Honest John and the 993

[stuart tanner]

Thanks for that Ian, hope to get the car back soon. Just took it to an opc as the car has full psh at present. Seemed a shame to break it up. Generally get remedial work done by an independent specialist Steve Bull who advertises in back of P.P. Theres 2 of them there and there very good and will go out of there way for anything. Fair play to them. [][]

 

[Sir Rocco]

A certain independant specialist located in Bolton runs a Lifetime Maintenance Plan within which its customers can pay a monthly charge to cover service costs.

As they are most likely running this plan at a profit & with a degree of risk I would hazard a guess that they have a better understanding then most of the running costs of modern Porsches.

As a comparative listing the following should give a guide to the maintenance costs for the following vehicles.

12K miles - Carrerra C2 /C4 £120 per month
12K miles - 993 & 996 £ 65 per month

This guide can be found on page 47 of the Hartech Buyers Guide.

I have no relationship with Hartech, other than being a satisfied customer.

Finally, they certainly know far more about maintenence costs of Porsche cars than Honest John.

 

[Hasan]

Is that in effect a warranty then?

If you multiply by 12 to get the annual figure (£780) it's roughly the same as the official Porsche warranty....although paying by monthly installments is a nice touch.

 

[Sir Rocco]

No, not like a warranty at all - with a warranty you still have to pay for servicing. This guarantees service costs.
The snag, is of course that you have to have had a very thorough 'C' Service before they accept your car onto the scheme, unless you buy one of their sales cars.
My point was the comparative service costs between 993 & 996 are the same.

 

[Guest]

Most independents rate 993 build quality higher then that of the 996 (and Boxster). As a Porsche trader said to me the other day, they are suddenly making £2m a day off the back of their product line up, that has to come at the expense of something somewhere along the line. It is not all economy of scale.

'Honest John' knows as much about the motor trade as anybody else I know, he is noted within his profession for being well-informed and on-the-ball. He has plenty of specialist contacts who will spell out Porsche problems very clearly for him (that would include people within the dealer network).

It's all opinion and you can take it or leave it, but in this case Honest John's opinion is at least as valid as anyone else's. My opinion would be that the 997 harks back to the original 911, same as the 993 tried to, despite that fat backside [8D]

 

[mikejb993]

Was told something interesting at an OPC last year at the launch party for the 997. Apparently it took 144 man hours to build the 993 model. For the 996 the build time was 47 man hours.

Time equals money I guess.

 

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: johndglynn

Most independents rate 993 build quality higher then that of the 996 (and Boxster). As a Porsche trader said to me the other day, they are suddenly making £2m a day off the back of their product line up, that has to come at the expense of something somewhere along the line. It is not all economy of scale.

'Honest John' knows as much about the motor trade as anybody else I know, he is noted within his profession for being well-informed and on-the-ball. He has plenty of specialist contacts who will spell out Porsche problems very clearly for him (that would include people within the dealer network).

It's all opinion and you can take it or leave it, but in this case Honest John's opinion is at least as valid as anyone else's. My opinion would be that the 997 harks back to the original 911, same as the 993 tried to, despite that fat backside [8D]

A significant part of Porsche's profits last year came from smart playing of money markets - hedges and suchlike. But the overall point is valid - as is the one about economies from streamlined production.

Hear, hear re Honest John!

 

[Fen]

ORIGINAL: std70040

Your point about depreciation is, of course, very valid. As Honest John said, late 993 values are holding up rather better than those of early 996s. Supply/demand balance. And the demand maybe influenced by the 996's mechanical reputation.

I think you're also missing the fairly big point that to a lot of people (myself included) the 911 is a rear engined, six cylinder, air-cooled coupe with a particular interior layout. As such the 996 (and 997 now) have always held zero interest for me and if I ever choose to get back into 911 ownership then I know the 993 is where I will be putting my money because it's the last and best of the breed. I understand that legislation may have made it difficult for Porsche to continue with the air cooled engine (but I refuse to accept impossible when you look at all the other challenges they did rise to throughout the preceeding 40+ years) but there was no need beyond pandering to a non-enthusiast market and reducing costs, quite likely at cost to reliability it would seem, to make the other changes that were brought in with the 996. I think the fact the 997 looks more like an evolution of a 993 than of a 996 speaks volumes about the styling direction. I have always thought the 996 was a sell-out, chasing profit ahead of making good cars. If that was the best they could do the 911 should have been killed off with the air cooled engine as all the 996 did was hold back the better package (Boxster) by denying it the performance (turbo) engines it so desperately deserved. The imminent launch of the Cayman just serves to underline further that the 997 is superfluous; it is kept on as a flagship model to retain the 911 "heritage" when the truth is that is has lost almost all the worthy attributes that the real 911 stood for. Porsche need to have the guts to kill the 911 now they have ripped the soul out of it and let the Boxster and the Cayman be developed to their full potential without having to be hobbled by not treading on the toes of a flagship model of inferior design and no real character. They killed the 356 when the 911 came along after all.

