993 vs 996C4S - 5 year potential

[jakey555]

Hi,
Difficult investment question- crystal balls and calculators at the ready... I'm new on here having not owned a 911 for the last decade. Before then I owned a few, including a couple of 3 ltr SCs a 3.2 Carrera, a 1987 (4 spd) Turbo, 964 3.6 and various nasty non standard 2.7s. Along with numerous lesser 4 cyl porsches too. I kept few for very long but a couple for a couple of years. Most memorably a lovely black '79 SC coupe which I drove the socks off for about 2 years. Best car I ever had
I've beavered away for the last 10 years in a hugely fun, but not very well paid job driving diesel estates etc., and now am finally in the position to purchase an investment second/fun car. As I need to keep it outside I know it needs to be a Porker. The last decent motor I had was a 1984 Ferrari, and it seemed that every time I walked out to it another rusty bubble would appear. It started breaking my heart in the end. Despite that, I bought it right and sold it for exactly what I paid for it 3 years later.

My parameters are as follows:
Budget - 20 grand. No more than that. I have another 5k for calamities, but expect to purchase a decent example.
Mileage - 3000 per year max for this car.

Here are my preliminary thoughts and questions, without having driven either car:

993:
Will I even get a decent manual 993 coupe with fpsh in a decent colour not needing lots of work for sub 20k?
Is the 993 fuel economy considerably worse than the 996?
Could the current prices of these cars suggest they are living in a bubble which could burst?
Its looks will stand the test of time better than the 996- even the slightly better looking (than other 996s) wide body 996.
Will any planned future emissions tax changes badly effect running costs of this car?
Classic car insurance is a positive for the 993. Cheaper!

996
Every day that goes by at the moment the normal narrow bodied 996 looks uglier, while the 993 just looks better and better. Hence the probable main reason for the value discrepancy. However, not so with the wide bodied cars in my view, and a motor trade friend agrees with me on this.
Will cars like c4s ever drop much further below 20 grand? (Not including oddballs like the bloke on here's with the 230k mileage)
When a normal 996 Carrera entry level is now 10 grand, is the double money justifiable for the wide body- in a ongoing value and ease of selling it context? I think it very well might be- but not sure completely. I don't mind spending the extra money as long as I can get it all back at the end.
With my previous experience of proper 911s like SCs, will I find a 996 diluted and disappointing? Are 911s still as spine tinglingly free revving?
I can't really find many 996 wide bodied 2wd cars for sale. Is this because they did not make many?
How do the values of 2wd/4wd wide body 996 cars compare?
Is the 2wd the one to have like it was with the 964? I like driving in controlled powerslides where safe to do so, will a C4s allow this with all its technology?
And fuel economy? The 4 will obviously be worse than the 2- but how much worse?
And car tax? When was the date after which it went on engine size? Were there any wide bodied UK 964s before this date that would have cheaper tax?
How do servicing costs/frequency compare with a 993?
People mutter about engine issues with these cars. Something about liners I think. Is this statistically worth worrying about?

Both cars:
I don't want a convertible, but how do the new breed of Targas compare in terms of effect on value for these cars? And do they lose out on drivability over the coupes?
Despite the nice looking black 993 Tiptronic currently on Autotrader for £16.5k!!, I recall from a decade ago to steer very well clear of auto 911s. Are they still horrible? I'm guessing so looking at values.

I'd like a car I can keep for 5 years without losing too much money, have lots of fun driving it, and my previous experience with 911s suggests that one of these will probably hold its value pretty well. I'm not so naive as to think long term it can be cost neutral, but am just after something that has largely finished depreciating and will hold its money well.

As an aside, a friend of mine has 10- 11k to invest similarly for a second play/ investment car. We were chatting about whether he should put his money in a BMW M-coupe (The funny hatchback 2 seater things from the late 90s) or a 996, similar mileage cars, both with fsh etc.I have to confess, I'd go for the Beemer in that case, (but only one that's had the VANOS done) as they are a little more raw and have a bit of a widowmaker reputation. And F. quick too 0-100 mph in 11 seconds IIRC. But who knows what their values will be in 5 years? Guessing is part of the fun for everyone I suppose.

Thanks for any help you can provide on any of this.
I've posted this in both 996 and 993 forums so as to filter out the bias of answers. Hope this is OK.
Jake

 

[Cater_Racer]

I went thru this same dilema 2 years ago when I sold my 964 C2.

