964 vs 3.2
- Thread starter abidchowdhury
- Start date
RichardLW
New member
The girls car comment was referring to the second post which suggested a 993.
I would call a 3.2 many things but not a girls car.......................................but the 3.2 I owned (and it wasn't a bad one by any means) really was the worst car I ever owned. It didn't have the joke electrics of the Alfasud or the nastiness of the GS, the slowness of the Beetles or the sheer quirkiness of the VW Type 3, but it just wasn't a great place to be.
Sorry people but I would still have a 964 over any of the aircooled cars before or after. As a daily driver, its perfect and if you can't afford the servicing you shouldn't have one in the first place.
I would call a 3.2 many things but not a girls car.......................................but the 3.2 I owned (and it wasn't a bad one by any means) really was the worst car I ever owned. It didn't have the joke electrics of the Alfasud or the nastiness of the GS, the slowness of the Beetles or the sheer quirkiness of the VW Type 3, but it just wasn't a great place to be.
Sorry people but I would still have a 964 over any of the aircooled cars before or after. As a daily driver, its perfect and if you can't afford the servicing you shouldn't have one in the first place.
Guest
New member
I really don't understand your comments. Hello!! they are both 911s. How can a 3.2 be the worst car in the world and a 964 be the best? They just are not all that different to drive (or to own). Think about it for a second, air-cooled flat sixes of similar hp and weight behind the rear wheels, very similar chasis apart from the springing mechanism, virtually identical interior but for the heating controls. The biggest differences I can think of are power steer and ABS - but you don't mention them.
Feel free to contribute[
], but how about saying something useful rather than just slamming 3.2s (on the 3.2 forum). Tell us what you really didn't like about your 3.2, or now that you have shot your mouth off, are you a little scared to go into details?!? Can you back up your comments with some facts? We are all big boys here, we can handle alternative opinions - but be prepared to defend them[]You are way out there on a limb compared to most people who have driven/owned both 3.2s and 964s. Perhaps you just trying to provoke a reaction?
Guest
New member
This is pinched from performance2and4.co.uk:
[FONT=verdana, arial"]Driving impressions of a Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2.
I have driven hundreds of 911 3.2 and , one thing is certain. They all vary. I often read that you should buy one model or the other, but in my experience individual cars can vary so much that its unfair to say that one year is better than another.
Simply by the passage of time, use and maintenance each 911 will feel and perform differently.
These are fast becoming 'classic' cars - and rightly so. Yet this is a car that with a little bit of sympathy, one can use and enjoy daily.
Even though I drive all types and ages of modern 911, I still really enjoy a decent cross country drive in a 3.2. In no way is the performance and abilities of this car any embarrassment in today's use.
You can feel the build quality as soon as you step into the cabin. Although the sparse facia, floor hinged pedals may seem strange compared to a modern car, after a few hours behind the wheel it will all start to slot into place.
Below picture of a beautiful 1989 Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2 Sport Coupe that I drove 2200km in three days from Portugal to the UK in November 2002. And I got paid to do it!
These are not cars that you can simply jump in and tear around like in some modern hot hatch. It takes a good while to begin to understand how to make the most of their abilities, how to maximise the performance and how very good these cars are at covering the miles.
Compared to a modern sports car they feel remarkably comfortable on the road. This is largely due to the smaller wheels, with taller tyres and more compliant suspension than later 911.
Turn the ignition key and it is immediately obvious that this is a 'proper' 911. Because it is air cooled (no water jacket to deaden sound) you hear this glorious, special, metallic noise coming from behind that's unmistakeably Porsche.
The earlier models (1984 to 1986) all had a 915 type gearbox with reverse beneath 5th gear. There is no 'spring loading' to help ascertain between the 1st 2nd gear plane and the 3rd 4th gear so until you have a few miles under your belt the gearshift may seem a little uncertain. But persevere, take time with your shift, be positive. You must not rush through the gears, but keep gentle pressure on the lever until it snicks in place - hard to explain but easy with practise.
Later cars (1987 model to 1989) had an altogether easier to use gearbox (G50) type) with reverse beside 5th [actually beside 1st - RB]. The benefit is a stronger gearbox, capable of more misuse and easier to learn.
The later type is more valuable but in some ways I prefer the older models. Probably there is not much difference in performance but the 1984-86 models often seem to feel more vigorous, more responsive and probably were a little lighter too. With the later G50 type it added a little more weight and shifted more of the weight towards the rear.
Irrespective, if you find a good example of either type its a joy.
