Looking to get an air cooled 911

[Gary C]

ASM993 said:

Gary C said:

I've got a 89 3.2 carrera fpsh with 28k on the clock and have been playing with the idea of swapping it for a 997 gt3. I was amazed at how much the gt3 felt like my carrera (much faster obviously) on the track and an old car is such a responsibility.


Humm what to do.

Put it in an auction and get a fortune for it! 28k miles is so low and if it were mine I'd feel that I would never want to add to that! maybe thats just me

Your right. I've had it 10 years and only put about 6k on it.

It's a crying shame as I want to drive it.

[E34-3.2]

I am a huge fan of the 964 and pre 74 cars, I found the best of both world in 3.2 Carrera. got a bit of the 2 cars.

[Steve Rance]

evodarren said:

Hi Steve
964,s do seem to be the best value for money. Early 911,s are fetching a fortune now.I guess thats why companys like Singer use the 964 platform to creat their backdate cars.

Singer use them as the base car mainly because they allow the car to be built on a modern chassis platform.

[BertBert]

Steve Rance said:

Upon reflection, I'd just advise you to look for a good air cooled car. Any air cooled car, but a good one.

That's advice that I wouldn't agree with. I agree with the 'get a good one' part of course. But there is a huge difference in driving from a SWB car to a 993, so it's def not what I would do. I haven't driven all models (by a long, long way) but some I've liked, some I've been indifferent to and some I've hated. I hated my 930 turbo (gone), love my 69T, was indifferent to my 993 (gone)! All personal choice of course, but they are different that's for sure.
Bert

[isaldiri]

Steve Rance said:

Singer use them as the base car mainly because they allow the car to be built on a modern chassis platform.

The 964 still has trailing arm rear suspension though compared to the 993 which was the first time the multi link was used? It's the 993 that I would have thought that is the 911 with the 'modern' platform. Always thought Singer intentionally used the 964 to keep the driving dynamics more similar to the older cars as they are aiming for the backdate look after all.

[Steve Rance]

BertBert said:

That's advice that I wouldn't agree with. I agree with the 'get a good one' part of course. But there is a huge difference in driving from a SWB car to a 993, so it's def not what I would do. I haven't driven all models (by a long, long way) but some I've liked, some I've been indifferent to and some I've hated. I hated my 930 turbo (gone), love my 69T, was indifferent to my 993 (gone)! All personal choice of course, but they are different that's for sure.
Bert

Yep. good point

[Steve Rance]

isaldiri said:

The 964 still has trailing arm rear suspension though compared to the 993 which was the first time the multi link was used? It's the 993 that I would have thought that is the 911 with the 'modern' platform. Always thought Singer intentionally used the 964 to keep the driving dynamics more similar to the older cars as they are aiming for the backdate look after all.

Yes, I think that the body shell of the 964 is a better retro 'fit' than the 993. i know that much is made of the multi link rear suspension of the 993. I have a 993 in a more extreme state of tune than my 964 and to be honest, there's very little in it once the 964 spring plates are changed to solid bushed units. They are both much the same at 10/10ths. Im no expert on Singers but i'd be surprised if they dont do the same thing. I'd certainly not be that bothered if a modded aircooled didnt have the 993 multi link rear end, as long as it had coil overs all round. Bert makes a good point though, they are all different.

if one of my air cooled cars had to go though, I think it would have to be the 993, and that really says a lot for the 964

[Yellow491]

The 964 trailing arm suspension is very differant to the earlier trailing arm suspension,especialy toe change under load.I would say the 964 gives better feedback than the 993,especially rsr versions,and im a big fan of the 993.
re singer the 964 inner wings etc are very similar if not the same dimensions as the earlier g series cars,unlike the 993 which is about 50 mm taller front and back.

Still dont get the singers,although the williams engine could be interesting to see and drive.

[Slippydiff]

Steve Rance said:

if one of my air cooled cars had to go though, I think it would have to be the 993, and that really says a lot for the 964

[SRT Hellcat]

Gary C said:

I've got a 89 3.2 carrera fpsh with 28k on the clock and have been playing with the idea of swapping it for a 997 gt3. I was amazed at how much the gt3 felt like my carrera (much faster obviously) on the track and an old car is such a responsibility.

