain in use rather than being locked away as investments.

[jrb270]

I bought a 2003 95k c4 cabrio for 15k last November and I love it. It's not perfect but it's the most fun daily I have ever had.

[Danns]

Long time lurker, My 135k miler 4s, have put 8k on since October, and every single mile has been with a smile on my face.

The hysteria and rhetoric that surrounds them is well, just plain odd in my experience.

Of course I’m biased, but I actually really like the headlights!

Dan

[Olivera]

Flanners said:

IMS RMS Bore scoring, cracked cyclinder heads/liners, hardly uniformed now is it....any other car afflcited with such design and engineering issues would be deemed a POS.

The Germans know this.

Go to the Nurburgring and you'll see hundreds of M3s of all descriptions, including loads of M3s of the same era as the 996, namely the E36 M3 and E46 M3.

You'll pretty much never see anyone bothering with a 996 Carerra. That's quite telling.

[Touring442]

LordHaveMurci said:

Oh dear, I guess the upside of people like you regurgitating crap like this is that 996's are affordable for many people & remain in use rather than being locked away as investments.

Am I right in saying the 996 Turbo used the old air cooled type bottom end? I wonder why that was? It's almost as if Porsche thought the standard block etc was a bit marginal....

[Ahonen]

Touring442 said:

Why is a late 993 worth three times as much as an early 996?

Last of the air-cooled cars, last of the original body, shortest production run of any 911 and, above all, the crazy way the market works. Now I'm not suggesting for a second that 996 prices are going to go insane like the 964 or 993 and I don't think they ever will, but always remember that 964s were hated and ultra cheap until relatively recently, while a friend of mine paid £18.5k for his 993 around six years ago - that wouldn't have been much more than 996s at the time.

I'm delighted uninformed people are so terrified of them because it means I and many like me have a bargain that we can happily use regularly without worrying about losing fistfuls of money.

[was8v]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Total fantasy.

Lets look on car parts 4 less:

1998 996 3.4
Sachs clutch kit £224
front coffin arm £70
front shock £214
radiator £77

1998 BMW M3
Luk clutch kit £179
front lower suspension arm £71
Front Shock absorber £175
Radiator £86

Lets choose a random genuine VW part:
2006 Mk6 golf front wheel bearing £156 inc vat from VW dealer
1999 Porsche 996 front wheel bearing £57 front or £72 rear +vat from OPC

Hardly a massive gulf in pricing, you win some you loose some. If you consider the labour SHOULD be the same then theres not much in it. If you are overpaying for labour then yeah its going to cost more.

If a desk driver like me can replace a 996 clutch, flywheel, brake pipes, inspect my IMS bearing and change out the AOS on my driveway in the snow without any major hurdles, then I hope to hell any time served mechanic with a lift can do it. It's just nuts and bolts.

My point about shared parts is there is a bigger aftermarket for parts shared with the boxster so much more choice, therefore prices are cheaper for aftermarket parts. E.g. aftermarket coffin arms and boxster specific rear arms are cheap, but 996 specific rear arms stay more expensive (or not available aftermarket) as the market size is smaller.

[blade7]

Danns said:

Long time lurker, My 135k miler 4s, have put 8k on since October, and every single mile has been with a smile on my face.

The hysteria and rhetoric that surrounds them is well, just plain odd in my experience.

Of course I’m biased, but I actually really like the headlights!

Dan

The turbo body is much better looking IMO, and I don't think it added a lot to the cost when new either. I'd consider owning an S, but the standard car looks dull in comparison.

[was8v]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I didn't cherry pick, I chose things I had personally replaced on my 996 and my golf because I have no imagination.

My experience is different to yours. You do realise that is OK don't you?

I've actually spent less per year running my 996 then I did a MK2 Golf GTI a good few years back. Thats my experience.

Readers of this drivel can make up their own minds what to believe I'm sure.

Edited by was8v on Wednesday 29th May 13:30

[TurboRob]

I run an e39 M5 and a 996.2 - they cost pretty much the same to run/service/maintain. The Porsche uses ~20% less fuel.

[was8v]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm very sorry if you took anything I wrote personally cmoose, it was never my intention for it to be taken so.

The "drivel" comment was in response to the tit for tat going on of no use to anyone as much of my own creation as anyone else's.

I merely contributed to this thread to give the value of my alternative experience - if I had only read posts like yours before buying my car I would be safely tucked up in a risk free leased 1.2 Fabia right now and would have missed out on running one of the greatest road cars ever made for about the same money.

Have a nice day sir, and enjoy your 996.

[ferrisbueller]

was8v said:

Total fantasy.

Lets look on car parts 4 less:

1998 996 3.4
Sachs clutch kit £224
front coffin arm £70
front shock £214
radiator £77

1998 BMW M3
Luk clutch kit £179
front lower suspension arm £71
Front Shock absorber £175
Radiator £86

Lets choose a random genuine VW part:
2006 Mk6 golf front wheel bearing £156 inc vat from VW dealer
1999 Porsche 996 front wheel bearing £57 front or £72 rear +vat from OPC

Hardly a massive gulf in pricing, you win some you loose some. If you consider the labour SHOULD be the same then theres not much in it. If you are overpaying for labour then yeah its going to cost more.

If a desk driver like me can replace a 996 clutch, flywheel, brake pipes, inspect my IMS bearing and change out the AOS on my driveway in the snow without any major hurdles, then I hope to hell any time served mechanic with a lift can do it. It's just nuts and bolts.

My point about shared parts is there is a bigger aftermarket for parts shared with the boxster so much more choice, therefore prices are cheaper for aftermarket parts. E.g. aftermarket coffin arms and boxster specific rear arms are cheap, but 996 specific rear arms stay more expensive (or not available aftermarket) as the market size is smaller.

Are there any databases with info about the durability of parts?

Maybe it's a function of design or perhaps materials but I certainly "feel" like something like the suspension on a 996 doesn't last as long as that on the BMW equivalent, be that E36 you chose, or the E46 which is probably a better comparitor. One off component costs don't seem massively different but running costs seem like they are.

The radiator example is also interesting as the 996 has more of them for various functions and they're in a relatively vulnerable position; something else which could skew running costs in terms of the frequency of replacement.

The logical argument to elevated running costs is offsetting those against zero depreciation, though I couldn't extend that branch of man maths to cover a 3.7 rebuild.