Cracking performance, with loads of torque from a beautiful sounding and super smooth motor. Surprising economy (due to tall gearing, low weight, small frontal area and low drag). There is no power steering and no abs brakes so all the skill is left with the driver. I like this, through the turns you can sense and feel everything the car does, the steering loads up and the faster you go the more physically demanding the steering becomes. The brakes are superb, of course you need some sensitivity in the wet, but the pedal has such great 'feel' that its easy to modulate the braking.
These are cars that reward a smooth, confident and skilled driver like few others. The flip side is that the clumsy or aggressive driver may find them a handful and would probably be better placed in a more modern car with more driver aids.
Go into the bends smoothly, get your braking done before you turn and gently squeeze the throttle at an earlier part of the turn, you will shoot out the turn with a smile on your face.
On a long distance these are pretty quiet and refined (if I have time I will post the story of my 2200km drive from Portugal to the U.K. in a 3.2). Top speed will be up towards 145mph - surely enough for most. [Porsche actually say 152mph and are usually conservative - RB]
These cars feel so solid, so strong and unbreakable and to my mind are still superb to drive. No stress around town either, well maybe the clutch is a bit heavy and pas would be nice for parking.
All 911 of this age were built with galvanised bodies, very high quality components that ensure if you find a well kept example you can expect it to last and reward you.
Mechanically the cars were pretty simple, simple enough that a patient and thorough owner could maintain the car himself.
In all, if you are in the market for a special car, its unlikely that you would not enjoy owning one of these. Depreciation is slow, servicing not too bad, insurance low (with a classic car policy) and there are still some very good examples to be found.
Myth - every body you meet seems to have an opinion on the handling of a 911 'it goes off the road backwards' is the usual one. It's simply not accurate. Porsche are a very successful manufacturer - and successful racers. For years they have developed the 911 with the motor in the rear.
Driven skilfully these cars have very high performance levels, so for most 'normal' intelligent and mature drivers they are great. Of course with a big motor situated in the rear basic physics will eventually come in to play, so a 911 is not a car to take liberties with. Learn them gradually, learn how they best function, enjoy the challenge and the feeling of being connected directly to the machine. Ignore the bar stool experts![[FONT=verdana,geneva"]](/forum/styles/default/pcgb/space.gif ". [FONT=verdana,geneva\"]")
[FONT=verdana, arial"]Driving impressions of a Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2.
I have driven hundreds of 911 3.2 and , one thing is certain. They all vary. I often read that you should buy one model or the other, but in my experience individual cars can vary so much that its unfair to say that one year is better than another.
Simply by the passage of time, use and maintenance each 911 will feel and perform differently.
These are fast becoming 'classic' cars - and rightly so. Yet this is a car that with a little bit of sympathy, one can use and enjoy daily.
Even though I drive all types and ages of modern 911, I still really enjoy a decent cross country drive in a 3.2. In no way is the performance and abilities of this car any embarrassment in today's use.
You can feel the build quality as soon as you step into the cabin. Although the sparse facia, floor hinged pedals may seem strange compared to a modern car, after a few hours behind the wheel it will all start to slot into place.
Below picture of a beautiful 1989 Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2 Sport Coupe that I drove 2200km in three days from Portugal to the UK in November 2002. And I got paid to do it!
These are not cars that you can simply jump in and tear around like in some modern hot hatch. It takes a good while to begin to understand how to make the most of their abilities, how to maximise the performance and how very good these cars are at covering the miles.
Compared to a modern sports car they feel remarkably comfortable on the road. This is largely due to the smaller wheels, with taller tyres and more compliant suspension than later 911.
Turn the ignition key and it is immediately obvious that this is a 'proper' 911. Because it is air cooled (no water jacket to deaden sound) you hear this glorious, special, metallic noise coming from behind that's unmistakeably Porsche.
The earlier models (1984 to 1986) all had a 915 type gearbox with reverse beneath 5th gear. There is no 'spring loading' to help ascertain between the 1st 2nd gear plane and the 3rd 4th gear so until you have a few miles under your belt the gearshift may seem a little uncertain. But persevere, take time with your shift, be positive. You must not rush through the gears, but keep gentle pressure on the lever until it snicks in place - hard to explain but easy with practise.
Later cars (1987 model to 1989) had an altogether easier to use gearbox (G50) type) with reverse beside 5th [actually beside 1st - RB]. The benefit is a stronger gearbox, capable of more misuse and easier to learn.
