Any opinions on this car?????????????
Any opinions on this car?????????????
Author
Discussion

bridey0

Original Poster:

2,961 posts

215 months

Wozy68

5,436 posts

200 months

Monday 18th March 2013
quotequote all
bridey0 said:
Morning Bridey, hope your well.
Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole personally. 26K is cheap for a turbo ....... but its still 26K for a bitza of a car IMO.

bridey0

Original Poster:

2,961 posts

215 months

Monday 18th March 2013
quotequote all
Wozy68 said:
Morning Bridey, hope your well.
Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole personally. 26K is cheap for a turbo ....... but its still 26K for a bitza of a car IMO.
Hi Warren. Id noticed the rear lights didnt look standard nor the wheels

Wozy68

5,436 posts

200 months

Monday 18th March 2013
quotequote all
bridey0 said:
Hi Warren. Id noticed the rear lights didnt look standard nor the wheels
Eh? You do realise its has replacement 964 bodyparts, bumpers, lights etc? Originally it would have looked like a 3.2 with wider arches.

The 964 turbo was two years away when this one was built.

bridey0

Original Poster:

2,961 posts

215 months

Monday 18th March 2013
quotequote all
Wozy68 said:
Eh? You do realise its has replacement 964 bodyparts, bumpers, lights etc? Originally it would have looked like a 3.2 with wider arches.

The 964 turbo was two years away when this one was built.
yes have just realised....tks for heads up

Crimp a Length!

5,697 posts

253 months

Monday 18th March 2013
quotequote all
Awful.
Pay 30k and get a nice one.

mudy

874 posts

202 months

Monday 18th March 2013
quotequote all
I thought all 89s were 5 speed -ad says 4 speed which is odd

mollytherocker

14,465 posts

239 months

Monday 18th March 2013
quotequote all
mudy said:
I thought all 89s were 5 speed -ad says 4 speed which is odd
Its not odd at all. Whats odd is you finding it strange that there maybe some non original parts on this thing!

Who knows how and why it was 'created'.

I could guess though!!!

mudy

874 posts

202 months

Monday 18th March 2013
quotequote all
ha ha i guess you are right
Also lists the bhp as 231 - which is understating it by at least 69 and torque as 21 which is ... oh who cares!


Steviebeee

601 posts

213 months

Monday 18th March 2013
quotequote all
Love the reference to 2nd gear. I'll take it!!!

Some people just don't know how to put an ad together,

Wozy68

5,436 posts

200 months

Tuesday 19th March 2013
quotequote all
mudy said:
ha ha i guess you are right
Also lists the bhp as 231 - which is understating it by at least 69 and torque as 21 which is ... oh who cares!
Actually I'm quite interested, not in buying the thing, but just trying to work out what it once was. It's at times like this that you realise just how much or how little you know about the 911.

A total novice would most probs not realise that this is a bitza of a car, where most of us on here do, I'd be gutted for anyone saving up to spend 26K on this tub.

But what was it before? 1989 turbo, yet the power figures are wrong, the body panels are wrong, and didn't all turbos come with a sunroof and aircon for all markets?

I can't see a sunroof.

e21Mark

17,562 posts

203 months

Tuesday 19th March 2013
quotequote all
Might be a nice car? Might not. Hard to tell from such a poorly written advert. Were I looking to buy a 911 I would just move on to the next ad.

fredt

847 posts

177 months

Tuesday 19th March 2013
quotequote all
It used to be fashionable to 'update' Porsches to look like newer models, for a while it has been popular to backdate but now it seems most people prefer original looking cars. So the mods could be innocent.

Terrible advert though, what are some people thinking...?

DT398

1,947 posts

178 months

Tuesday 19th March 2013
quotequote all
"grandson forces sale" Surely not?