Why are 996's so cheap?

I just started looking at 911s and thought I would buy a last gen 911 or 964. As I am searching for cars, it seems like there are nearly as many 1999 and 2000 model year 996's out there with around 100,000 miles for about the same price. What is the deal? Are there a bunch of troublesome 996's out there? Is a major service required at 100,000 miles? I would expect a modern car to go well beyond 100,000 miles without a major service other timing belt.

The '99-'01 seem to be much lower than the '02-'04. I'm finding the latter to be holding their value pretty well still (I'm lookin' out for one too).

they're cheap because they are cheap compared to the older porsches that were not mass produced and quality was more manufactured by hand vs assemblyline. compare the 996 with the 993 like BMW M3 E36 to M3 E30. One is more mechanically inclined vs one is more plush and automated. for what people get porsches for, the 996 is not anywhere near that. check out the diff between 993 turbo and 996 turbo, values drop really fast on 996.

There are alot of 996s vs other models. Supply vs. demand.

ditto supply vs demand They're a great deal...I just got a 2004 and have definitely been struck with the perma-grin

Yeah they aren't bad cars, just cheap. Kind of like 951s.

No timing belt to worry about. Sometimes an engine, though. In general, they are a great steal, and, in my opinion, a very under-valued car.

Sell ya mine for a good price

maybe if folks stopped letting them go for so cheap....

Is there anything to look out for on these? I've seen them as cheap as $17k, which seems crazy.

Not a lot of '97 and '98 911s were made. The production was upped greatly in '99 and also the economy was terrific. There were lot of young people making big money in the dot com arena and related fields. Lots of new 996s were leased, and special ordered with extravagent option packages. As I recall, production was at its peak and there was a waiting list for new Carreras and Boxsters. There were virtually no used 996 Carreras for sale and very few Boxsters, and anything you could find went for a premium. I bought a mint '99 Boxster in '02 with less than 8k miles for my wife and a year later a '99 Carrera cabrilot for myself. Stll have them both and they have been very good vehicles. The Boxster has actually been more troublefree than my wife's '06 Lexus. My '99 Carrera is close to mint condition and I've thought about selling it a few times, but it's worth a lot more to me than what I could get for it in todays economy.

I know this may be a biased forum, but would I be better getting a 99-00 996 rather than a 87-89 911 or 89-93 964? This car will be a third vehicle and only driven on nice days during non-snowing months. I want something that I can autocross and possibly do some track days. I also want something that I can maintain myself. I may choose to bring it to a mechanic for larger stuff but I would like to have that choice. Any thoughts?

Quotes source post: 6925713

This is really a fallacy. The significant change in the production line techniques were introduced in '94 for the the start of 993 production. There really isn't a difference in the assembly technique of the 993 vs. the 996. If/when you go to the factory, you will see that everything is assembled "by hand" except the windshield. That is the only automated installation piece (placing the heavy windshield was considered a health issue for the workers). The engines are built by hand, too, but unlike lower production days, not every one is dyno tested (but engines are continually dyno'd on a spot-check basis). Now, I do believe there IS a significant difference in quality between the 993 and earlier cars and the 996 and later "consumer" Porsches (not GT3, Turbo, etc). This is more because of materials and design, not hand vs. machine. I think the Boxsters and 996's introduced the age of "consumer" Porsches which were built more on par with a BMW (if not a bit cheaper material than a BMW). Porsche didn't become the world's most profitable auto manufacturer magically...

Agree with post above, it's about materials and design that are the heart of the issue. Production numbers don't explain the fall off the cliff 996 prices have experienced. But for the money it's a great car that carries some risk of ownership.

1) many have as 3rd car, those are first to go in a recession 2) engine failure issues drive price down. 3). No collector value. Air cooled models are muchore coveted fr this standpoint, cars too new for classic status 4) new anti-excess mentality has many Americans shunning "wants" over "needs" and a 911 gets hit there like Escalades and Hummers Great time to buy though!

hogwash - those $17k cars are super plain jane lease returns or something and they seem to be setting the "standard" drive mine (or plenty of other people's) car up along side one and you would be shocked at how much better they look. SO here is the scoop.... we all spent money making them look good and if you buy one for that price, you will either be stuck in a plane jane, or be sinking money in mods to make it look better. The money spent is not money we get back, BUT when done we love our cars too much to sell them for that price, so we hold out for a "little more" - still a great deal - really! <rambling> yada yada

Quotes source post: 6926390

The design of <'99 cars requires much more hand work than later cars. Just count the 10,000 black trim screws that hold a 993 together. 993 and earlier = hand fit, adjust, screw in. 996 and later = snap. Perhaps both panels are fitted by hand, but there's a huge difference in the amount of hand work.

Good cars cost more. Recent maintenance and new wear items, records and warranty can, and should, add as much as 20% to the value of a Porsche. But as a buyer, no one can blame you for trying to convince the seller that all 996s are worth high-teens to low-$20s. In this economy, it might even work.

