Conflicting Reports

[Guest]

Over the past few days I've been doing an awful lot of reading-up on Porsches, primarily the 924 and 944 models. I have come across conflicting reports about which of these two models is the most economical in terms of running costs and price of parts and repairs. I believed it was the 924 and came across written evidence to back that up, then I came across another piece of documentation which suggested that the 944 is the most economical.

So which is it? Or is this one of those things that will run and run with neither camp relenting to the other?

This is leaving me very confused indeed.

Cheers....

Paul.

 

[geoff Ives]

Conflicting reports, non relenting in PCGB? Perish the thought.

Both are fine cars. One was the beginging of a model line whilst the other was a develiopnent, some would say an improvement.

Running costs. Servicing. With a 944 you should take it to a Porsche specialist. On a 924 'Joe Bloggs garage' would be fine for most engine related work.

Parts. Engine and running parts for the 924 (2 litre) are from the VW / Audi parts bin. No problem there (356 owners take note) both companies make fine cars and have good quality control. 944 other than tramsmission (same as 924) are Porsche items, more specialised (more expensive).

You could of course make the obvious choise and buy a 924S but then it is realy a 944 in 924 clothes.

Remember it doesn't matter what the model number is they are both Porsche.
___________________________________________________________________
Geoff Ives. Register Director. Classic & Heritage Group Secretary.

 

[937carrera]

Geoff's advice is good advice, here's some more general advice

When thinking about running costs for a car in many cases the biggest single item is depreciation. Buying a classic really is cheaper, even if repairs are higher.

Insurance costs can often be more significant than fuel costs, work it out and think, is that extra 2 mpg really worth the sacrifice?

Buy a good car in the first place (inspection ?) and you should only have to pay normal maintenance costs.

 

[Guest]

Agreeing with all the above.

What I've found is that somethings will be more expensive on a 944 or 924S, eg clutch, but on the other hand the 2.5l (924S & 944'early) engine is very reliable (with regular oil changes) and good to high miles 200K, or so I've been told. And it is a proper porsche engine and therefore more refined etc.

I went for a 924S but a good 924 with lots of decent history and some recent spend is still a lot of car for the money. Just go with a post '81 car as they are fully galvinized.

Take your time and look at /drive a few and read up on what buyers guides are on the web, take them with you and take your time to check the body, suspension, tyres, electrics, engine. If you use the guides and be thorough you'll not go too far wrong.

 

[Guest]

This is all really good advice, I really do appreciate it.

One thing though, and it's to do with what 'duncmac' just said about engines. What is the consensus of opinion on the Audi unit some 924's have? I ask because the 924 I'd fallen for has the Audi 2.0 litre lump under the bonnett. How reliable an engine is this - is it cheaper to maintain than a Porsche engine?

Cheers....


Paul.

 

[937carrera]

Well Popeye, if you want the brutal truth, the "Audi" engine is actually out of the VW LT van. There I said it now, do I have no shame?

The bottom end is just about unbreakable, there are no balancer shafts to worry about, parts are dead cheap & easy to find and the timing belt is really the only part of the engine itself that requires maintenance in the normally aspirated version.

Look to the left...... this is written by the racer of a 210hp turbocharged LT van, otherwise known as a Porsche 924 Carrera GT. Oh, and while I remember it was this same basic engine that finished 6th, 12th and 13th at Le Mans in 1980 []

Having said that the 2.5 litre engine is more complex but more powerful and smoother.

Still confused.... drive the cars and see if what you think.

 

[Guest]

So, from that I can assume that it's still regarded as a "real" Porsche? Due to my naivety I was gobsmacked when I heard it wasn't a Porsche unit driving the thing - I initially thought the owner had switched the engine, but gladly I didn't say as much. I'd have felt a right numpty if i had!

I hope to get to drive the different engined models in due course - I'll use the hands-on time to make my mind up about which I'll eventually buy. From an insurance point of view the 2.0 litre would make more sense financially - but I also like the notion of a 2.5 or even a 2.7 litre lump to blow the cobwebs away on a crisp, fresh Sunday morning up here in Scotland.

Thanks for the overwhelming vote of support in favour of the VW LT van's power unit - I will no longer have a look of disdain, nor suffer a fit of apoplexy when I hear a prospective seller say "it's the Audi engine, mate!"

Cheers....


Paul.

 

[Guest]

Its really about personal choice. I bought a 924S but my brothers probably going to by a 924.

If you read the online guides eg http://www.tipec.org.uk/ go to models then 924. It'll give you an overview of the differences.

Parts and maintaince is cheaper with the non S eg clutch kit are half as cheap as the S version. Parts for either are not a problem as eurocarparts.com has pretty much everything you need with more specialist places filling in the gaps.

RE: Insurance I go a really good deal from carol nash (agent who got me a classic car policy from Axa 60K miles a year for £483 cheap or what)

Anyway its personal choice, the normal 2.0l has a porsche reworked head and its still a porsche designed car and a really good one.

I'd like to own one of each...... One day