I don't get it - what's so good about 911s?

Who would have thought people complain about old 911's because its not engeneered to understeer, like every modern car.

For those looking for an SC. Saw that on Pelican today. Seems like it could be worth a look for $13.5k. No affiliation, just sharing.

Well, first of all 911s aren't as expensive as people make them out to be. A 911 SC is arguably the best of the breed and the nicest stock driver in the world shouldn't cost you much more than $15K. I recently sold a solid '86 Carerra for just under $12K.

Everybody has pretty much nailed the pros and cons here. 911s look great and are a blast to drive fast. Nothing else feels quite like it. As an actual car, the controls and feel is still of a '60s car rather than an '80s car (which stands to reason). The ac, heat, defrost etc. all just plain sucked. The engine, steering, and brakes were great. The transmission was miserable, like a broomstick in a box of gravel. This improved on '87 and newer cars, but it never got good. The engines last forever, but you can easily spend yourself into the poorhouse chasing numerous inevitable oil leaks.

My biggest problem was that I owned an '86 944 at the same time as my '86 911. After alternating the two cars on a regular basis for six months, I came to the conclusion that the 944 was 90% as much car as the 911 for about 25% of the price. I also found that I don't drive at 9/10 very much. As it turns out, in my middle age, I worry too much about hitting the runners, cyclists, deer and such that regularly travel the same back roads that I do. In the 911, I battled the heaving steering, heavy clutch, and balky transmission until the car came alive once I really pushed it hard (which I rarely did). Alternatively, the 944 feels great puttering along, moving through the curves at a nice clip, or blasting full out.

I would still buy another 911 at the right price, but probably mainly as a track day car.

Otto_Maddox wrote: In the 911, I battled the heaving steering, heavy clutch, and balky transmission until the car came alive once I really pushed it hard (which I rarely did).

Heavy steering? None of mine had heavy steering. In fact, they all had almost too-light steering, due to no weight on the front of he car. of course, the newest one was a '74, so that may have had something to do with it...

Well, the stock wheels and tires got a little wider and stickier between '74 and '86. On my car, the heavy steering was at parking lot and city traffic speeds. It did get a tad light once I was really flying, but that didn't really bother me too much.

Some people will never understand the early 911's- Until they drive one like it should be driven. Examples:

Patrick Long enjoyed driving my car in a race with me- He said it was more fun than the RS Spyder which is point and shoot. http://www.vimeo.com/1009974

My old car hanging with new cars with huge wings and slicks (my car has 225/50R15's and no aerodynamic aids) -These cars never get old. http://www.vimeo.com/5066769

If you have problems viewing the videos- try upgrading your Adobe flashplayer.

Otto_Maddox wrote: Well, the stock wheels and tires got a little wider and stickier between '74 and '86. On my car, the heavy steering was at parking lot and city traffic speeds. It did get a tad light once I was really flying, but that didn't really bother me too much.

Ah. My '69 used the staggered cookie cutters off the later cars, and the '74 had wider BFG autocross tires. Even the 912 had the 7" wide Fuchs with Pirelli autocross tires (that car was interesting. Slower than a diesel Chevette in a straight line, but outhandled even modded 911s and Corvettes on the track).

My father in law has a 912 race car. I think the biggest tire size he can run in vintage racing is a 205/50/15. Even with a full on race engine, gutted interior, plastic windows, etc. he has trouble keeping up with plain old 944s. In his defense, his car looks a lot better and he is probably having more fun.

Mine was a regional autocross champion when Greg Fordahl had it. Had pretty much every Weltmeister part in the Automotion catalog at the time. ;) Extremely well balanced car, but took forever to get up to speed.

Cotton wrote: Here's mine. 85 Carrera Targa with 69k miles. Only modifications are a GHL exhaust and lowering to euro spec ride height.

Proof that, despite what some people say, the Targas can look darn sexy.

M030 wrote: Back to the topic of 911s spinning... I loved my 911. However, I'm far faster in my Boxster. I think I'm faster in the Boxster than I was in the 911 because of my own fear of spinning that shiny little über-Beetle as opposed to anything the car actually did wrong. My acute awareness of the 911's reputation always held me back from pushing it harder than maybe 7/10ths. I'm sure that, given enough high-speed seat time, I could have been just a fast in the 911 as in the Boxster - I did learn to drive in properly-evil rear-engined Beetle...and I badly want another 911!