Quotes source post: 6926390

Very true. How else would someone explain the miriad of pictures of the production line in the late 90's with a 993 and a 986 side by side or right next to each other on the same line. The same is true from the 996 and 993 in pics from 1998. Air cooled engines cost Porsche a great deal of money. And having an air cooled engine and wishing to have 4 valves per cylinder and DOHC was an impossibility do to the heat generated. The profitiability of Porsche was in the crapper at that time as well. It was a question of "do we adapt or cease to exist", hence the 986 and 996.

Quotes source post: 6926527

I see a P-car and the Escalade/Hummer as 2 different types of excess. I look at a Escalade owner and say, "Nice Chrome Tahoe!" I look at a Hummer owner say "what was 8mpg like with $4.00 gas?" This was ignorant excess. Buying one of the best handling cars out there for a fraction of it's original MSRP, sustainable excess.

And to this day, their continued existence costs 996 owners a lot of money in depreciation.

Most of the people here are *way* to speculatory and analytical. It's simple supply/demand. Anyway, If it's a 1 or 2 owner car, has all maintenance records and pass a PPI, get it!! They are some of, if not *thee* best value's on sports cars in the world. If you have $20k and want an amazing Porsche, buy a 99/00 996!!

Here's some other *amazing* value's for under $20k. Check out this dudes list ---> http://blog.cardomain.com/2009/09/15...-cars-for-20k/

Quotes source posts: 6926582, 6926839, 6927078

I don't know Ed, this seems like mod cost justification, which I think all of us are guilty of. The only cosmetic mods which are truly noticeable to a layman observer are wheels and wings. Maybe amberectomy on very early non-xenon cars. Beyond that we're dealing with the type of minutiae evident only to real cognoscenti. You can buy a plain jane car and dress it up pretty inexpensively these days. The little things we all obsess over are really not major contributors to curb appeal or "drive up next to" it appeal, and this is definitely reflected in resale prices. I do agree re: the cost, but I still wonder why four valves really matter for anything but fuel economy or emissions (topics which I have no knowledge of). Porsche had a 12 cylinder DOHC air cooled motor making insane power (1600 gross horsepower estimated) at high rpm in the 917 in 1969 through the mid 70s, and an 8 cylinder DOHC motor in the type 804 in 1962. I agree with Gant, it's supply, demand and I'm going to say headlight prejudice esp. on the earlier ambered Mk1s. If you have $20k and want an amazing Porsche, buy a 99/00 996!![/QUOTE] Let's all remember that there was a period of time, Id say 1988 to 93 or 94, when you could buy a ten year old 911 for 15 to 20K. A financial crisis precipitates the sale of a disproportionately large number of toys. The common wisdom then, especially on the 2.7, was that you might not be able to keep it on the road, but you could get the title cheap. See any similarities? OT: Gant what happened to the E90? Best, Hans

Quotes source post: 6927281

no no, I agree... you can pick up a plane jane and with very little effort enhance it to your liking. But I was pointing out that people that just buy one and drive it till they are "done" and sell it dont have the same level of "heart" poured into the car and therefore are willing to sell it for less money....(the same people that complain about the cost of maintenance) for those of us that spent time making it unique will most likely sell for about the same price due to the fact that the mods dont really increase value, but we are more reluctant to do so and therefore tend to hold onto them a little longer. the curb appeal changes like wings and skirts (ect) dont change the numbers (in my case its a 99' with 112k miles on it) it is worth what it is worth no matter how shiny it is. I however wont sell it for $16k so if someone wants a $16k car they will have to get one and do the work to make it unique.....(and in the end cost more than I am willing to sell for, but have the experiance of doing it yourself) Its likely I wont get $20k for my car.... but if someone wants theirs to look like it they will spend the $16-18k and THEN sink $5k or more in it to make it the "same" - the good news is THEN it will be worth......$17-19k Ta Da! <I know - I am rambling.... >

The ONLY reason I can see that makes sense as to why these generation 911s sink in value.....they are almost identical to other Porsches....Boxsters.... I don't think that any older Gen. 911 shared as much look and parts as the 986/996 has...

Quotes source post: 6928027

That may be

Quotes source post: 6928027

That is a very good point. Buyers now can and do shop newer Boxsters along with 911s, and that really ups the "supply" end of the equation. Really, it isn't that the 911 is soo cheap now, it's just that it doesn't command the used car premium older models always did. If you look at prices of used M3s or AMG Mercedes, they don't fare better. The older 911s were really an exception of high resale for German performance cars as opposed to the rule.