The later type is more valuable but in some ways I prefer the older models. Probably there is not much difference in performance but the 1984-86 models often seem to feel more vigorous, more responsive and probably were a little lighter too. With the later G50 type it added a little more weight and shifted more of the weight towards the rear.
Irrespective, if you find a good example of either type its a joy.
Cracking performance, with loads of torque from a beautiful sounding and super smooth motor. Surprising economy (due to tall gearing, low weight, small frontal area and low drag). There is no power steering and no abs brakes so all the skill is left with the driver. I like this, through the turns you can sense and feel everything the car does, the steering loads up and the faster you go the more physically demanding the steering becomes. The brakes are superb, of course you need some sensitivity in the wet, but the pedal has such great 'feel' that its easy to modulate the braking.
These are cars that reward a smooth, confident and skilled driver like few others. The flip side is that the clumsy or aggressive driver may find them a handful and would probably be better placed in a more modern car with more driver aids.
Go into the bends smoothly, get your braking done before you turn and gently squeeze the throttle at an earlier part of the turn, you will shoot out the turn with a smile on your face.
On a long distance these are pretty quiet and refined (if I have time I will post the story of my 2200km drive from Portugal to the U.K. in a 3.2). Top speed will be up towards 145mph - surely enough for most. [Porsche actually say 152mph and are usually conservative - RB]
These cars feel so solid, so strong and unbreakable and to my mind are still superb to drive. No stress around town either, well maybe the clutch is a bit heavy and pas would be nice for parking.
All 911 of this age were built with galvanised bodies, very high quality components that ensure if you find a well kept example you can expect it to last and reward you.
Mechanically the cars were pretty simple, simple enough that a patient and thorough owner could maintain the car himself.
In all, if you are in the market for a special car, its unlikely that you would not enjoy owning one of these. Depreciation is slow, servicing not too bad, insurance low (with a classic car policy) and there are still some very good examples to be found.
Myth - every body you meet seems to have an opinion on the handling of a 911 'it goes off the road backwards' is the usual one. It's simply not accurate. Porsche are a very successful manufacturer - and successful racers. For years they have developed the 911 with the motor in the rear.
Driven skilfully these cars have very high performance levels, so for most 'normal' intelligent and mature drivers they are great. Of course with a big motor situated in the rear basic physics will eventually come in to play, so a 911 is not a car to take liberties with. Learn them gradually, learn how they best function, enjoy the challenge and the feeling of being connected directly to the machine. Ignore the bar stool experts
Guest
New member
And here is another one:
Driving a Carrera 3.2 involves you like no other car. The following is an extract of a road test by Mike McCarthy. The car on test is a 1985 Carrera 3.2 Sport Coupe -
"To say the 911 is all about performance is to state the absolute obvious - but what performance! What Car? managed a sensational 5.5secs to 60mph from a standstill, a mere 0.4secs slower than a Turbo! The same car then rocketed on to 100mph in 15.2secs, and 120mph in 22.6secs. Porsche claim a top speed of 152mph and few quibble with this - Porsche, unlike some manufacturers, tend to be rather conservative in their claims.
And, subjectively, the performance feels and sounds as exhilarating, as spine-tingling, as the figures suggest. From the moment you switch when the engine will idle with that characteristic "whoomph, whoomph" for a while, you know there's a beautifully made, jewel-like power house behind you. Nor is it all sound and fury, signifying nothing - though it must be said that in traffic jams there was an annoying unprogressiveness to the throttle. Floor it, however, and the muted growl from behind takes on a deeper bark, the exhaust at first overpowered by fan whine but as revs increase the harsh beat from the exhaust takesover, building up to a crescendo at the red line (reached almost alarmingly quickly in first and second) that is without doubt one most joyous noises to issue from any car currently in production. Could this be one of the reasons 911 owners keep coming back for more?
The 911 has a reputation for tricky handling near the limit. That may well be the case, but in some 400miles of travel in the test car it never put a foot wrong. The steering has a feel to it that puts you back about 20 years when rear-engined cars were all the vogue: it is light yet direct and, thanks to a lack of assistance, has superb feel.
Under 99 per cent of conditions the 911 displays mild understeer, changing to neutrality as power is applied. Deliberately entering a corner on a trailing throttle, or under braking, shows that the basic, unalterable dynamics of the 911 have been disguised but are still there: the tail starts to dictate the line through a corner. What has to be borne in mind is that in slippery conditions oversteer comes in at much lower speeds, The problem lies in the difference between grip in the dry and in the wet, which is more marked than in other, more conventional, cars.
