http://carbuying.jalopnik.com/how-to-own-a-ridiculously-cheap-and-reliable-porsche-91-1668638286/1668941033/+pgeorge
What is the boards opinion on this? I can't shake the idea of how awesome an affordable Porsceh would be. They acknowledge the IMS failure, and say that you can take action to make sure it doesn't happen--cost is about $1k to $2k, depending on if you do the work yourself. Realistic? Are they missing something here?
They aren't other than the fact that the percentage of cars affected isn't as high as the Internet yelling suggests, ie it's not 110%. There are some other known issues (RMS for example) and the general upkeep isn't that cheap, but they are reasonably DIYable.
Entry cost is lower then aircooled 911s, but pre 993 cars still carry the lowest cost of ownership after initial buy in.
I've seen this statement a few times, but I'm not so sure - I used to own a C3.2 and that wasn't exactly a cheap car to own and run either. I haven't got that much data to compare it to the 996 yet as I haven't had it that long. The verdict so far is that both ain't cheap to run.
Pre-964 are also BY FAR easier to work on.
jsquared wrote: Pre-964 are also BY FAR easier to work on.
But, expensive and getting more so. The 996's status as a red-headed stepchild with internet-exaggerated issues makes them cheap. They are also considerably more modern and faster than their forebears. In other words, they are in the GRM sweet spot right now, IMO.
As with any car near the bottom of its depreciation curve, you have to be careful about what you're buying. There are a lot of cheap cars with hack job repairs out there, and a lot of well cared for cars that will give you miles of trouble-free use.
The 996 has a great community with lots of DIY information available. Good independent Porsche mechanics aren't that hard to find, and they're 25-50% cheaper than a dealer for labor. Parts can be pricey, but if you can use Google, you can find decent deals.
Doug's article is a little gloom and doom for the non-turbo cars, which is a shame. My car has been great - yes, I've had to replace some parts, but it hasn't emptied my wallet yet. If you're genuinely interested in buying one, do some research. They're great cars, my whole family fits in mine, and we all love it.
Wow. The prices on these change everything.
If anyone is shopping for a 996, I do have a friend trying to sell one. 1999 with a freshly installed factory reman engine (with IMS fix) and a recent PPI.
Not a Porsche guy...what 996 models have the best performance as a convertible?
I was talking to a guy who owns a major independent Porsche shop. When I asked him if a Cayman would make a reliable, three season daily driver, he said, "I don't make any money fixing water cooled cars."
If I didn't own one 911 already I would absolutely be shopping for a 996. I think they're a bargain as long as you go in with your eyes open to the real costs of ownership and you're a little bit adventerous with DIY.
When I get a good paying job, I could consider them.
mightymike wrote: Not a Porsche guy...what 996 models have the best performance as a convertible?
Best performance? Hands down, 996 turbo convertible. It's also more than twice as expensive as the rest of the bunch 
.
The N/A convertibles are slightly heavier and are slower - they're only a 170mph daily driver as opposed to a 175mph daily driver C2 (RWD) coupe. If you can live with only 300bhp, I'd look for a 2002-on (so you get the 3.6L) RWD manual car. A lot of convertibles out here are C4 AWD ones, they're not quite as sharp as the C2 ones, but the difference is relatively minor if you don't Auto-X or track it. And I wouldn't buy a convertible for that.
There isn't that much scope for squeezing more power out of the N/A engines, so if you want absolutely bonkers performance and have a need for speeding tickets big enough to pay off your local municipality's debt with one check, a 996 turbo convertible is the way to go. Talk to the right people and you're looking at 650-700 bhp for not that big a hole in your wallet. Well, notthatbigahole by Porsche standards. So yeah, it'll be a big hole, similar in size to the one a GT-R tuned to that level would leave.
Woody wrote: I was talking to a guy who owns a major independent Porsche shop. When I asked him if a Cayman would make a reliable, three season daily driver, he said, "I don't make any money fixing water cooled cars."
I see a lot of pristine Caymans on the List of Craig's for low-20s.
mazdeuce wrote: If I didn't own one 911 already I would absolutely be shopping for a 996. I think they're a bargain as long as you go in with your eyes open to the real costs of ownership and you're a little bit adventerous with DIY.
... which sums up the main buying tips for every 911 since the original 1965 901 .
They're not cheap to run compared to a 1981 Civic CVCC, but they're cheap to run compared to their peers like the prancy horsies.
996 money also nets you an E46 M3. One is an unloved stepchild. One is hailed as the last great one.
Either are terrific in my opinion.
There are a lot of great cars falling into that range.
Corvette Z06, Vipers, M3, Shoot...I just drove a 2008 cayman s with 20K miles that I could have bought for 31K.
Lot of great choices for the price of a new accord.
You'll need to log in to post.