I was in the market for a 911 to use as a regular driver. I knew the 996 was probably best positioned for this type of use, but basically looked at any 911 that wasn't seriously collecable -- 911SC, 964, etc. The 996 is not the only 911 in the price range mentioned by the OP -- There are a lot of 911s with 100k miles that (aren't collectable) that are in that price range. The 993 seems to be a something of a special case of a fairly recent car for which the whole line is collectable. It was made in limited numbers and is the last, and arguably most developed, of the air-cooled cars. In my experience a lot of lower priced 911s were lower priced for a reason. Every time I saw a lower priced 996 and did a little research on the car something would turn up on carfax and/or or I didn't get a good feeling from the seller. I think this is true of any car. And there are certainly some bargains out there due to the economy of course. 996s are a tremendous value. I ended up going with a 996 because, as I mentioned, I planned to use it regularly. If I didn't plan to use it regularly and had some deep affinity for the air cooled cars I'd look for a much older 911, probably something from the 60s or early 70s. The newer air cooled cars have better performance than the 60s & 70s models, but if absolute performance is your criteria the 996 thumps them all. (Comparing turbos to turbos, non-turbos to non-turbos, etc.)

Quotes source post: 6926381

This really depends on what kind of feel you want out of the car. I have a '99 C2 as a daily driver and have had a 1980 SC in the past as a summer car. In general, the older you go back, the more raw the feeling, the less the a/c works, and the less civilized the car, but the more fun you can have at lower speeds. The 996 does everything well, but its limits are so high compared to most cars (including the older 911's) that unless you're on a track, you won't be able to fully appreciate it's limits. I wouldn't have as much fun at an autocross with my 996 as I would have with my SC, but I'd be way more comfortable getting there and back, and I'd still have as much fun at a regular track. In terms of maintenance, for little stuff, I think the 996 is actually easier than previous models as well (no valves to adjust). Oil changes are about the same if not easier, and I changed my accessories belt in less than 10 minutes!

Quotes source post: 6926390

There was a big transition at the factory when the water cooled platform was designed-yes, both platforms were manufactured concurrently towards the end but counter to what you are saying, the manufacturing techniques in the 993 involved an incredible amount of hand work-there is no comparison. We are talking hand fitting/hammering panels, manually checking gaps with feeler gauges, etc- Check out this video- scroll down to the 993 videos and choose the "993 - The Latest Evolution" video. http://coochas.com/porsche/911vids.html

I love my 996, but I'd never say it was better looking than a 993 or 964. I ALWAYS stop to look at a nice air cooled example. If I wasn't married I'd have both. If you don't care about modern day performance, but like the exclusivity, retro fun on a Sunday drive experience, go with an older 911, especially if you like to wrench. But if you have to have AC that cools, heat that heats, stereo that you can hear, adjustable seats with memory for real comfort, real small of the back acceleration, etc, etc, the 996, esp '02 to '04 is THE sports car bargain out there today. In podunk Richmond VA, 996s are still pretty rare to see, 993s much rarer...but you trip over M3s all day here. It REALLY does depend on where you live and what you wan tthe car for.

Quotes source post: 6930001

Could not have said it better myself. My only addition is that I don't fit very well in a 993 and I really found the right P-car for me....comfort seats. On a related note, the number of 98 -02 Boxsters I am seeing on the road has risen considerably. hell, there are 3 in my office parking lot that weren't there 2 months ago.

I will sell my perfect Artic Silver 1999 with 33k miles to the right buyer. (it will not be sold in the Teens). No RMS and No IMS issues ever, all books and records and maintained only by Porsche. It is modded and I have all the original parts. time to step up to a GT3....

Quotes source post: 6927281

The power advantage started with the 4-valve per cylinder design, and the 4-cam 996 engine gave more design flexibility than the 2-cam air cooled engine, ultimately leading to variable valve timing. You can't do that with air cooled heads, because there is not enough square area of fins left to cool the heads by the time you block off the airflow with an extra camshaft and double the number of valves. What you can do with 2-valves per cylinder is run twin-plug. But the 4 valves are smaller, lighter, and quicker than the 2 valves. Less reciprocating mass means more power and better emissions. And VarioCam meant further efficiencies that just were not possible before. The air cooled engine had separate cylinders, while the water cooled engine has a block of three cylinders. They cited increased thermal stability, and in practice the engine can be run a little bit leaner than the air cooled motor. That is where you pick up reduced emissions and maybe a little bit of power. Porsche considered using oil instead of water for the cooling, but found that water was a better conducter of heat, and cost less power to pump around. The oil to water heat exchanger on the engine, and later on the transmission, is very small, compact and efficient. This is because it is in the pressure side of the system, instead of the scavenge side where it had been for 40 years on the 911. On the scavenge side you have lots of air and foamy oil. On the pressure side you have just oil, under pressure. As far as weight, it doesn't work that way. The water cooling system is heavier. The radiator itself is light, but there are two or three of them depending on model & options. And the system capacity is between 20 and 30 liters, hardly a weight savings. For more thorough answers you will need to go to back issues of Panorama magazine. The introduction of the Boxster and 996 were written up well, and should provide the rest of the framework you are looking for. Joel Reiser - PCA WebSite

When I was first looking at 911's, I was thinking 993. I did the research, and discovered that the newer, lower-mile 996's were the same, or even cheaper cost-wise, and way ahead performance and comfort wise. No brainer for me! I drove a 993. It was loud, had a stiff clutch, the A/C was terrible, and driving on the local roads was a harsh experience. Sure the door closed like a bank vault. So what? I didn't want a future collectible. I wanted a fast car that was comfortable and fun to drive. I never looked back after buying my 996! Will I sell it for $20k? Nope!