Obviously, for a car that requires a 'slow in, fast out' driving technique, brakes are important. Those on the 911 do all that is required of them: the only way we can see them being improved is the adoption of anti-lock braking.
Fat tyres and a stiff suspension setting are not the best way to achieve a smooth ride, and sure enough the 911 is not the best in this respect. Even on motorways there is some ripple, and potholes and roadworks can cause distinct thumps and jars. On the other hand it is far from soft and wallowy, a feature which many prefer".
Driving a Carrera 3.2 involves you like no other car. The following is an extract of a road test by Mike McCarthy. The car on test is a 1985 Carrera 3.2 Sport Coupe -
"To say the 911 is all about performance is to state the absolute obvious - but what performance! What Car? managed a sensational 5.5secs to 60mph from a standstill, a mere 0.4secs slower than a Turbo! The same car then rocketed on to 100mph in 15.2secs, and 120mph in 22.6secs. Porsche claim a top speed of 152mph and few quibble with this - Porsche, unlike some manufacturers, tend to be rather conservative in their claims.
And, subjectively, the performance feels and sounds as exhilarating, as spine-tingling, as the figures suggest. From the moment you switch when the engine will idle with that characteristic "whoomph, whoomph" for a while, you know there's a beautifully made, jewel-like power house behind you. Nor is it all sound and fury, signifying nothing - though it must be said that in traffic jams there was an annoying unprogressiveness to the throttle. Floor it, however, and the muted growl from behind takes on a deeper bark, the exhaust at first overpowered by fan whine but as revs increase the harsh beat from the exhaust takesover, building up to a crescendo at the red line (reached almost alarmingly quickly in first and second) that is without doubt one most joyous noises to issue from any car currently in production. Could this be one of the reasons 911 owners keep coming back for more?
The 911 has a reputation for tricky handling near the limit. That may well be the case, but in some 400miles of travel in the test car it never put a foot wrong. The steering has a feel to it that puts you back about 20 years when rear-engined cars were all the vogue: it is light yet direct and, thanks to a lack of assistance, has superb feel.
Under 99 per cent of conditions the 911 displays mild understeer, changing to neutrality as power is applied. Deliberately entering a corner on a trailing throttle, or under braking, shows that the basic, unalterable dynamics of the 911 have been disguised but are still there: the tail starts to dictate the line through a corner. What has to be borne in mind is that in slippery conditions oversteer comes in at much lower speeds, The problem lies in the difference between grip in the dry and in the wet, which is more marked than in other, more conventional, cars.
Obviously, for a car that requires a 'slow in, fast out' driving technique, brakes are important. Those on the 911 do all that is required of them: the only way we can see them being improved is the adoption of anti-lock braking.
Fat tyres and a stiff suspension setting are not the best way to achieve a smooth ride, and sure enough the 911 is not the best in this respect. Even on motorways there is some ripple, and potholes and roadworks can cause distinct thumps and jars. On the other hand it is far from soft and wallowy, a feature which many prefer".
Richard Savage
New member
Richard
Blimey, this is all getting a bit HEAVY. I think Abid is gona have to buy one of each!
R.
Blimey, this is all getting a bit HEAVY. I think Abid is gona have to buy one of each!
R.
Guest
New member
It's a freakin turf war!!!
Actually, look for the smilies in my earlier post [][][]
Unfortunately, sloppy thinking/reasoning/arguments tend to provoke a response from me.
Back on topic. I think the performance2and4 website has some material on the maintenance issues with the various models.
Actually, look for the smilies in my earlier post [
][][]Unfortunately, sloppy thinking/reasoning/arguments tend to provoke a response from me.
Back on topic. I think the performance2and4 website has some material on the maintenance issues with the various models.
Richard Savage
New member
ORIGINAL: Richard Bernau
It's a freakin turf war!!!
Actually, look for the smilies in my earlier post [
Unfortunately, sloppy thinking/reasoning/arguments tend to provoke a response from me.
Richard
On the other hand, if you cannot voice your opinions amongst your peers ................. [
]R
RichardLW
New member
I don't think I said that 3.2s were bad cars; what I said was that the one that I owned was the worst car I ever owned for many reasons, some, no doubt, irrational, but there you go. Thats why I said "buy a 964" - personal opinion like all the rest of them.
Fact. I, personally, would not have another 3.2 if it was the last car on earth I could have - too many bad memories.