Humm what to do.

Keep it and enjoy. It sounds like a very special car and you would never be able to replace it down the line.

[SRT Hellcat]

hondansx said:

Can I hijack and ask if there are any good books I should be buying to read up on the pre-73 cars?

I trawled the classifieds over the weekend and am left very confused. You can get ones called an S, or a T, or with a 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, some have a long hood, , some have an oil flap, some run on carbs etc. etc. Naturally of course, they are ALL amazing, super rare, and super special for some particular reason...according to the advert of course.

But as a result, they are ALL amazing, and yet spread from about £60k - £235k without looking particularly different.

So, appreciate I am naive here and want to walk in with eyes wide open. I know if a car doesn't have matching numbers (engine and 'box) then it should be worth less. However, some cars are restored and repainted and command huge money, whereas I thought a lack of originality would reduce, not increase!

I personally am not bothered about originality. I want a car that looks good and drives good. But I just want to make sure I don't pay over the odds for, when the dust settles or the financial market collapses, a £100k 911 doesn't become a £10,000 heap of junk overnight.

64 to 68 2.0 short wheel base.
in 69 Porsche lengthened the wheelbase.
2.0 1969
2.2 1970/1971
2.4 1972/1973 72 had oil flap on rear wing 73 did not.
Basically more power more torque.
L base model
E mid range
S top model
A rough guide would be £90K for an L, £130 for an E and £180 for an S.
Drive two exact same models and they will drive very different.
The 73 2.4S is my pick of that bunch but then I own a concourse car that drives beautifully.
That said for what I believe is sensible money a 3.2 Carrera Sport Coupe is the sweet spot.
Has all the old school charm for a lot less money.

[Yellow491]

As srt says,i would be scared of owning a t or e at these prices,even a top condition s could be on doggy ground if paying high end prices.The other point is chasing the rot!,need some one who really knows these cars,plenty of bodged expensive early cars around.A late 3.2 is probably best era to head to if sensible money,the 1989/late g50 has the best gearbox and clutch unless you realy have to have a early car.
Ddk forum is good with some very honest opinions and sometimes good cars for sale, a interesting excercise may be to go and look at a few restorers and see the work they are doing,especially on some real t bags that realy are either a resto from true love or insane expenditure.
Happy hunting.

SRT Hellcat said:

hondansx said:

Can I hijack and ask if there are any good books I should be buying to read up on the pre-73 cars?

I trawled the classifieds over the weekend and am left very confused. You can get ones called an S, or a T, or with a 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, some have a long hood, , some have an oil flap, some run on carbs etc. etc. Naturally of course, they are ALL amazing, super rare, and super special for some particular reason...according to the advert of course.

But as a result, they are ALL amazing, and yet spread from about £60k - £235k without looking particularly different.

So, appreciate I am naive here and want to walk in with eyes wide open. I know if a car doesn't have matching numbers (engine and 'box) then it should be worth less. However, some cars are restored and repainted and command huge money, whereas I thought a lack of originality would reduce, not increase!

I personally am not bothered about originality. I want a car that looks good and drives good. But I just want to make sure I don't pay over the odds for, when the dust settles or the financial market collapses, a £100k 911 doesn't become a £10,000 heap of junk overnight.

64 to 68 2.0 short wheel base.
in 69 Porsche lengthened the wheelbase.
2.0 1969
2.2 1970/1971
2.4 1972/1973 72 had oil flap on rear wing 73 did not.
Basically more power more torque.
L base model
E mid range
S top model
A rough guide would be £90K for an L, £130 for an E and £180 for an S.
Drive two exact same models and they will drive very different.
The 73 2.4S is my pick of that bunch but then I own a concourse car that drives beautifully.
That said for what I believe is sensible money a 3.2 Carrera Sport Coupe is the sweet spot.
Has all the old school charm for a lot less money.

[hondansx]

Thanks very much folks; appreciated.

Out of interest, how easy is it to heel and toe on the older cars? I found my 997 GT3 a delight; am kind of hoping I can get to a similar driving experience but at a slower speed.

[Yellow491]

Easy once you have adjusted the peddles to fit you.