On the issue of weight, my recollection is that the 996 is 50 kg lighter than the 993.

Yes, I see a ton more Boxsters now than ever. They went from Sunday fun cars for the well to do, to almost DDs for the common sports car man, sort of what I imagine the 996 is in SoCal.

The idea that the 993 is a better quality car because they use more screws to attach a fender liner, have to beat the body panels into position...etc, is preposterous. Working as a car designer for a major OEM for 12yrs and counting I can tell you the opposite is probably true. The 993 is a beautiful car no doubt, but was incredibly old in R&D years when made, being based on a car developed in the early 1960's. Production methods improve with time, becoming higher quality and more efficient. Using 12 screws to attach a part that can be just as robustly secured with 2 clips is stupid. It sounds like to me all the obvious handwork of putting together a 993 or older 911 were countermeasures introduced to overcome the limitations of such an old vehicle platform. Hand made is an overused cliche in describing manufacturing differences. Go to a Toyota factory and watch them "hand build" a Corrolla. People that say 993's are hand built and 996's are not are profoundly ignorant of automobile manufacturing techniques. I test drove a 993 before I bought my 996. 993's are charming boutique cars. 996's are modern cars that you can drive every day and are designed for modern service. The bank vault door feel of a 993 is due to the framed window glass door construction, the 996 does not have this. Most cars that do not have framed glass suffer the crappy door close feeling when the window is down. The interior quality of my car with the full leather option is better than any 993 I've ever sat in.

Using seven buttons to hold your shirt front closed when a few pieces of velcro can do the job is stupid. Using fieldstone to build a house when cement blocks will do the job is stupid. Many people find value and beauty in anachronistic and not very efficient things. Isn't that first semester stuff at design school?

Nobody wants anachronistic engineering on a new car. Nobody wants old fashioned safety on a new car. Progress is inevitable. New cars are almost, without fail, always better than old cars. You see the shirt buttons. You don't see the screws. I'm not sure anyone builds a house out of fieldstone these cays or even cement blocks for that matter. People generally find value in visual anachronisms (like an analog clock) not in manufacturing. I own several hand sewn shirts. Are they better made that machine sewn shirts? No. It's for fun. I also don't have to worry about airbag performance on my shirt, or crash energy absorption. First semester at design school was about learning to draw a car. It was a nightmare. Although I fear I am hijacking this thread.....

I wonder if some of the extensive customization from the factory hurts resale values. You can have 2 cars side by side that look almost identical to the casual/uniformed observer, but be more than $15-20k difference in purchase price. For a first time buyer, if the cars look about the same, why pay extra? Further, you start pressuring the higher cost one to be more competitive with the lower one. It seems as if this would depress the prices of the more heavily optioned cars. When I saw the original low value resales for the 996's, they tended to be minimally optioned cars. Due to financial pressures and because many enthusiasts had moved on to 997's or backward in model years -- the 996's suffered from being recent -- but not unique. Thus, the people who tended to buy them were first-time-buyers that had wanted a Porsche, but were looking for a good deal more than specific features/options. Not sure how long or if ever it will take for 996 values to recover. When I was driving 911's in the early 70's -- the 1966 911's were 'dogs' as they weren't the first year, but still didn't have the refinement of later years. Now they go for a pretty good price. Not sure I want to wait that long for my car's value to recover. On the other hand...... While I find the new cars to be tempting, my car is so close to them in capability, I would have to spend a LOT of money to gain very little practical value. It's a lot of money to feed an ego. So, will just keep driving mine. Heck, even a replacement engine is dramatically less expensive than buying a new car (especially when you factor in depreciation) if the rest of the car is in good condition.

Quotes source post: 6926390

you are right in a sense that the amount of handbuilt work put into the two are probably no different, but i was referring more toward how in perceived handbuilt craftmanshift more attention to detail was placed. Similar to how Mercedes tries to portray AMG models as "handbuilt" by an AMG tech. in reality, this is all smoke the companies try to put in our minds, but definitely when Porsche went for mass production and larger appeal to bigger population they were willing to give up this perception they want to put in our minds hence the minor details that we feel are essential to being a true porsche were taken out for the larger population who would care less about these things. Things like doors that have that click and air cooled engines that sound like no other. Hence the collector value of resale are lost, and more porsches were sold to people who leased them, only for the market to be flooded with more porsches going to the supply & demand theory mentioned in several posts. Everything is based off #1 perception in this world, then #2 supply and demand based off #1. You can sell someone a painting for $1mm when it is made of the same paint and canvas as a $10 painting made by someone less perceived as a good artist. There could be only one painting made by me that someone would only pay $10 but yet, others would pay $1mm+ for a Picasso painting. Some people learned this yesterday with RIMM stock, where one day there was a group of people who believed it is worth $85, and suddenly the next day it was worth $15 less.