I've always wanted a Targa and I quite liked the Tiptonic option.

Drove them all, and I recommend you do just the same, drive a few examples of each.

It's a very personal choice and you will soon get an idea of what's right for you. Don't worry about resale values, you're a long time dead, just buy the car that gives you the greatest pleasure.

Me? I bought a 98 Targa 993 manual in midnight blue.............................................................................Ecstasy

 

[Mark Elder]

Jake - I agree with Gerry - you need to get in them and drive. Also agree you need to drive a few of each type because small problems with suspension and alignment can make a huge difference to the feel, but you probably know that from your SC days.

You can clearly get 993s for £20k or under now, but no, it will not be a good one, but it may be good enough if you are not obsessed by mileage (which you should not be) and you will put up with a few stone chips.

Except for the very special 996s like the GT3 I fear they have a way to fall in value simply because of the fact that the 997 does look better (sorry 996 guys) and as the 997 drops out of being in the "latest model" status next year it will drop in value and depress 996 prices. That won't happen to the 993 because it's in a different category - it's only owned by people who knew they were buying an old car for a good reason.

The 993 and 996 are completely different cars - you will forget about the "value" question once you have driven them - whichever is right for you is right.

Richard (reply over on the 996 forum) makes an interesting point - a 964 might be a good choice. A great car. Really good value right now. Maybe 993s are over priced when you see 964 prices (what is the difference between them?!)

 

[Robert Teague]

Dear jakey, an analytical approach to buying an (old) Porsche.

Purchase of a 2nd car is usually an emotional decision based upon your feelings for motors and the mark or model in question. The cars cost money to buy, cost money to run and cost money to maintain but this is the cost of the "hobby". Unless you are a collector or trader I would suggest that depreciation should be right at the bottom of your list. If you (and others) buy for the same reason then this drives the desire to own such machines anyway which in turn supports the monetary values in them.

I spent the same money or thereabouts on the best 993 I could find that appealed to me visually. This just happened to be a Tiptronic S and I have nothing bad to say about it as the steering wheel controls are great and more similar to the PDK and Flappy padle machines which seem more popular today than manuals. I drove a few manuals which were ok but in both cases the cars had seen a tougher life and as such the overall experience was less than the Tip I purchased. My car had 15k less miles than the equiv manual as well.

Have fun, go with your heart not your wallet.
Robert

 

[clyde]

Definitely a bad case of over-analysing Jake.

As above, drive the cars you are interested in and see which you prefer.

I wouldn't advocate considering residuals when buying a toy like this, however, if you are I would forget the 996 in any form other than GT3's as they are still in something of a freefall.

As Mark suggests try a 964 as well, although these are somewhat agricultural compared to even the 993 they are perhaps nearer to the Porsche's you have driven in the past in terms of driving dynamics.

 

[jakey555]

Many thanks,
I have over analysed the whole thing, but it has resulted in pretty much all the answers I needed.
1. It's a 993 then by the looks of things when it comes to long term residuals.
2. Now I know why I couldn't find any 2wd wide bodied 996s!. Though I swear I did see one for sale. Must have been incorrectly advertised.
3. In answer to the guy in the 993 forum. No I don't mind a miley example with a few stonechips. In fact I would welcome such a situation. I don't want a car to take to shows etc. just use, look nice from a distance, show me to be the automotive officianado I clearly am not, and be faultlessly reliable and dependable. So I think I need a mechanically decent, but not necessarilly bodilly mint 993. (Same as everyone else outside the rereified atmosphere of PCGB though probably). It will never get parked next to another 993 while I own it, so stonechips not a problem.
4. I might even see if I could hack a Tiptronic.
5. Although my motortrade friend said 996 Clubsport worth investing at the moment in if I can find one that's not been tracked and abused and isn't a ridiculous colour. But once again, only if I could hack driving it.
6. 964. Hmm. I have owned one of these in the past. To me it was essentially the 3.2 Carrera with a body kit... and not a very nice body kit. They should be ten grand for a very nice one. But aren't. I paid 13.5k ten years ago.(Wasn't the best on the body- but was machanically OK) It would be depressing to go back- and have to pay so dearly for the opportunity to do so.

I think the crux of it is what the 993 achieved was it looked best in bog standard coupe form. The RS scoops, wide bodies etc. all spoil the look of the car in my view, whereas with the 996 or 964, any of this unsubtle kind of bespoilering stuff just makes it look better as it's a bit of a minger in standard form.

