964 vs 3.2

[abidchowdhury]

I was hoping someone who has owned both a 3.2 and a 964 could comment on which they prefered. How did they compare in terms of driveability, running costs, ownership etc.

I have previously owned a 3.2 which I loved. However my replacement will hopefully see a little more everday use so I am often tempted by something slightly more refined.

Having done a search on the forum most people who have moved on to a 964 seem to prefer it. Any comments?

Abid

 

[plhorner]

Hi Abid,
IMHO, if I was going to go the modern route I would personally forget the 964 and go straight for the 993! The servicing costs of the 993 are dramitically cheaper, they're a nicer car to drive and dare I say it, a whole lot better looking when compared to a std 964.

Cheers,

 

[Andy Tims]

Spot on Phil

 

[plhorner]

I was just waiting in the corner for the thunder bolt and lightening flash from the 964 members!![]

 

[carreraboy]

ORIGINAL: plhorner

I was just waiting in the corner for the thunder bolt and lightening flash from the 964 members!![]

THUNDERBOLT DES is here........!​

​

​

I have owned numerous 3.2 in various states of tune although you can never squeeze much more than a few extra horses unless you spend a fortune, however great first 911 well made fairly cheap to run and even rough ones will give good service and should never lose money try and buy a Sport Equipment Coupe every bit as good as the more (why?) CS about 15K will get you something really top RHD and should not lose money that is the safe route and check for the oil leaks as any 911 new or old..​

​

The daring route is a 964 a non maintained car will cost £££ you have to be more selective but the reward is finding the right one you would not go back to a 3.2.torque power roadholding and looks the best 911 ever imho....I really tried hard to fall in love with my 993 and despite a few dates and late nights we never did get it on and went back to my 964.......suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder....so for saferty buy a really good 3.2..unless you get a good 964 more difficult........993 lovely....but personally nice rear but not tits...........​

 

[Yoda]

I'll add a different perspective ............ no bolts of lightening though. I had a '87 3.2 for 4 years, have had my 964 RS for 18 months and my brother has had his 993 2S for a couple of years which is what I am basing my comments on.

I would say before you get into which model, think carefully what you want to use the car for. I think the later the car, the more user friendly they are and the better everyday prospect. Also think about your budget - I would have an excellent example of any rather than a average example of an newer car.

All are good ownership prospects and I think this really depends on how good an example you find. I loved my 3.2, used it daily and found it remarkably easy to live with. It cost very little to run outside of routine servicing and consumables - parts are much cheaper than either the 964 or 993. It has a classic car feel which is great but has a few quirks which I loved . It isn't as quick as a 964 or 993 but I don't think it needs to be - fun to drive at any speed and possibly the best looking of the three.

The 964 is actually a very good car and a great prospect if you buy well. Ihave been very pleasantly surprised at how good it is to drive and after having done over 5000 miles in a std 964 and 993 I think the difference in the drive is smaller than some people might think but can be substantially cheaper to buy. I would agree that servicing is more expensive than a 993 and a 3.2 but overall the running costs have been very low. My car has certainly been cheaper to maintain than my brothers 993, parts are cheaper and as mine is an RS I think there is less to go wrong. It is an awesome car to drive and really vary fast for something that is 15 years old. I looked at some 3.2s when I replaced my Boxster and getting out of a 964 and into a 3.2 the performance difference was quite large ... like getting off a race horse and on to a donkey!!

993s are great cars and deserve all the praise they get. Great to drive, look at but not as cheap to run as some people think from my experience. It is nice that they retain many of the nice features of older 911s in terms of looks, dimensions and feel but you pay quite a big premium for this.

I would rank the cars as follows (best to worst):

Running costs inc depreciation: 3.2 - 964 - 993
Performance: 993 - 964 - 3.2
Ownership: 3.2 - 964 - 993 (I love the classic feel)
Driveability: 993/964 - 3.2
Looks: are subjective - I prefer the upright headlights of the 3.2 and 964 and everytime I see the hunkered down 964 RS it puts a big grin on my face.

I would buy a good example of a 3.2 over a poor 964 any day. If you can stretch to a well cared for late model 964 (probably not that much of a stretch) then I think it is a bit of a bargain due to the reputation for running costs.

Just my thoughts but drive them and see for yourself.

 

[Guest]

Great comments Yoda, thanks.