The 964, to me, is the last of the line before they ballsed up the classic shape and made it just too civilized. One day, I may soften a get a 993 but not for a while yet
Fact. I, personally, would not have another 3.2 if it was the last car on earth I could have - too many bad memories.
The 964, to me, is the last of the line before they ballsed up the classic shape and made it just too civilized. One day, I may soften a get a 993 but not for a while yet
RichardLW
New member
On second thoughts...................
1. Lousy heater
2. Just TOO noisy
3. Even worse wipers (improbable but true) than a 964 (but sortable)
4. And bouncy - I could never figure that one out
5. And a lousy gearbox even after a £3K rebuild at Autofarm
6. Way too hot in summer without a/c (but they all are) and way too noisy with the windows open...
7. Ho-hum brakes
8. Tendency to wander in crosswinds at speed (130+) which I found disconcerting
Just a few things I didn't like. Funnily enough, it was the car I always wanted - GP white, full black leather interior, 6 way sports seats - but we just didn't get on. I sold it after 18 months and was so relieved to see it go. It didn't cost a lot to run (apart from the gearbox rebuild) and only let me down twice with silly electrical problems, and I didn't lose much on it either.
I had a 944T for the next four years and that was just what I needed. Then, the lure of the 911 returned so I went looking for a 964 and found a mint low-miler at the Kent OPC. I approached it with considerable trepidation (it was very expensive at the time) but it did address most of the issues. It is still too noisy (tyre noise I mean) which the 3.2 doesn't seem as prone to, and on a long journey (10 hours plus) it is extremely wearing but not as much as my 3.2 with the assorted noises off..
I think the PAS does make a difference - but not a lot really - and I have no problem having ABS - its there for when I f**k up. 4WD is nice in the wet and the car is simply supreme in the wet (although you still can't see where you're going).
I posted on the 3.2 board (actually I just look at all the new posts) as the initial query was posted there and was - let's face it - very unlikely to get a wholly unbiased response.
1. Lousy heater
2. Just TOO noisy
3. Even worse wipers (improbable but true) than a 964 (but sortable)
4. And bouncy - I could never figure that one out
5. And a lousy gearbox even after a £3K rebuild at Autofarm
6. Way too hot in summer without a/c (but they all are) and way too noisy with the windows open...
7. Ho-hum brakes
8. Tendency to wander in crosswinds at speed (130+) which I found disconcerting
Just a few things I didn't like. Funnily enough, it was the car I always wanted - GP white, full black leather interior, 6 way sports seats - but we just didn't get on. I sold it after 18 months and was so relieved to see it go. It didn't cost a lot to run (apart from the gearbox rebuild) and only let me down twice with silly electrical problems, and I didn't lose much on it either.
I had a 944T for the next four years and that was just what I needed. Then, the lure of the 911 returned so I went looking for a 964 and found a mint low-miler at the Kent OPC. I approached it with considerable trepidation (it was very expensive at the time) but it did address most of the issues. It is still too noisy (tyre noise I mean) which the 3.2 doesn't seem as prone to, and on a long journey (10 hours plus) it is extremely wearing but not as much as my 3.2 with the assorted noises off..
I think the PAS does make a difference - but not a lot really - and I have no problem having ABS - its there for when I f**k up. 4WD is nice in the wet and the car is simply supreme in the wet (although you still can't see where you're going).
I posted on the 3.2 board (actually I just look at all the new posts) as the initial query was posted there and was - let's face it - very unlikely to get a wholly unbiased response.
Yoda was giving 964RS experiences complete chalk and cheese to the normal 964 you really have to experience one, may hate it may love it very very different to any 3.2, 964 or 993 and still affordable buy one........0-100MPH 11.7 and involvement second to none.........I dare you.....[
]
Guest
New member
No doubt RichardLW is correct. The 3.2 is like a Lada and the 964 is akin to a poshed up Maybach. They really are that different. I can't believe what a moron I am for buying a 3.2 when I could easily have bought the newer and better car for THE SAME MONEY!! I repeat THE SAME MONEY!! What does that tell you?
graham tompkins
New member
On second thoughts...................
1. Lousy heater
2. Just TOO noisy
3. Even worse wipers (improbable but true) than a 964 (but sortable)
4. And bouncy - I could never figure that one out
5. And a lousy gearbox even after a £3K rebuild at Autofarm
6. Way too hot in summer without a/c (but they all are) and way too noisy with the windows open...
7. Ho-hum brakes
8. Tendency to wander in crosswinds at speed (130+) which I found disconcerting
Suggestions as follows
1.Probably defective...when sorted should work OK when you suss out which levers do what best
2. would be disappointing if not..people actually spend serious bucks to improve the noise..one of the best bits about the car, although I must admit it sounds better from the outside than in.