It's going to be last of the aircooled for me I think. And then do my best to keep the hype going and the values up!
Is there a big premium for the Variocams, or little difference?

 

[Romi]

I went through the same process 5 years ago and bought the best standard 993 I could find for £25k. (Black C4, 18inch turbo wheels specced when new, airbox option and flamenco red leather interior). I looked at 15 cars and test drove 12 before finally purchasing. I drive vans and 4*4s everyday for work so hardly do any mileage in my Porker but love every single minute I spend in it. Admittedly it feels a bit slow at some trackdays but in my opinion and looking at the list of 'older' Porsches you have owned you will never regret buying a good 993 - it seems the perfect car for you. That aircooled sound never fails to put a smile on my face, the mechanical feel of everything is timeless and it's just so solid. I have lost count of the number of times people have commented something along the lines of "oh now that's a real Porsche" or "that's the best 911 they ever made" or "last of the air cooleds - great car". It's not the fastest car I've owned but the most satisfying overall.
Good Luck.
Enjoy
Romi

 

[harry]

I would look for a decent 968Clubsport for that budget or 87-88 Carrera. 993 below 20K would likely require a lot of maintenance and 996 C4S, yes they look OK but something is lost on the 996 iteration.

 

[harry]

http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=601800
Looks like a good car.

 

[nfearn]

I believe it is possible, albeit not that quick or easy, to find very decent cars for around £20K. I purchased my 993 C2 in May last year for just shy of £20K once I factor in the 18" wheels which I sold for £700 (I refitted the original 16" rims which also came with the car since I much prefer the car's ride and handling with the smaller rims and greater sidewall compliance).

There's no doubt that I have spent some money on it (suspension alignment at CG, dampers, service and tyres). However, it would have been an unusual car not to have required something to bring it up to the standard I want it at (I am pretty fussy about these things). Touch wood, the only remaining expenditure is for the A-pillar corrosion issue.

I have fixed some minor irritations (screenwash leak, for example) and had the engine loom replaced free under the recall (definitely worth checking that this has been done on any 993)

Engine, box, clutch, interior, door check-straps and so on all appear to be in first class order and the car has been thoroughly checked over by two specialists who were both impressed by its condition and the drive it gives.

Car had 66K miles at purchase. C2, manual, Polar Silver, Non-Varioram. When I was looking I saw a number of cars at £24-30K, most of which would have thrown up similar issues to this one, so paying extra to start with is by no means a guarantee of not requiring subsequent expenditure, unfortunately. There are also some real horrors out there.

regards
Nick

 

[Porker993]

Jake

I always like to answer the question, so here goes.

Will I even get a decent manual 993 coupe with fpsh in a decent colour not needing lots of work for sub 20k?

Yes - just be careful out there, and remember to take with you someone who knows the cars.

Is the 993 fuel economy considerably worse than the 996?

Fuel consumption depends on driving style and type of journey. Most 993 drivers reckon between 22 and 24 mpg.

Could the current prices of these cars suggest they are living in a bubble which could burst?

I doubt it, based on long term ownership and market trends.

Its looks will stand the test of time better than the 996- even the slightly better looking (than other 996s) wide body 996.

Agreed, 100%

Will any planned future emissions tax changes badly effect running costs of this car?

Don't know/care

Hope that helps

Mark

 

[Porker993]

ORIGINAL: jakey555

Is there a big premium for the Variocams, or little difference?

Variocam has something to do with 968s and 996s, I think, so not applicable to 993s.

You might mean "Varioram" which was fitted to 993s from 1996 MY to compensate for heavier targas and wide bodies, and tighter noise regulations (VR cars are fitted with higher gear ratios). A narrow body varioram car sounds like a good idea, as you get another 13bhp and more mid range torque, however, the higher gearing of the of the varioram cars largely cancels out any performance advantage, although there is a quoted 3 mph top speed advantage.

What with the extra complexity and things to go wrong, I wouldn't bother too much with VR. A good non-VR car is worth just as much nowadays, in my view.

 

[clyde]

ORIGINAL: Porker993

  Most 993 drivers reckon between 22 and 24 mpg.

Mark

I think that's a bit high for average consumption. As you say Mark it does very much depend on how and where the car's driven and it's certainly possible to get that or much higher (28 mpg or so) on a long motorway journey but I'm by no means unusual in getting sub-twenty mpg on my day to day running. Averaging 17/18 in the winter is the norm for me and if I push it, well I don't really want to go there.

