as far as reliability?

would you recomend a 996 over a 964 or older 911; because i always see that older porsche's can have hundreds of thousands of miles on the original engine, but on the 996 i hear engine life is lower (like 100,000 miles). so whats your verdict? what do you recomend?

Buy the latest version that you can afford.

well a 1999 996 with 100k miles is the same as a 1980's and early 1990's with more miles so j/w?

Quotes source post: 4723284

What he said. Porsche is a never ending evolution of the design. The latest model is always most certainly the better car. HOWEVER... ...with that said, the air cooled classics are a treat to behold. A 964 is a GREAT car. but as for creature comforts go...the 996 has it beat. Good luck. C.

i see what your saying but why do people keep saying that the 996 engine life is FAR shorter than its previous models?

Not sure why...but I would say this.. Buy the best condition, best maintained, lowest mileage, newest example you can afford. Simple as that. Regardless of the model, research them, and learn. You will have a smile on your face regardless of which one you are behind the wheel. best of luck. C.

Quotes source post: 4723392

I see what you're asking as well, which I'm not sure the other respondents do. Porsches were built differently before the 986/996 variants came along. With their arrival, Porsche began using mass-market productiontechniques rather than high-end "bespoke" techniques. Thanks to that, Porsche is now one of the most profitable car companies on the planet, after decades of just getting by, but it's also resulted in cars that are not built to the standards of old. This isn't to say the 996 and 997 aren't great cars - they are as worthy ss their predecessors to wear the Porsche crest. But they aren't as well built, they don't use materials as good, and they won't have the longevity of their predecessors. So what? Building a car that will last 30 years serves an infinitesmal portion of the Porsche 911 market. Sure, I once saw a 1983 911SC with 500,000 miles on it, but I see a lot more 25 year-old cars with fewer than 100k, and it won't take much looking to turn up some with under 60k. That is rarely how a Porsche 911 is used, now or back in the day. As Bruce Anderson points out in his buyer's guides, the typical 911 averages 7000-9000 miles a year, many even less. I myself cover about 5000 miles/year in my "fun" car, and only 7000 or so in my commuter. Maybe the 2002+ 996 coupe I'm shopping for won't last 500k miles, but the odds are very good it would take 20 years for me to see 150k, and we've already seen some 996s make it that far (there's a car with ~130k on Autotrader as I write this). If you're looking for a 911 to keep the next 40 years or rack up a millions miles on ala Irv Gordon, I'd recommend the 87-89 3.2 coupe in a neutral shade. Otherwise, simply pick a car you like and enjoy it.

epbrown01 - I sent you a PM.

Quotes source post: 4723543

This is pure nonsense, based on a common, but completely erroneous premise. The idea that "hand-built" cars are somehow better or more reliable than their mass produced counterparts is easily disproven by asking this question: what company is widely acknowledged (by objective measures) to build the most durable, reliable cars on the planet? Answer: Toyota. Guess who Porsche consulted with on manufacturing efficiency during the development of the 996? If you guessed "Toyota", you get a gold star. Believe me, when it comes to close tolerance, high precision manufacturing (for example, of an engine), you want a CNC machine doing the work, NOT human hands. The RMS failures and other issues Porsche continues to have with their flat six engines are the result of sub-par engineering, not "mass market production techniques".

+1 Thank You Welles!

Get a GT1 based 996: turbo, gt3, gt2. Same "hand built" engine and 964 based block.....more modern stuff is elsewhere....where it actually helps. I think water cooling will make things under the hood last longer than air cooled if given the "big picture" of failures and maintenance. My mechanic agrees, and he sees a lot of 964, 993, etc. While "classic" they are costing their owners big $'s to keep up and fresh. I had a 1995 C4. The costs of things on that was not low. They "wear out the valve guides" in time.....do you have any idea what that can cost. I don't remember exactly, but it was like 10k....almost a new 996 engine. At that price, I would rather get a new engine..... Turbo's are priced amazingly...just a bias of mine to share. I see their price as possibly going up one day once more people understand the engine differences, etc. I do love the C4S red rear though.....that is my favorite 996 rear.....wish I could add it to a turbo.... BTW, the 3.6 sized 996 engine is supposed to be superb. I think that if taken care of these and the GT1 block engines are good for a LOT of miles. More than 25 years of 10k/year is my best guess. I drive my TT every day save deep snow/ice/lots of bad stuff on the road (salt). So, it is getting about 12k/year right now. I am loving it. And, that is why I bought it. Any car that is driven just about is a lousy investment IMHO> JB

There are many on this forum who have exceeded 100k on the odometer with their 996's and use them as reliable daily drivers.History of the car and its condition along with price and driver's preferences regarding air cooled vs water cooled would help determine which MY Porsche to consider.I agree that a Pcar is always evolving and usually improving with every new model year, and there are plenty of great buys out there and on this site.Drive both and see if you like one over the other.

Older Porsches still on their 'original engines'? Yeah, technically. Now, cruise on over to those boards and ask longtime owners what it's cost them to keep those 'original engines' running. Some, like 996s, have been bulletproof. And some have required rebuilds that compare unfavorably to the cost of whole new 996 engine.

Yup in most case the newer the car the better(a well maintained one that is) and any engine at some point is going to need a rebuild. Buying anycar new or used is going to be a gamble. With that said my 03 c4s is going on 50k doing fine.

Quotes source post: 4723227

Correct, these engines have a built in self destruct function that once the odometer reads 100,000 miles, a 50 cal round is fired from the right hand bank diagonally to the left hand bank to do as much damage as possible leaving the engine useless. So I have read.