Dang. I'm sure the magazine had an article in the last few months with tips on how to hustle a 911 around by Patrick Long (Flying Lizards ALMS GT2 team), but I just can't remember which issue it's in.

Can you do open track days with a targa, or will it require a roll bar like a convertible? I guess the corvette is legal, but I am not sure about the targa 911.

The targa bar is a roll bar?

The only reason why I don't already have a Porsche (particularly a 911) is because every time I have to lay down my cash, there's always a better performance car bargain to be found.

Let's imagine for a minute that I had $12,000 cash to buy a fun new car for daily driving and autocrossing. After a quick look on autotrader, my shopping list might look like this:

1982 911, 1988 E30 M3, 1994 FD RX-7, 1999 E36 M3, 2002 S2000, 2004 Mazdaspeed Miata

Other than prestige, what does the 911 have over the other cars on the list? With choices like these, the chances that I'd pick the Porsche is pretty dang slim.

nderwater wrote: The only reason why I don't already have a Porsche (particularly a 911) is because every time I have to lay down my cash, there's always a better performance car bargain to be found. Other than prestige, what does the 911 have over the other cars on the list? With choices like these, the chances that I'd pick the Porsche is pretty dang slim.

Simply put, if you buy by the numbers, there's ALWAYS a faster/better handling car available somewhere. Just like when you go to the track, there's almost always gonna be someone faster.

But the difference is in the experience. A good steak dinner is worth the money, even if there are other dinners that might fill you up more, or cost less, or taste as good, whatever. All of the cars on your list are good cars, but none or the same as each other to drive.

The e36 M3 is a fantastic car as is the e30 M3. Both have better AC than the 911 and are probably faster. But, in my neck of the woods, there are bimmers around every corner. Still not so many 911s though and the ones I do see are really clean.

Plavan wrote: Some people will never understand the early 911's- Until they drive one like it should be driven. Examples: Patrick Long enjoyed driving my car in a race with me- He said it was more fun than the RS Spyder which is point and shoot. http://www.vimeo.com/1009974

WOW! Look at Patrick's hands on the wheel in this one! Man, that looks like fun! Thanks for the links, Plavan-that was great!

Don't get my wrong - I really like 911's. But in my garage are an E36 M3 and turbo Miata which are quick, handle exceptionally well, and cost far less than any model year 911 which could match their performance.

One thing that I believe is often forgotten is that the 911's are well on their way to becoming (already are?) classics, and I very much believe that they are generally (air-cooled cars) at the bottom of the depreciation curve.

You can't say that about an S2000. For example.

Finally, a 911, regardless of performance numbers, is timeless. I'll own one....someday.

I bought my 911 knowing full well that other cars were better performers and better values. I just knew I had to own one at some point in my life. Now I've been there and done that, and I am back to looking for a little more value out of my next car purchase. An E36 M3, 300ZX TT, or an S2000 might be a better fit for me.

Otto - what made you choose air cooled over water cooled?

Well, I didn't rally choose air over water as I owned a 944 concurrently with the 911. Looking back, I'd have neither. Instead I'd buy a 944 turbo - faster, cheaper and a better all around car than a contemporary 911. Come to think of it, I still might do that.

Otto_Maddox wrote: Well, I didn't rally choose air over water as I owned a 944 concurrently with the 911. Looking back, I'd have neither. Instead I'd buy a 944 turbo - faster, cheaper and a better all around car than a contemporary 911. Come to think of it, I still might do that.

I own a 85 911 and 87 944 Turbo and they are so different I really have a hard time comparing them. I enjoy both for different reasons and definitely wouldn't replace one with the other. The 951 is faster and the buy in is cheaper, but it is also more complicated. Also the 911 is much easier to work on in most cases. The 951 makes a better DD, but the 911 has more charactor. I really really like both of them.

I wonder how much of the spinning out was due to drivers not performing a good pre drive inspection. The issues with the corvair spinning was due to people having a habit of putting the same pressure on all four tires, could that have been the same issue with the 911? Some one correct me if I'm wrong.

6 pages to debate the merits of driving one of the most successful race cars ever built? Those who don't get it, have not done it! :)