3.Agree with this bit...don't drive in the rain
4.Shock absorbers need replacing
5.technique required here..I'm still learning
6.Should have got a Targa
7.see 5 above
8. Most cars will wander in crosswinds at 130Mph+..how much depends on the crosswind....stay off the Humber Bridge! []
There are not many cars I would fancy driving for 10 hours...best take a train or a plane.[]
I love these posts, especially when RB gets arsey. Worth the membership fee initself
1. Lousy heater
2. Just TOO noisy
3. Even worse wipers (improbable but true) than a 964 (but sortable)
4. And bouncy - I could never figure that one out
5. And a lousy gearbox even after a £3K rebuild at Autofarm
6. Way too hot in summer without a/c (but they all are) and way too noisy with the windows open...
7. Ho-hum brakes
8. Tendency to wander in crosswinds at speed (130+) which I found disconcerting
Suggestions as follows
1.Probably defective...when sorted should work OK when you suss out which levers do what best
2. would be disappointing if not..people actually spend serious bucks to improve the noise..one of the best bits about the car, although I must admit it sounds better from the outside than in.
3.Agree with this bit...don't drive in the rain
4.Shock absorbers need replacing
5.technique required here..I'm still learning
6.Should have got a Targa
7.see 5 above
8. Most cars will wander in crosswinds at 130Mph+..how much depends on the crosswind....stay off the Humber Bridge! [
]There are not many cars I would fancy driving for 10 hours...best take a train or a plane.[
]I love these posts, especially when RB gets arsey. Worth the membership fee initself
RichardLW
New member
You are missing the personal opinion aspect. My Escort was a bad car, my Alfasud was a ******* terrible car but both left me with no bad memories. They were among the worst cars I ever owned but not the worst from my point of view. 3.2s are alright - its just that I don't want one thanks very much and if someone asks for my opinion, thats what they will get.
Why are 964s available for the same price as 964s? My opinion? The 964 gained a reputation for oil leaks and unreliability which was not justified. Sure, some leak (many don't) and some have dodgy electrics (some don't). The looks were not to everyone's taste and the 4WD was seen as the soft option for people who couldn't really drive. And the price was quite high too. The running costs were/are higher than a 3.2 and the later 993. So what? The myth has developed as a result of some facts and a lot of common "knowledge" which is, sometimes, very wrong. However, it has the effect of holding down 964 prices - a bit like SCs which seem similarly blighted (Lets face it SC to 3.2 is not a huge leap is it?). 3.2s are perceived as purer than 964s but not 993s - why ? - how can you prove it?
How many people in this thread rely on their 3.2 as a daily driver, come rain or snow or flooding? How many drive their car every day to the tip, to the shops, to work etc. How many put 10000 miles on their car every year? I may be wrong but I imagine that a poll of 3.2 -v- 964 owners would show that the 964 was used as a daily driver by a far higher proportion of owners than the 3.2. Why? Because its that bit more practical a proposition.
Right - I have now wasted enough time and have to go to work (by car in the wet...) See you all later.
Why are 964s available for the same price as 964s? My opinion? The 964 gained a reputation for oil leaks and unreliability which was not justified. Sure, some leak (many don't) and some have dodgy electrics (some don't). The looks were not to everyone's taste and the 4WD was seen as the soft option for people who couldn't really drive. And the price was quite high too. The running costs were/are higher than a 3.2 and the later 993. So what? The myth has developed as a result of some facts and a lot of common "knowledge" which is, sometimes, very wrong. However, it has the effect of holding down 964 prices - a bit like SCs which seem similarly blighted (Lets face it SC to 3.2 is not a huge leap is it?). 3.2s are perceived as purer than 964s but not 993s - why ? - how can you prove it?
How many people in this thread rely on their 3.2 as a daily driver, come rain or snow or flooding? How many drive their car every day to the tip, to the shops, to work etc. How many put 10000 miles on their car every year? I may be wrong but I imagine that a poll of 3.2 -v- 964 owners would show that the 964 was used as a daily driver by a far higher proportion of owners than the 3.2. Why? Because its that bit more practical a proposition.
Right - I have now wasted enough time and have to go to work (by car in the wet...) See you all later.