[hot66]

hondansx said:

Thanks very much folks; appreciated.

Out of interest, how easy is it to heel and toe on the older cars? I found my 997 GT3 a delight; am kind of hoping I can get to a similar driving experience but at a slower speed.

as said before , all early cars drive different. Drive a 71 2.2T with 125bhp & it won't be a quick car ... fun to throw around but won't have that punch or revvyness

Where as , I have a high compression 73 2.4S , which has a fantastic high revving motor with almost 220 bhp .. pretty much as quick as my 964 , but delivers the power in a much more exciting way ( its 5500 - 7200 rpm where the fun happens ) .. flip side is the handling isn't on 964 levels, so after a good hard drive in the '73, I do tend to have a fair bit of adrenalin pumping ... and all this is at relatively slower speeds .. red lining in 4th gear is only a bit over 100mph ( on mine theoretical top in 5th is 140mph .. youd need balls of steel though with no rear spoiler )

Now, the beauty of the old cars is , they are easy to modify to your own specific taste .. something that was done all the time prior to them increasing in value so much ... these days people became scared to mod them as they obsess about values.

Personally, a LWB car with a small capacity high revving motor is a peach and one where you'll enjoy , and feel like you've worked for the pleasure of , every drive

Ive had this one now for 15years + .. nearly all other cars have come & gone , the only other Porsche that is looking likely to be a keeper is my 964, but that will need a few more mods to make it the perfect companion to the '73

Witton by hot 66, on Flickr

Edited by hot66 on Tuesday 5th December 12:28

[isaldiri]

Steve Rance said:

Yes, I think that the body shell of the 964 is a better retro 'fit' than the 993. i know that much is made of the multi link rear suspension of the 993. I have a 993 in a more extreme state of tune than my 964 and to be honest, there's very little in it once the 964 spring plates are changed to solid bushed units. They are both much the same at 10/10ths. Im no expert on Singers but i'd be surprised if they dont do the same thing. I'd certainly not be that bothered if a modded aircooled didnt have the 993 multi link rear end, as long as it had coil overs all round. Bert makes a good point though, they are all different.

if one of my air cooled cars had to go though, I think it would have to be the 993, and that really says a lot for the 964

Interesting that cheers. I'd always hankered after a good 993 (pretty much the only air cooled car I wanted but in RS ie lighter weight form) I have to say over a 964 especially with what I had thought were better dynamics.

[SRT Hellcat]

As hot66 says. They are a blast to drive. On its 70 aspect tyres they move around a bit. But you have a huge grin on your face at sensible speed. 4th to 5th is not much over 100mph. I think flat they were 146mph. Mine is without sunroof or electric windows. Just the way I wanted it. Weighs just over 1000kg.

[evodarren]

If i got a 964 Carrea 2 and spent some money modifing it, would it be fun enough to replace my 997.1 Gt3. Can you get the performance upgraded so its simular. Obviously the 964 will be lighter.

[Geneve]

evodarren said:

If i got a 964 Carrea 2 and spent some money modifing it, would it be fun enough to replace my 997.1 Gt3. Can you get the performance upgraded so its simular. Obviously the 964 will be lighter.

No, not in my opinion. If you try to compare any of the aircooled 911s with the contemporary models you are likely to be disappointed.

And I say that having had 11 aircooled Porsches (6 bought brand new and used as my only everyday transport in London), plus several collectables. I love them dearly, they are part of the golden era of Porsche history, the best ones are truly rewarding and so intimate to drive, and I would always want one in my garage - but alongside a modern variant..

Not everyone 'gets' the aircooled 911s, and many go that route only to be disappointed because they have been brought up only ever understanding the latest water-cooled iterations. It's not really about the performance of the car, it's to do with the interaction between the driver, the car and the road.

And, it's impossible to say which is the best aircooled. The 'best' examples I ever drove were all standard 993 C4 6-spd Varioram Coupes, but a 2.2'S' is probably more fun on the right day on the right road. And, yes, a 3.2 G50 or a 964 C2 certainly hit a lot of sweet spots.

Of course there's the 'modifieds', but that's an endless road.........

[Yellow491]

Its possible,but well modifeid and a big budget to make it as fast as a late gt3,then better fun than a gt3.