I have a 3.2 currently (which I love) but am often wondering about a 964. I am interested by your comments about the performance of 964 vs. 3.2, but I still think personally I would miss the driving feel.

Where does the 3.2 loose out to the 964 in performance? Do you think it is better handling allowing you to carry greater speed into/out of corners, or is it just greater torque & power that does it?

Cheers,

 

[Guest]

Who can honestly say, in day to day driving, on normal roads, that they've thought to themselves "I wish my 3.2 had more oomph!" They are plenty quick enough for the roads and their rawness adds an element of fun which you just don't get with a fast modern car - these just create frustration because you can't go as fast as you want to.

Up until recently, I was using my 3.2 daily and extensively and it is always a pleasure to drive - frankly if you're after a nice comfy drive I'd avoid a 911 altogether. And in terms of the 964's drivability over a 3.2, it is a little more refined but it's certainly no quantum leap.

I would say that, unless you have £18-20k to spend on a really nice and very late 964, you should go for the 3.2 every time. And even with £18-20k you might still be better off spending the money on something special in the 3.2 range.

 

[Guest]

I think Yoda is pretty much spot-on, so I am not going to repeat what he said.

My only point of difference is that the raw performance numbers do not tell a story of a 964 being much faster than a 3.2 at all. There is only 20hp difference and a 964 is much heavier, especially the C4. The best quoted 0-60mph numbers are nearly identical and even the top end is only 10mph difference despite the 964s much better aero package. Over many, many trackdays, I have never had a problem hanging on the back of 964s even on long straights like Bedford. The one key difference IMHO in the 964 is the extra low rpm torque. Standard 3.2s simply don't come alive until 4000rpm and the gearing is not perfect for keeping them in that power band unless you push the redline on every upshift. Please also note that Yoda's 964 RS has been dynoed at 300hp so perhaps he is spoilt[].

My own time in a 964 has been mainly in the C4 variety and it never felt particularly fast over 7 days of driving. It did however feel heavy.

For the record, I do not agree with Des's assertion that you cannot get more than a few extra horses from a 3.2 without spending a fortune. If you are budgetting to do a top-end within the first few years of ownership (which I think is prudent), then very little extra money is needed to find 30-40 dyno proven hp.

Despite all the above, my impression from driving a fair few of these cars, is that you will be surprised just how similarly they all drive.

BTW, there is plenty of info out there on costs of ownership and maintenance issues with the various models - have a look on Pelican and Rennlist and John Miles website may have some useful info www.porsche964.co.uk.

 

[Jamie Summers]

I'll add my 2p's worth having had a '89 3.2 for two years then upgraded to a '90 964 C2 which I've had for 18 months. I would echo what others have said about making your choice based on your likely use. Sure there is less to go wrong with a 3.2, but if you will use the car as a daily driver and regularly sit in traffic then I would go for a good late 964. The power steering, bigger brakes, ABS, traction control (of sorts on the C4) and much better heating system just make it a better overall proposition for regular use. That said I used my 3.2 as my only car and it sat on-street in central London for 2 years, often left unused for 2 weeks at a time and only let me down once thanks to a dead alternator (and even then I managed to limp it to JZ Machtech). The 3.2 perhaps feels a bit more 'special' in a classic car sort of way, but personally I really like the looks of a nicely lowered and well sorted 964. Real world perfromance is fairly similar, though perhaps the 964's performance is more accessible due to much of what I mentioned above. As I'm sure you're aware most of the 'issues' with any 964 you will buy today will have been sorted, so don't be put off by that. The 993 is undeniably a very good package, but you need to decide whether it is good enough to justify a £10,000 price differential for a good example. Worth keeping in mind is that whilst 3.2 and 964 prices are pretty stable at the moment I think the 993 still has a little more depreciating to do, though I suspect it will always attract a premium over the 964.
I upgraded to a 964 as I thought it represented an easier platform to modify into a track toy, which I'm convinced is true (not that the 3.2 isn't very capable), and I felt that my 3.2 was a sufficiently good example not to 'mess around' too much with. Clearly if track use is not one of your considerations then this is not relevant.
So in short, no there's not a huge amount of difference between the two, but IMHO there is enough to justify picking a good 964 over a good 3.2 if you intend it to be a daily driver from a pure ease of use point of view. Though cost of ownership certainly is higher for the 964 even assuming the 964 requires no major work.