 

[Fen]

Fair comment. I'm not blind to progress either, far from it. In fact what I am saying is if the 911 concept was worn out (and after 40+ years that's still a good innings) then rather than pretend there is still a real 911as the flagship by creating an all-new car with some basic styling cues and an engine hanging out the back as a nod to the heritage why not just use the far more capable Boxster/Cayman platform to make the best car possible rather than hobble them to keep them slightly behind the "bigger brother".

 

[Guest]

V thought-provoking, Fen. Agree Boxster (Cayman) is a great platform, but could Porsche make a 2+2 out of it? The great thing about the '911' concept* is that it's a very (OK relatively) practical supercar. Today my chief was highly impressed with the stowage capacity of the Boxster but pointed out that we couldn't use it en famille (that's trois personnes).

*Why do journos/anoraks (and Porsche themselves) persist with the 911 nonsense? The car hasn't been called that since the demise of the 911SC. Regrettable maybe, but true...

 

[NicD]

Yes, that's the Marketing Departments job, to create demand, in the case of the 9nn, by harking back to historical line since 1964.
For example, when Porsche GB launched both the 997 and 987, they used the Club to source various previous models to create displays "showing" the history.

Btw, I have heard some Porsche die hards reject all models since the 356 (including the first 911) as they were no longer built in the original plant - don't ask for more details, I would have to research this.
In the next hundred years of Porsche history, the change to full water cooling and efficient manufacturing will not be such a major topic.

Btw, I would swap my GT3 for a 993 GT2 anyway, but because it is a faster, lighter car, not because of any reason mentioned above. I would put up with the dated styling and upright windscreen because it would be worth it.

Anyway, I think we all agree on the major points, and it is just personal stance that separates us.

 

[Guest]

Nic, thanks for enabling me to see the light. I now realise my 993 is a piece of ersatz tat because it wasn't built in Gmund. (Reaches for Top Marques...)

 

[Guest]

Or 'Mundane Really Classics?' magazine.

 

[NicD]

Pete,

the only Die Hard I am is Bruce Willis, and from the positive comments from owners, I am becoming rather a 993 fan!

 

[peterfrost]

Hi,
Just thought I'd add my twopenneth.
I saw the HJ article and e-mailed to put him straight.
Generally HJ gives good advice and tells it like it is BUT
I'm annoyed at the poor factual advice and the effect on residuals.
As far as I know there has not been an failure attributable to the regulated oil supply at high G.Find me someone who says different.
The RMS is completely different issue and due to an unforseen design problem.
Nic says the oil "starvation"*1 is at high G,maybe, but its easily achieved reducing5>23/4 bar on the road.
*1 Porsche say "regulation"
The description in the sales blurb describes lubrication suitable for racing forces.
But its not an A/c versus W/c issue. They couldn't make a compliant engine today with enough power.
So HJ should no better,but to put the tin hat on it,in the same paper where he recommends car replacement(back page),he put the Boxster as first choice and described it as
"bullettproof"???When tackled him on this he said"not his words,inserted by a sub-editor"!
So don't expect accuracy.

 

[Michael Downing]

HJ's column today recommends an "E320 convertible" from the early 90s. Does that actually exist? Weren't the convertibles with an E-class styling badged the CLK?

 

[IndischRot]

He's refering to the pre-CLK E class, circa 1992. This is the same vintage as the original 500E; the E class with the 5 litre V8 from the S class which Porsche helped MB develop. It would have been based on the 320CE, built like a brick sh*thouse and resembling one as well.

Why is it that Merc's look reasonably good when introduced but very out of date when their replacement arrives?

 

[Michael Downing]

Ah........... Thanks.


I think the styling issue is because Mercs tend to be regarded as "Establishment" cars driven by conservative types. So the styling of a new model is only avantgarde within the limits that imposes. Then, after we've watched S classes being driven around by late middle aged suits for the last half a decade, they somehow seem older than they really are.

Just my musings, though.