Quotes source post: 4723893

Well said--I'd almost always recommend a mass-produced car over a hand-built car any day. Anyone that desperately wants human hands to have assembled every last part of their car should head over to the Lotus forums to hear stories of people trying to replace parts of their car with new ones that don't fit because the guy in the factory "modified" the original part to work. These are NEW cars, mind you.

From renntech.org: Jim Pasha has written an outstanding article in the October 2005 issue of Excellence Magazine. He discusses the overall reliability of 996/986 engines and what makes these engines some of the best Porsche has ever produced. You can download the PDF version of the article here: http://www.renntech.org/forums/index...e=post&id=3224

As others have said, the M96 engine is certainly good to well over 100k miles. As a reference point, if you do need to change the engine every (say) 150-200k miles, it's about 11k for a new one. I think this is probably cheaper than the amount of work the air-cooled motors need every 200k miles. For overall reliability and running costs, I'd guess the water-cooled cars are at least as good as the older models, so it's really a question of whether you prefer the more modern and comfortable 996 or the "classic" style of the 964. For my daily driver, I'm pretty happy to run a 996, but I love seeing the older cars being used properly too. PS I hit a radar-documented 163mph on a 85k engine last month

reliability is a relative term. if we define reliability as running cost, i.e., the cost for repire and main. 996 will win by a large margin, compare to older cars. also, oldest 996 now are 10 years old car now. and from what i see i believe the reliability of the mid-age(10~20 year old/60K-150Kmiles) 996 will be on the top too. 997 will be better by then.

I most certainly will put over 100k on my 997S. It is a daily driver and I put about 12-15k on it per year.

Quotes source post: 4723227

I wouldn't get a pre-964 and expect it to be a low maintenance 'daily'........definately fun cars but even then, they were not viewed as 'daily dependables' (as we do today).......they were cars for enthusiasts who knew what they were in for and winning JD Powers would not have been on their priority list. Really though......on a 996 board....did you think you were going to get an impartial view (on the 996)

There have been several attempts to get solid statistics on the extent of RMS and total engine failures in the 996 series engines, and most all involve sampling problems. However, Consumers' Report regularly surveys its readership and rates used cars in terms of a handful of categories - two of which include Engine Problems (Major - e.g., replacement due to failure) and Engine Problems (Minor - e.g., seal failure such as RMS). The ratings are in five steps - red circle (best), red half-circle (better), white circle (average), black half-circle (worse), and full black circle (much worse). They are standardized against the rates of reported problems for all models in a given year. Here are the ratings for the 996/997 on Major/Minor Engine Problems from 1998 and 2001 - 2007. The number in parentheses is the average percentage of reported problems for the model year. No ratings are reported for 1999 or 2000 because the survey responses were insufficient to be valid: 98 - red full circle/red full circle (4% / 10%) 01 - red half circle/red half circle (2% / 6%) 02 - black full circle/white circle (2% / 4%) 03 - black half circle/red half circle (1% / 3%) 04 - red full circle/red full circle (1% / 2%) 05 - black full circle/red full circle (< 1% / 1%) 06 - white circle/red full circle (< 1% / 1%) 07 - red full circle/red half circle (< 1% / < 1%) The 02 year also reported much worse (black full circle) major engine problems than any other model year. If these data are reliable, then a few implications are plausible: 1. Relative to other cars, and with the possible exception of '02, the 996 is an amazingly reliable car. 2. Within the 996 model run, the much maligned 3.4L engine fared reasonably well. As far as major engine problems, it had fewer problems than the '02. Comparisons with '03 and '04 are a tricky because the baseline percentage of changes is lower. 3. If owners reported RMS replacement as a "Engine problem minor," the overall incidence was less than 6% in '01, and even less in later years. 4. If owners reported engine replacement as "Engine problem major," the overall incidence was certainly less than 2% in the worst year, and less than 1% for most other years. 5. Perhaps the '05 997 suffered from new model problems. 6. Even the 1998 - first year of production - has as good a reliability record as a Honda Accord of the same vintage (!). Why might these data be suspect? Well, if 996 owners drive significantly fewer miles/year on average than drivers of all other models, then the data would reflect less exposure to wear and tear rather than greater reliability. Or, if the 996 drivers who subscribe to Consumer Reports are not the kind of people who do track days, then the data could be biased. (If you think track time is good for your Pcar, then the bias would be in one direction; if you think track time increases wear and tear, then the bias would be in the other direction.) Finally, a catastrophic engine failure in a 996 is a fair bit more expensive than a Honda Accord 4-cylinder. Those differences are not reflected in these data. Bottom line? For great performance, the 996 is a highly reliable choice (except, perhaps, the 2003 model).

Quotes source post: 4723893

Well, that went over better than I expected.

Well, for what it's worth, I have 104k miles on my 99 3.4 and it's running really great- still. Just yesterday I got it smog checked and every single category they checked for was lower than the national average. The guy said, "wow, this thing is running clean - what do you feed it?". It doesn't drip a single drop and doesn't burn any measurable oil between changes. I run it to the redline most times I drive and it seems like it just wants to run and run. I've had a few minor issues with the engine, though. I had to replace leaky spark plug housing(?) (don't remember the part name(s), but something to do with how the spark plugs were sealed), had a little part that broke and leaked coolant (a nipple-type fitting on the engine), and the coolant expansion tank needed replacing. Other than that minor stuff, it's been very reliable and I can always count on it starting and running strong.