Quotes source post: 6934664

I went to design school as well. I don't know how old you are but build quality will eventually win the day with regards to the longevity of the product and the brand. Let's see 5 or 6 years from now what will stand the test of time-my air cooled version with absolutely no mechanical faults in 9 years of ownership or the more modern platform. Same goes with the Porsche marque itself. This has nothing to do with "modern technology" or design. It has a lot to do with choosing efficiency over quality. To your point, Toyotas are certainly more efficiently built than my 993. Fine by me. Two clips will do the job of 12 screws until the 2 clips need replacing after 5 years. I'll prefer to tighten the 12 screws every 10-thanks-

Thing is...those older 911's are like bank vaults, they are! A 993 will out live you, that's for sure... Newer Porsche, not the same...not even close. That being said, I preffer 996's to older 911's as daily drivers. The are just more comfortable.. I say, buy the 993 to collect(keep forever).. Buy the 996 for daily driving. My 2 cents, from having and working on multiple Porsches over the last 18 years...

The 996s that are pampered, garaged and well taken care of will be just fine. I've owned many older Porsches, and I for one certainly would not argue that older Porsches were built "better". I am personally only interested in the "classic" 911, the 996 and vaguely the 997, and would not own a 993 or 964. To each his own...

Quotes source post: 6936117

Agree-

Franklin229, wow, where did you go to school. I went to CCS is Detroit. When going through the buying process I drove both 993 and 996 as they were roughly close in price at the time. In researching the faults of both models I came across the engine port clogging issues of the 993(please forgive my lack of precise terminology, it's been a while). I live in CA with strict smog testing. The ports clog, you fail smog, can't drive car. It seems the issue is with soft valve guides if I remember correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong. In research it seems the probability of this happening was very high, between 50-80%. The only countermeasure is an expensive head rebuild. In 996's the spectre of catastrophic engine fail looms large, noone knows the exact numbers, but I figured, with all of the cars produced, it has to be relatively uncommon. Probably no more than 20%. I figured the better bet was with the 996 in that scenario. I drive my 996 everyday. It's perfect for that. I had a coworker buy a 993 C4S the same time I bought my car. He's since sold his car. I still have mine. The word on the street was it was unsuitable for daily use eventually. Congrats on not having any mechanical faults with your car. That's awesome. I have to believe that is more the exception than the norm. We have a saying in our studio,...an old car is just an old car. My 996 is @10 yrs old now! I had a loaner Cayman S for a weekend a few months ago, and I have to say it drove better than my car in almost every way possible. It was phenomenal.

Quotes source post: 6936878

I went to SU for Industrial Design, '84. You are correct with regards to both 993 and 996. They all have issues-maybe I have been lucky but I firmly believe the internet happens to draw out the most extreme scenarios re: mechanical issues. I have never personally met a 993 owner with the SAI issue, nor have I met a 996 owner with RMS. Also note that X% of 996's with issues vs X% of 993's is apples to oranges due to differences in production numbers- who knows. The combo of build quality, design details drew me to the purchase of my car. I think all 911's are somewhat reliable-just made/designed differently. I like the Cayman S as well-got to drive a buddy's loaner. It was fun but a little too cramped for me.

J-No, first, let me congratulate you on your posts. We need more of this on these board. Your opinions are solidly grounded in logic and backed up appropriately. Most of the rest argue in circles using terms and opinions like "better" or "worse" without first defining what those terms mean in context, so thanks. As far as pricing goes, it all falls downhill from the auctions. The reality is: a MK1 996 is selling for $10-$15k at auction. (Yes, an '01 996 is $15k right now) That's a verifiable number that is a good indicator of demand and street price. Those of you who want $20K plus for a '99 are bucking the trend. I think the reasons are a bit of everything previously mentioned and a bit more, but the end result is people don't want these cars in the same way they want other models. A good case study might be the 928 where a shift in design direction made the car a tough sell a few years later. Sound a bit like the 996?

If anyone claims the older 911's are built better than the 996, they must have limited knowledge of these cars IMO. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. I would take the entire suspension/steering system from a 996 over any previous 911 just like I would take the engine externals of an older 911 over a 996. Carpet in the 996 is far superior to previous years. Sheetmetal is a toss up. Interior IMO is nicer in the 996 except the dash, the older ones were friggin' robust! Layout of wiring and pedal assembly under the dash of a 996 is better than older ones. I almost crashed at >120 MPH due to the design of the older pedal assemblies "over Engineering"

Quotes source post: 6937610

These types of advances in technology over time have happened in every model line. Quality of construction is another issue.

Clean looking car Cory.