Jamie

 

[abidchowdhury]

Thank you for the replies - some really useful information.

I have to say as much as I like the 993 its well out of my budget. Performance differences between the 3.2 and 964 also aren't a problem for me. The 3.2 is plenty quick enough.... for the time being.

The issue is do I spend a little extra buying a car which feels more modern and has a few driver aids as I may be using the car daily. I guess I 'll have to drive the 964 to see if the difference justifies the price and running costs. However my budget of maximum £15k may not get me a a really nice 964 which is a problem.
I've even occasionally thought about a Boxster - something I thought I'd never do! Any thoughts there?!

Personally I am leaning towards another 3.2. I do love the classic feel and think its the best looking 911. Its a car I also know fairly well.

 

[Yoda]

Hi Simon. I think the most noticeable difference is torque, my car is quite quick but I have driven across Europe in a std 964 C2 and what made it feel great was the power delivery. It would be interesting to see what the stats show but I would guess that the in-gear acceleration would be better than a 3.2 despite the weight penalty. Driving more quickly (road or track) the suspension and brakes are also more confidence inspiring and allow for more speed, especially through long fast sweepers. It feels more user friendly but you give up some of the charm of driving a car that feels like a classic and there is always the danger of getting in trouble for speeding.

The 964 rides a little better than a 3.2 also (especially on 16 inch wheels) and I felt much more comfortable pushing on when the roads were less than perfect - this is probably my least favourite aspect about the RS which is quite stiff. It made sense for me as I wanted to do some track days and has proven preety good from a depreciation (or lack of it) point of view which was important for me.

Like I said, try and drive a few and see if they are what you are looking for.

 

[Andy Tims]

ORIGINAL: abidchowdhury

I've even occasionally thought about a Boxster - something I thought I'd never do! Any thoughts there?!

Try a Boxster - if your not after huge peformance & not focussed on track days you may be pleasantly surprised. Good time of year to buy one too.

 

[Yoda]

Tim is right, only 2 seats and not as focused a car but you would only really notice on track days. I had a Boxster S for 18 months and really liked it - fast, fun, practical and good for the odd track day. I got so much more use out of it than my current car. It was only because my road miles decreased and my track miles became more important to me that I changed.

Prices for Boxsters are also very good, you can pick up a nice 2001 S for around the GBP20k mark.

 

[RichardLW]

As its all personal opinions, I would only say that of all the cars I've owned - Alfasud/Beetles/Type 3/Quattro/Scirocco/Corrado/Golf GTi/Citroen GS/Audi 80 Sport/Passat/Fiat Uno/Mk 1 Escort/Carrera 3.2/944 Turbo/964 C4 - without a doubt the only one I was happy to get rid of was the 3.2 which was the worst car I ever owned. It was like driving something out of the ark - even the Escort was more modern and reliable. (and it was 15 years old then).

Don't buy a girls car - buy a proper car. Get a 964. You know it makes sense.

 

[porkersc]

I think there is a back to back comparison of the two cars in the next Total 911 magazine. Featuring my 3.2. Fame at last[]

 

[abidchowdhury]

The comparison in Total 911 should be interesting and useful. Nicely timed too []

Richard - surprised you didn't enjoy the 3.2! It's not modern but reliability never seems to be an issue.

 

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: RichardLW

As its all personal opinions, I would only say that of all the cars I've owned - Alfasud/Beetles/Type 3/Quattro/Scirocco/Corrado/Golf GTi/Citroen GS/Audi 80 Sport/Passat/Fiat Uno/Mk 1 Escort/Carrera 3.2/944 Turbo/964 C4 - without a doubt the only one I was happy to get rid of was the 3.2 which was the worst car I ever owned. It was like driving something out of the ark - even the Escort was more modern and reliable. (and it was 15 years old then).

Don't buy a girls car - buy a proper car. Get a 964. You know it makes sense.

Comes on the 3.2 Forum and says something like that...........PRAT!!!

 

[porkersc]

Totally agree Ian. Girls car.....He's the one who has got the power steering[]

 

[Guest]

Bloody right! PAS, ABS cuddly suspension etc.

But not really the point....we've all been quite civilised about 964s, even though we could have been downright hateful - and then he comes on and says that!