I would also suggest that the varioram models are generally perceived to be better than earlier models but not to the point of the lack of it being a deal breaker.

 

[Porker993]

ORIGINAL: clyde

I would also suggest that the varioram models are generally perceived to be better than earlier models

You're right, but I'm not sure why. I would be really interested to see if anyone has seen any acceleration data to support this ?

A very experienced mechanic who drove my non VR car said it felt quicker than his VR car, because of the lower gearing, he thought.

 

[nfearn]

It my just be a question of the later cars being seen as better because they produce a little more "headline" power (and of course more torque, though many forget that it's actually torque that produces acceleration rather than power). The additional weight of the varioram will of course be adverse to acceleration, though I've no idea how much the extra kit weighs.

Longer (numerically lower) gear ratios will blunt acceleration as well, as will additional weight introduced through larger wheels and tyres (masses that have to be spun up have a double-whammy in a much as they act like dead weight in the vehicle but the engine also has to overcome the rotational inertia to accelerate them up to speed too - this is why flywheels are made as light as possible in performance and competition cars).

If I could have found a great varioram car for similar money I would likely have bought it, but I don't feel at all short-changed by my '94 non-V car, and there's something to be said for the simplicity of the early cars too.

regards
Nick

 

[Mark Elder]

ORIGINAL: nfearn

... additional weight introduced through larger wheels and tyres ...

Interesting question - which weighs more:
An extra inch on 5 alloy spokes and an extra 3.14 inches of alloy rim
or
approx 207 sq inches or rubber side wall?

(because there is less tyre on larger wheels)

 

[clyde]

Taken from Rennlist:

7.5x17 55 ET 993 Cup, Front (Pressure cast) - 18 lbs

9x17 55 ET 993 Cup, Rear (Pressure cast) - 19.5 lbs

8x18 52 ET 993.362.136.01, Front Turbo/RS (solid spoke) - 25.6 lbs

10x18 65 ET 993.362.140.04, Rear Turbo/RS (solid spoke) - 29.3 lbs

10x18 40 ET 993.362.140.03, Rear Turbo (solid spoke) - 31 lbs

8x18 52 ET 993.362.136.00, Front Turbo (hollow spoke) - 19.95 lbs

10x18 65 ET 993.362.140.01, Rear Turbo (hollow spoke) - 23.36 lbs

10x18 40 ET 993.362.140.00, Rear Turbo (hollow spoke) - 25.13 lbs

Even the hollow spoke 18" rears weigh significantly more than 17" solid spoke - can't see the extra rubber weighing that much, so I'll stick with my 17 inch rims []

 

[nfearn]

The difference in weight between the 16s and 18s (Cup and Turbo Twist, complete with tyres) that I weighed was 3.9Kg (per front wheel and tyre) and 6.7Kg (per rear wheel and tyre). Now, obviously the 18s are wider than the 16s so we're not comparing like for like, strictly speaking, but I was purely interested in the overall weight change resulting from the change back to the standard rims and their corresponding tyres.

The total additional weight was therefore 21.2Kg, which equates to a "dead weight" of around 37Kg, which in my view is well worth losing if you can. I also happen to prefer the way they drive on smaller wheels, but of course that is purely subjective. Ultimately owners are free to do as they wish with their own cars and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Nick

 

[38F3E1]

The thing about Varioram is that it produces more torque throughout the lower and mid rev range. Above about 5K they are pretty much the same. This equates in the real world to slightly quicker acceleration times even with the longer gearing (supported by factory figures). And you don't have to stir the gearstick so much. The pre-varioram cars have a very different feel (much more like a 964) as you have to rev them more to get the power so can 'feel faster' as there seems to be more going on. Same sensation you get in old fiats where you had to rev the nuts off them and this contributes to them feeling like a fast car. Varioram is actually a very simple system so not much goes wrong as long as you keep an eye on the vacuum lines. There were also a number of other minor changes between pre and post cars in the typical way that Porsche always refines a model half way through the model cycle (similar to a second half 964 having the niggles from the 1st half 964 sorted). Just as with the 964, now they are all getting on a bit, the difference between early and late cars is less important than the condition of the car. Drive a varioram and a pre-varioram back to back and you can clearly tell the difference but it certainly wouldn't be a deal breaker in the decision as to which you buy IMO.

Ian.

 

[nfearn]

All very fair points Ian..

Nick