RichardLW
New member
HTF do you take a plane or train to the Isle of Skye and then have a touring holiday in your car? Plane to Le Mans - I don't think so. The dampers were nearly new. The brakes were all new. And targas are even noisier and they leak (apparently, or so common knowledge would have it). When the guy who has just taken three grand off you says of the gearbox "well, its a bit better than it was" you begin to wonder.
Guest
New member
My thoughts are in italics []
I am really sorry the 3.2 didn't work out for you. In fact it obviously left a bitter taste in your mouth, but I am afraid that your criticisms just don't really stand up to objective analysis - most everything you listed was due to the condition of your car or was pretty easily fixable. Obviously, the criticisms make sense to you and provide ample justification for your decision to sell and move on to what you perceive were better things - 944T and 964 - and I understand you decision to buy something that feels more modern. The 3.2 can at times feel old fashioned and frankly, that is probably the best reason to look at newer 911s. Do you view the unique 911 driving experience as character or as a pain in the arse?
I am not a big fan of the 964C4 in the wet or otherwise. I had two of my scariest moments in a C4 in the wet. One was a sideways moment at about 80mph with a very humble sedan driver camped on my rear bumper and the second, the biggest tank slapper I have ever had requiring about 10 corrections, 2 lanes and some of the nearside ditch to bring under control. It seemed like I was a passenger in both situations with 4wd, ABS and whatever other control systems are present, fighting each other. I tried to work out what caused these incidents (as I have been driving 911s on the road and in competition for many many years, it was a surprise to me) and I simply couldn't fathom it. Perhaps the fairly worn SO1 tyres were a contributing factor. I was, however, left with the impression that the C4 just wasn't very intuitive. The only time I have spun my 3.2 in 5+years is aquaplaning on a wet Silverstone in torrential rain - very easy to explain - otherwise, oversteer has always been at my behest.
That's my $0.02 for the day []
RB
]ORIGINAL: RichardLW
On second thoughts...................
1. Lousy heater
Really Once they warm up, you can fry an egg with the heat these air cooled cars produce. Also strange, in that the 964 heating is the same heat exchanger with fan boosters only it has a different control panel - a much more modern set of controls I grant you, but in terms of function, actually very similar. Operationally, different.
2. Just TOO noisy
Hmm, yes, its a sports car. I think you will find many of us drive with the window cranked a little to hear more of that flat six symphony. Compared to a BMW/ Merc/ Audi, it is noisy, but then do you really want to carry around an extra 100+kg of sound deadening (perhaps you do)? Oh sorry, your avatar shows you bought a wide body 964C4, so you did want a car that was about 200kg heavier [
3. Even worse wipers (improbable but true) than a 964 (but sortable)
Yes, you can swap the 964 wipers on to a 3.2. The only difference is the double spring on the arm. Alternatively Rain-X works wonders.
4. And bouncy - I could never figure that one out
You needed new shock absorbers. These cars should not be bouncy, except a little on the lightly loaded front, which is a characteristic of all 911s including 964s and 993s.
5. And a lousy gearbox even after a £3K rebuild at Autofarm
I presume you had a 915? The unfortunate thing about many shops is that they do not know how to make a 915 shift in a modern way. It isn't just the gearbox itself, it is the linkage and the shift tower/lever that need work. Products are readily available from companies like Wevo, Seinesystems etc thru distributors like Pelican Parts which will almost miraculously transform the shifting of a 915. You also paid a fortune for the rebuild. My mechanic quotes just over half that much to fully rebuild a 915. BTW, the G50 box in the later 3.2s is almost exactly the same gearbox as the 964.
6. Way too hot in summer without a/c (but they all are) and way too noisy with the windows open...
So this criticisms applies to all 911s without aircon including 964s.
7. Ho-hum brakes
Not if they are working properly. Poor brakes is not something that any 911 has ever been accused of. Read the reviews of the motoring writers. The lack of ABS is a weakness but the brakes are well up to the task for road use. After pounding them round a track, it is apparent that the discs are a little too small and consequently there is too much heat which causes pads to wear quickly and the calipers to cook their seals and need frequent bleeding. My car with 964 brakes does not stop any faster, it just requires less frequent maintenance - but none of this is an issue for road use.
8. Tendency to wander in crosswinds at speed (130+) which I found disconcerting
Yes, you needed new shocks. I find the faster you go the more stable the car gets. Having seen an indicated 160mph, I think I have tested this one pretty thoroughly.
Just a few things I didn't like. Funnily enough, it was the car I always wanted - GP white, full black leather interior, 6 way sports seats - but we just didn't get on. I sold it after 18 months and was so relieved to see it go. It didn't cost a lot to run (apart from the gearbox rebuild) and only let me down twice with silly electrical problems, and I didn't lose much on it either.