Thanks for the compliment salayc! I'm really an artist at heart, but having gone through the feasibility process a few times (making a sketch(what I do) into a real car(what the engineers do)) and having to explain/rationalize my designs to the engineers I've been forced to learn a little logic over the years. Franklin229! Are you still designing? The interior of a 993 is more spacious than a Cayman?...I guess you have the back seat. Technically, I think the 993 is a better looking car. The surfacing/ highlighting of the 993 is perfect. The 996 doors, the highlights are just atrocious. According to a conversation I had at a beach party with the exterior designer of the Cayman, he said BMW did the stampings(made the tools maybe?) for the 996 ext, and both companies blame the other for the poor stampings. As a designer I love that the 996 is the first all new 911 since the 60's. The exterior shape is just so new and unusual for Porsche, so full of vitality. I'm sure the 997 is a better car, but man, did they take a giant step back into the old. The surfacing is almost frumpy. To get back on topic, I am a little dissapointed in my resale value trajectory. A lot of it is supply and demand I think. The 993 market definitely has a collectors slant to it, almost a closed market, Porsche's for Porsche people only. The 996 is still more of mass consumer car market at the moment. Maybe after 10 yrs or so, and a sizeable portion of the 996 population is destroyed the remaining good cars will stand out and stabilize the market. I can only hope.

I find thsi very funny talk about why the 996 is so cheap. Well is is due to the percieved isssues of the RMS etc and then on top of that the 996 is really a boring looking car in the base form. Plus there prices are down because noone wants them for these reasons. Ask anyone and if they tell you they are dying for a 996 [unch him. the 993 and 964 are just as fast have a/c, heat and all the other features. Ok no memory seats. when you drive your 996 does anyone even look at the car? I know in my 964 I get looks thumb ups people screaming that they love my car. That is why my value is higher

Wellcraft, when you come to the forum with the intent to insult all the 996 owners, perhaps you should consider making your points in a manner that don't make you sound like a twelve year old. Did you type your post on your phone?

Quotes source post: 6939175

^^ Proof that you have no idea what you are talking about...

Quotes source post: 6939175

Well, this post sure is usefull.

Quotes source post: 6939175

Yeah, they looked at it - mainly because they couldn't believe it was out of the garage and I was actually driving it!! But seriously, have a peek at this 4S - do you think anyone looked at this car? Did you take just a quick look, Champ??

Quotes source post: 6939175

yea baby - when I drive I get people screaming too, not sure what they are screaming though sometimes I back up and ask them... I liked one that screamed "slow down!" when I was going 20 in a 25 zone ? actually that happened twice now ? I think the 996 just looks SO much faster than the 993 hahahhahahahha!!

My 996 gets plenty of looks, I think people just see me go by and say: "Look at that ugly bastard driving a Porsche... I bet it even has an RMS leak and I hear 964's are just as fast" yeah, thats it!

Quotes source post: 6939366

HAHAH @ ugly bastard - yea, I agree on that one.....maybe that explains the screaming ! and last time I checked 60 was as fast I could go around here.....so for sure I bought it because it was so fast compared to other cars going 60.....or s l o w e r ! this thead has become the typical pissing contest - its why we love "most" aircooled guys and why we are glad they have thier own page other times

Quotes source post: 6939387

But... but.. I'm an Aircooled guy as well! Just no "tunnel vision" here....

I get compliments on mine...even from air-cooled Porsche owners! Hell I like them all, I just drive the 996 because it's the best car for my needs right now. In the future those needs might change and my taste for vehicles will adjust accordingly. But to say one is better than the other is stupid since we all have different tastes and needs in our vehicles.

Quotes source post: 6937059

Wow. If auction prices are really that low now, that is quite a collapse from just 3 months ago. Auction cars in July saw nothing in the Southeast under $17.5K (at least for the months or so I had a broker checking all regional auctions), and that includes 99s. The one car going up for auction in San Fran I found had the dealer willing to part with it at $16K at the time, but it had an oil leak "of unknown origin." Back then there were a lot fewer 996s on the market than there are now (not sure why), and I know that prices have dropped quite a bit, but $10-$15K is quite low. For what it's worth for those trying to sell, regionally cars here listed on Autotrader don't fall below about $17.5, and those are the high mile 99s. That is about $1000 lower on average than they were this summer, but still decent. Those obviously aren't auction prices, and have no idea what cars actually are moving for now, auction or street. $20k may be optimistic for a nice 99, but $10K sounds a bit on the pessimistic side.

I rode a hot lap in a 964 a couple months back and have to admit.... that little bastard was quick enough to not only surprise me, but really really surprise me !! Both great cars, just differant......have not been in a 993 (yet) but have been in a couple of GT3's !!! (OMG!!!!)

Quotes source post: 6939428

No doubt 964's and 993's are quick cars, but stock vs stock (or prepared vs. prepared) they simply won't hold a candle to a 996 (w/equal drivers). The 996 is lighter, has more hp and a much better chassis than the older cars.

