Better to find a 70k mile '99 996 w/recent new eng or 30k mile car w/original engine

Given the history of the model, I'd like some input on this topic as it seems to be two very different ways of sourcing a car. Assuming all other things being equal, which direction would you go? Many thanks, Grant Updated for 1999 model year car in question and whether those MY issues could still present themselves 7 years later.........

what is the price difference, and what year is each?

Assuming the same price for both cars, and further assuming some sort of viable recourse to the supplier/installer of the new engine, I'd leap on the 996 with the new engine.

I would take the new engine too. If the rest of the car is the same condition and the price the same

I have an 01 with 34K (original engine) and it purrs like a kitten. I would never buy a car with 70K when a 30K car is available, that is if the 30K car passes the inspection at the dealer. How is this even a choice? Don't focus only on the engine, think of the rest of the car as well.

New engine....I have a 99 with a new engine and the engine is stronger...plus you get more than just the engine, all the accessories are new as well, starter, altenator, A/C compressor, etc....plus I would be VERY leary of a 7 year old car with 30k miles. thats less than 5k miles a year. I hear about too many cars with ultra low miles having catastrophic failures, not just Porsches, all cars....cars were not made to sit...so to have low miles like that 1 of 2 things happened. 1. it was driven very sparingly, like once or twice a month....not good for a car....or... 2. it was driven like 1 or 2 miles a day....like the owner drove it to work 3 miles down the road everyday....also bad...the car never gets to normal operating temps and is always driven under oil starvation....just when things get to the right temp, its shut off.... Either way, not the kinda car I would want....

The chassis on these cars seems bullet proof and you can easily change shocks and suspension - if the interior wear is similar on both cars, take the one with the new engine. As others have said, it's tough to give a solid opinion without knowing more details.

If they were the same price, I'd take the one with 30k in a heartbeat. A motor with 30k is certainly not all miled out, but a chassis with 70k is certainly starting to show wear! The difference in interior wear, consumables, seals, etc. is more than a convincing factor.

What he said...

Ditto. If both are roughly the same equipment and same year, you are far better off buying the low mileage cars. These engines are relatively problems free for 200-300K miles. It is the mileage on the chassis, not the engine, that determines the resale value. This is particularly significant on cars like Supras where prices plummet once a 6th digit is obtained on the odometer.

I bought a '99 996 with 72K and a new engine at what I thought was a bargain price, available to me because of the attitude of the Porsche 'purists' who excessively devalue these cars as a function of chassis miles. My view is that the low miles on the engine will be much more valuable over time to an owner who uses the car daily and wants to treat the engine as he chooses to. The chassis components are replaceable at much less cost than the engine and thus represent lower financial risk. My 996 is still gorgeous, reliable and STRONG at 90K chassis miles.

Agreed....My chassis is much less prone to ageing than my engine. Which is why there are 912's and 914's running to this day.....the Porsche chassis is bulletproof, the M96 engine has been documented with problems. Most of which seem to be worked out as time went on, but a 99 has the slipped sleve issue. I would not buy a out of warranty 99. The engine can go at any moment and without warning. My chassis has 105k miles and it looks VERY good....30k miles on the new engine.....

I went through a similar choice a few months ago - '99 with 140,000 km and new engine for $42K Cdn., or '02 with 65,000 km, warranty remaining, for $58K Cdn. Not a single Porsche Club member I polled advised to choose the '99. Like you, I thought new engine = less trouble / more life left. Also, lower purhase price should have left a bigger "emergency budget". Not so, according to the mechanical experts and the used car experts. The lower-priced, older car is lower priced for a reason ... it's worth less and not as good a value. I chose the '02 and don't regret it - it's a better optioned car and is 4 years newer (BTW, you should check the "in service" date on any '99 you are looking at because almost 50% of them are really '98 and are now 8 years old, not 7). Eight years is pretty old for an expensive car that does not have a sterling longevity reputation.

This is a good point because the 99' model year lasted almost 2 years, hence why there are so many of them. Never the less, it doesn't change the picture regardless of when it was produced being a 99'. The resale is the same and it isn't going to be in warranty (even certified) since it is 7-8 years old. Being an early car it may be more prone to problems than a later car.

My mint condition '99 Cab suffered from a slipped sleeve with out warning at 45k miles. This requires a new motor whis was installed by Porsche. The Tech said it had the latest factory updates and fixes and should be troublefree for 100sK miles. It has larger bearings for the intermediate shaft, which was the next possible failing point of M96 motors. This has a 2 year warrenty and tech says he has never seen a major problem with a replacement motor. A great way to go as far as I am concerned.

Thats another good point...the engine they replace it with IS NOT the exact same engine....Its been updated. So all the weak points are gone. You get a newer, stronger, more reliable engine than the older one.