so potentially, what are the problems with this?

[minimax]

Hi to the pork section of PH, I've come marauding from the Ginetta forum because I fancy another toy and while googling I came up with
this

(it's the 5th advert down btw)

...so, why so cheap? do they handle reasonably? how fast? are they reliable? servicing costs? and as it's so important, why is it so cheap!

thanks in anticipation

[uktrucks]

Probably inexpensive because:

It's 26 yrs old
It's RED
It's a Targa
It's an SC

Not that fast, not that startling on handling, not cheap to run if it's neglected.

I love Porsche but to a newbie I would always recommend a Carrera 3.2 of 1983 onwards as a 1st 911

Just my 2p worth

Allan

[williamp]

Very difficult to answer as I dont know the cra persoanlly, but its not the only car at a similar price.

Noramlly for that price they have rust (yes they are galvanised, but...) which costs a lot to repair. The engine will probably need a rebuild, at a great deal of money. There might be accident damage, and to top it all the late 70s/ early 80s 911's arent that fast- some only have 170bhp, which isnt really enough to be called a sports car these days. And in those days they really dont handle too well. Fine if you know what you are doing, but if you dont then..

Of course for the price, yuo could get a great condition 944, which is exactly what I did.

[rubystone]

errrr.....no SCs only had 170 bhp - the earliest had 177, this one is almost certainly a 188bhp model.

The killer on these is rot in the tub, door shuts are a good indication of just how bad it is, as are crunchy sills (push your thumb down on the ribbed plastic sill cover and see whether you feel the telltale crunch of rust blisters). Any rot around the headlights or rear lights points to holes in those panels, but this can be lived with as it's not structural.

Targas don't have the structural integrity that Coupes do and it wasn't until 1981 IIRC that Porsche stiffened the tub up on the targa ready for the cabriolet version in 1983. Consequently the seams in the shell are more susceptible to rot and you can't easily spot this.

But if the rot is cosmetic, the gearbox doesn't crunch in 3rd 4th or 5th and the engine isn't leaking tons of oil or wheezing like John Prescott climbing stairs and the heat exchangers aren't puffing exhaust gas into the car or through the rot holes you discovered in the sills, the car may be a good 'un.

Simply put, take someone who knows these cars along with you or get it inspected. Short cut to this may be to check the body out, and call the company who last serviced it (not worth it if it was last serviced in 1985 of course...)

[minimax]

got it, thanks for your help I'm going to investigate it further...will report back

[aceparts_com]

My Brother has recently purchased a similar car. He let me drive it

Conclusion: Not as fast, stable or fun as my g/f's clio 1.2.

Prettier to look at though

[aceparts_com]

My Brother has recently purchased a similar car. He let me drive it

Conclusion: Not as fast, stable or fun as my g/f's clio 1.2.

Prettier to look at though

[williamp]

rubystone said:

errrr.....no SCs only had 170 bhp - the earliest had 177, this one is almost certainly a 188bhp model.

When new. I wonder what the real figure is for a high mileage engine which has'nt had a rebuild

[rubystone]

Listen, you don't buy a 911 of this vintage for its outright performance. I bought a 3.2 cab last summer purely for the fun factor and the pleasure one gets in driving a 911 - the sound of the engine, the feel of solidity and in the recent bad weather the feel the front gives for the grip available given the prevailing conditions.

I own a Caterham for going fast in