Quotes source post: 6939427

A bit depressing yes. My dealer showed me the auction prices when I wanted to trade in. There was a '01 996 sold for $16k over two months ago that was still on a dealer lot. I think prices have collapsed in the past three months as auction prices catch up with the true retail values. Auction prices fall as a result of retail sales and speculation, so they are a bit behind.

ok I did say base 996 is kind of boring. Not bashing your cars but I think you can all admit there has been quite a few problems known on these cars. Also for performance the reports say 0-60 5 sec the 964 is 5.2 seconds and actually in testing did mid to high 4 seconds on all of them. So to say the 996 is faster. You will be surprised to know it isn't. Top speed maybe but who does that. I am not bashing your cars but you asked why the vales so low and just giving my honest opinion. I would buy a c4s 996 or turbo but not a plain c2. Funny thing here is I don't feel I was bashing your cars like some others put down the 993 and 964 regarding performance etc and a/c and heat. Do all these cars have quirks yes, but if the 996 is such a great car why do they sell around teh same prices as a 20 yr old car? I was looking at a 996, but everytime I called on one the dealer or mechanic said don't buy a 99 or 00 996. why is that? Best of luck to all of you but it is my opinion and yes I love the look of some of your cars with the wings and c4s etc just not the reg plain jane 996. for that you can shoot me

At some point, my thinking resolves to: I like the looks of my car. It's comfortable. It's plenty fast. It gets reasonable mileage when I want it to. So bite me. All the other talk seems like jabber from people who are insecure in their own decisions--so they criticize other cars. Yawn. Watching paint dry is more informative.

not sure why I would be disappointed in my decision. I guess I could sell my car buy a 996 and have a few grand left over for upgrades. I am thinking about buying a 996tt

not sure why folks feel the need to come to forum and slag our cars. yes they have become more "affordable" but that has nothing to do with the looks, performance or what not. wonder how many times a 996 owner goes into the other forums and starts slagging their cars, not likely. I could go on about what I dislike about certain model years, like silly rubber bumpers, or fender flares that have been blended in or or or. Gotta say of all the forums here seems the 996 is the hated car and the 996 owners show the most class when dealing with these trolls. my personal likes differ from others, thats a good thing, if that were not the case we would all be driving something with boy racer wings and dice hanging from the mirrors. I dig the "base" carrera clean lines no pretense and performance capability's beyond most of us. rant over. I love Porsches, all of them, all have merits and faults.

again I like yoru cars and would buy a 996 c4s or 996TT. Someone asked why values are down so much and IMHO is because of the perceived issues with the RMS etc..

It all comes down to HP per lbs. How much does a 964 weigh and its HP/TQ output compared to a 996?

can't we all just get along?

Quotes source post: 6939548

The Camaro forums are thattaway... --->

Do all these cars have quirks yes, but if the 996 is such a great car why do they sell around teh same prices as a 20 yr old car? Price isn't everything....look at the prices of c5 Vettes now. AMAZING deals for the price and they are great cars. You can get a 03' z06 with low mileage for $20k....oh and hey those ls engines can easily last over 300k+. I was looking at a 996, but everytime I called on one the dealer or mechanic said don't buy a 99 or 00 996. why is that? If you mechanic is telling you stay away from those years then he is misinformed,it's a know issue that m96 water cooled Boxster and 911s(non-gt1 based engine) have engine blowing problems for one reason or another. But hey older 911s have to have their valves adjusted and are twice as hard to do any regular tune-up work on...pick your poison.

Quotes source post: 6939548

How did you arrive at this opinion? The 996 has so much more torque at the low end, even "suburban cruisers" would be able to tell a 996 (at least a mark2) is faster. Two weeks ago I raced a bone stock 996 C2 after 6 years of racing prepared 964's. My stock 996 could turn the same times as my lightened, stiffened, lowered, brake-enhanced 964. The 996 is faster, handles better, has better ABS, and the engine does not heat-soak after 10 minutes of racing... It was this fast even weighing in at 3400lbs with me in the car (vs 3100 in my 964)! A heavy car with soft suspension is quite the challenge on the race track... But you don't have to believe my data point, just look at various club's racing results, and event the club car classifications - 996's are usually 2 classes ahead of (faster than) 964's.

Quotes source post: 6939634

5 or so years ago, it was the 964 forum that was griping about everyone disliking their 911 model due to the internet overblowing the issues including dual mass flywheel failures, engine head seal failures, PDAS/ABS failures, brake fluid hydraulic problems, oil leaks, electrical quirks, airbag issues, distributor belt failures, valve guides burning up, windshield frames rusting through after replacement, cabrio top struts failing...

Quotes source post: 6939881

Very true, the 964 was the "bargain/Misunderstood 911" for quite a few years. If the people on the this forum wanted 993's or 964's.. or whatever they would have bought them, and vice versa for those owners.. what is the point of this exercise? yeah, I'm cranky toda!y!

Quotes source post: 6939958

TODAY???????????

Quotes source post: 6939981

Excellent point.