I had a 944T for the next four years and that was just what I needed. Then, the lure of the 911 returned so I went looking for a 964 and found a mint low-miler at the Kent OPC. I approached it with considerable trepidation (it was very expensive at the time) but it did address most of the issues. It is still too noisy (tyre noise I mean) which the 3.2 doesn't seem as prone to, and on a long journey (10 hours plus) it is extremely wearing but not as much as my 3.2 with the assorted noises off..
I think the PAS does make a difference - but not a lot really - and I have no problem having ABS - its there for when I f**k up. 4WD is nice in the wet and the car is simply supreme in the wet (although you still can't see where you're going).
I posted on the 3.2 board (actually I just look at all the new posts) as the initial query was posted there and was - let's face it - very unlikely to get a wholly unbiased response.
I am really sorry the 3.2 didn't work out for you. In fact it obviously left a bitter taste in your mouth, but I am afraid that your criticisms just don't really stand up to objective analysis - most everything you listed was due to the condition of your car or was pretty easily fixable. Obviously, the criticisms make sense to you and provide ample justification for your decision to sell and move on to what you perceive were better things - 944T and 964 - and I understand you decision to buy something that feels more modern. The 3.2 can at times feel old fashioned and frankly, that is probably the best reason to look at newer 911s. Do you view the unique 911 driving experience as character or as a pain in the arse?
I am not a big fan of the 964C4 in the wet or otherwise. I had two of my scariest moments in a C4 in the wet. One was a sideways moment at about 80mph with a very humble sedan driver camped on my rear bumper and the second, the biggest tank slapper I have ever had requiring about 10 corrections, 2 lanes and some of the nearside ditch to bring under control. It seemed like I was a passenger in both situations with 4wd, ABS and whatever other control systems are present, fighting each other. I tried to work out what caused these incidents (as I have been driving 911s on the road and in competition for many many years, it was a surprise to me) and I simply couldn't fathom it. Perhaps the fairly worn SO1 tyres were a contributing factor. I was, however, left with the impression that the C4 just wasn't very intuitive. The only time I have spun my 3.2 in 5+years is aquaplaning on a wet Silverstone in torrential rain - very easy to explain - otherwise, oversteer has always been at my behest.
That's my $0.02 for the day [
]RB
porkersc
New member
Drove back from Le-Mans in virtually one hit last year. No aches or panes in fact very relaxed. Didn't seem that noisy for what basically is a forty plus year old design. In fact you will see in my other post that myself and a few mates in there SC's are going on a 2.5k tour of europe in June. I used my old SC as a daily driver in the summer last year and had no issues at all. My 3.2 has a perfect toasty heater, never had an issue with the brakes or handling, you just have to plan a little more ahead(Which in my eyes makes it more enjoyable and you a little safer on the road). I would have no issue using mine everyday if it came to it. Never found the gear box an issue even the 915 in my old SC was smooth and sorted.
I must admit when i first drove the 911 I was a bit dissapointed, but then I realised I was used to driving my brand new BMW and that mollycodled me. The more i drove the 911 the more I loved it and you couldn't get me out of it after the Le-Mans trip.[]
I must admit when i first drove the 911 I was a bit dissapointed, but then I realised I was used to driving my brand new BMW and that mollycodled me. The more i drove the 911 the more I loved it and you couldn't get me out of it after the Le-Mans trip.[
]abidchowdhury
New member
Richard thanks for your input. After working my way through your many contradictory points I've come to the conclusion that the 3.2 is indeed a terrible car. The heating is useless, it feels old and its very noisy. Before buying mine I also did no homework and felt bitterly dissapointed when I bought the car. It even wandered a bit at over 130mph. [:-]
Excuse the sarcasm Richard [] - I understand the 944 and 964 suited your needs better and hope you continue to enjoy your car.
As for me I'll take the 3.2 for what it is, and most probably buy another after coming to the conclusion a nice 3.2 and a cheap everyday hack (for winter) would work better for me than a well sorted 964. Swings and Roundabouts.......[]
Excuse the sarcasm Richard [
] - I understand the 944 and 964 suited your needs better and hope you continue to enjoy your car. As for me I'll take the 3.2 for what it is, and most probably buy another after coming to the conclusion a nice 3.2 and a cheap everyday hack (for winter) would work better for me than a well sorted 964. Swings and Roundabouts.......[
]
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