Quotes source post: 6939548

A 964 is not a mid-4 second 0-60 car. The Turbo probably is, but that's a different beast... One only needs to understand supply and demand and how that relates to the number of cars built to understand why 996 pricing is what it is. The Mini Cooper and my Infiniti FX have enjoyed lower depreciation than my 996. That does not mean these are "better" cars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYRlt...om=PL&index=29 uh oh 5.2 sec and 6 sec on the 996 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snhMQvAFkyE c4 4.5seconds I will wait for you guys. They are both fast with technology should come more speed.. enjoy what you have and I will do the same!!

Motorweek tested the cabrio, which is heavier, at 5.0 sec for 0-60mph. Coupe is lighter. I believe stock coupe's number is around 4.7 to 4.8 seconds. http://coochas.com/porsche/911vids.html

please don't feed the trolls!

Quotes source post: 6937798

Danke!

If your running a 4 sec 0-60 on a stock non turbo'ed 964 I'd poo my pants. 6 seconds was for a tip....if you care about performance you dont buy a tip. Maybe your old school cars may feel faster....but they aren't. The 993 can argue for matching up with a 996 speed wise though.

Quotes source post: 6937709

Quality of construction quality in an older 911? I dont think so IMO. How can you have an assembly line based on Toyotas manufacturing standard and not have higher quality than the hand- builts? Quality of materials? Now that is an argument you can make about the older ones - but not everywhere is the older better than the newer.

993s are heavier than 996s with less hp. I think its slower.

what what about gearing etc. only thing is weight and HP? And did you watch the vid the c4 is faster then the 996 c2. ouch i guess yrou is lighter and faster. oh wait not faster.. you guys are so much fune to harass. did not mean to in the beginning but now i know how you all just keep saying we are better and have no proof but that you think lighter equals faster.

Quotes source post: 6940295

^^yes, they're slow...

Quotes source post: 6940381

Dude, you got some issues to work out.

Quotes source post: 6940633

You got that right, Marc. The first one is that in order to harass anyone on the board, you need to be a PAYING MEMBER. So get out the checkbook Wellcraft!! You also might want to take a typing course.

Quotes source post: 6940657

That and trolling is NOT allowed on Rennlist so there can be repercussions.

Quotes source post: 6940677

Maybe he is related to Ben Choi?

Quotes source post: 6940381

LOL.... Your posts reveal your lack of experience with these cars. You can magazine race all you want, but anyone who has spent any amount of time behind the wheel of these three models can tell you the 996 is a quicker and faster car than it's older brothers. (I know it's simply shocking that Porsche would design the newer cars to be faster.....you'd really think they would keep building the newer cars slower and slower). Don't take my word for it, just pull aside a few 964 or 993 Club Racers at your next PCA meeting and suggest to them that they should leave "E" & "F" (or "G" for the 993) class and start mixing it up with the 996's in "H" (Mk I's) or "I" (Mk II's) straight up. You can argue with them about how the old cars are "just as quick" till the cows come home, but you won't find any converts. If you wanna race against the 996's with a 964 in "I", better make sure it says "turbo" or "RS" on the rear deck lid.... http://pca.org/DesktopModules/Bring2...516&PortalId=0 ^pg 24-26......

Quotes source post: 6940705

Nah, Ben was a pro at trolling, this guys an amateur

Quotes source post: 6940711

True, that ^!

Quotes source post: 6940381

He's a kid.... https://rennlist.com/forums/porsche-...very-nice.html

Quotes source post: 6943744

Maybe his dad told him 964's were quicker....

At least he has good taste in cars. He could be riding around town in a early 90s Civic with a fart like exhaust.

Quotes source post: 6943887

Very true. The 964 and 993 are awesome sports cars, but they probably don't move the needle much for the average teenager anymore.

Quotes source post: 6940381

What?

yes I did not know you can be in your 30's or 40's or even older and still have a father. He is interested in a cayman and it is a simple question. Love your intelligence levels. Someone states why are the 996 so cheap and i give my opinion. i get bashed and told my car is slower etc. Top speed yes slower everything else doesn't seem that way. I showed proof that the 964 is not slower actually faster and all you can say is we are lighter and more HP. I am saying gearing has something to do with it and I showed you with tests. Who has a civic? I love you guys and just because I would never buy a 996 I am not bashing your cars. I love how everyone takes it so personal. Best of luck to you all and I will not go any further with name calling etc. I do like the 996 c4s etc but geez just because someone doesn't want to buy your car and answers a question he must be a kid and know nothing.

Quotes source post: 6944029

If you are in your 30's for 40's (which is it...?) I weep for what you are doing to the english language.

sorry I did not use proper grammer. I don't know what you find in my writing that you can't understand. I am sure I am better educated then you.

Start by learning than and then, and then you can move on to proving how much smarter you are than the other members on this board...

Quotes source post: 6944057

Enough. Thank you.

I am sorry My porsche is faster than Yours!!

Quotes source post: 6944202

[No author-written text remains after quoted material was removed.]

Quotes source post: 6944202

What part of enough did you FAIL to comprehend? Thread is closed.