Could it be Cost of Ownership that is killing the resale value on high mile 996

Well, I'm starting to think we might see high mile 996 cars sit in a bone yard. Will there be a point where the engine miles say 100-150k might cause people to think twice about buying the car? Only because it would cost more to replace the engine then what the car is worth say in 5 more years? So what do you think Porsche will do in the future to keep these cars on the road? Engines do not last forever and will need rings, pistons, bearings, ect. Tight tolerances won't last forever... Will Porsche allow more parts to be available to rebuild or maybe aftermarket companies might step up to the future demand? I'm I totally wrong or is this something to think about?

Who cares, just drive

I do drive. 500 miles in just the past 2 days. I never get enough.. It's just another stupid question at midnight. What are you going to do

I have had enough of the dealer approach to repairs on my 996. Last fall I had to replace the tranny, because they don't make pilot shaft bearing kits for resale. That is pure bull****. My car now has 97k+ miles on it, and the next time it needs ANYTHING it is going to the local Porsche race shop mechanic. This "Swap out" the major component idea has burned me the last time with Porsche. As much as I like both of the ones I have, I have bought my last one. And people bitch about the 928 being high maintenance...... hell, at least I can get the freekin parts to do the work!!!!!!!!!!! Yep, Porsche lost their soul........... I am done with them.

You hit it on the head... I forgot about the tranny. Not cheap to replace either. Why is it Porsche went with the idea to swap out instead of repair kits? I'm not a sponsored race teams that needs to swap out so that we can get back on the track.

Doubt I'll ever buy another Pcar without a CPO. I've only had to repair a faulty throttle body so far after just under 40K miles but I'm not planning on pushing my luck in the future either. But of course you can only CPO a 996 for so long...

There are already shops rebuilding both engines and trannies....With a new (reman.) engine coming in at $7k or so now...it'll take a LONG LONG time before its too expensive to replace an engine. Boxsters dropped to high teens and then stopped depreciating....When I sold my Boxster 2 years ago...17k was about the lowest you could find a 97-99 Boxster with high mileage...I have been waiting for it to get to maybe 10k....now, the lowest si still about 17k....With Porsches they fall to a certain spot, then hang around there and SLOWLY depreciate...It looks like the 996 wont go below 30 anytime soon for clean cars. So it may take 10 years or more for the prices to drop to low 20's.....

the boxster buttom is $15K. the 3.4 996 bottom is $25K

For the most part I agree with you. The question I have is will we be seeing a lot of these cars in the bone yard. It would be hard to justify $7k when you buy a 996 for say $20-25k? Most people in that price range could not afford to replace the engine or tranny. It would BK them. For me personally I don't have unlimited funds for that type of stuff (It's a car). Unless I can mitigate the possible loss on a car like this (ie CPO or 3rd party warranty) I would have not been willing to drive this car. That being said I wonder if there is a point the value just stops (unlike the 993)

I meant a decent car with decent options...yes you could find high mileage beaters for 15k for a boxster and 25k for 996's but youy still see people paying in the 40s for clean 996s....even 3.4L's....

I don't know anything about Boxsters, but I predict the 3.4 996 bottom is more like $10K, in comparable market conditions to today's. That is, significantly higher fuel costs, or a real downturn in the economy or the markets could pull the floor out altogether. I believe it was the combination of low production numbers and mystique that kept 911 prices up over the decades, and there were plenty of valleys in that graph. My impression is that there are a lot more 996's made than earlier cars. As well, they are more expensive to fix, and less mystical. I fear they will suffer badly from "just-a-car"-ness. None of that matters when I'm behind the wheel. CP

huh? there are 3.4L cars selling for high 30's low 40's...I have NEVER seen a $10k 996 unless it was salvaged and stripped...your info is a little off....earlier Porsche's are NOT cheaper to fix...the opposite...the 993 is an expensive car to maintain...much more than a 996. The 996 in the 30's is considered a sports car bargain....

It is cheaper to replace the 996 engine with a manufactured one than a complete rebuild for an air-cooled. I have seen a lot of rebuilds go for $10-12k.

At that price it would be. I was only brought the 993 into play for being a p-car that was not mass produced and has see prices go up or at least demand current prices. We can haggle that it's all supply and demand, and I guess that could be it but I still wonder if it's the "cost of repair" that is a major impact in the short future on the vaule of Mass Production p-cars. People just won't want to repair their car, they'll just junk it. That is say in another 5 more years

depreciation on Boxsters and 996s may slow for a bit...but once those engines start racking up BIG miles the buyer pool will start to shrink dramatically. No one is going to be diving into either car if the buyer could be faced with a potential engine fix that may cost 30-50% of the cars value. Add to that a glut of supply (largest numbers of cars Porsche has ever built in a 7 year period) and the laws of ecomonics takes over. Then you will see Boxsters and 996s going for less than 20K. The supply is really the factor, used car dealers aren't going to just let 996s and 986 sit around forever. There's a mostly German used car dealer around the corner from me and I've noticed a steadily growing flow of Boxsters and 996s appearing on that lot. It's a good time to be a buyer for sure.

I was speaking about the future. I apologize for the confusion. I meant that the expected future bottoming-out is $10K. As for current prices, I paid about $28K for my no-stories '99, so I think your range is high, but of course it depends on options, miles, etc. As for engines, you can fix an old Carrera engine. The 3.4's tend to get replaced at great cost. Trannies, too. If my understanding is wrong about that, I'd be pleased -and willing- to learn it.

Your assumptions are wrong. You cannot fix an old boxer engine for less than you can fix or replace a 3.4. The top end rebuild on a 964 or 993 is more than replacing the whole 996 engine with a factory rebuild. And, as Billy mentioned, shops are already doing rebuilds of both the tranny and the engines. BTW, $10k for a 996 is highly unlikely. Ever.

This "Swap out" the major component idea has burned me the last time with Porsche. As much as I like both of the ones I have, I have bought my last one. +1 for me. Sad but true.

outside of porsche I can't think of any other descent sports car (within the price range of the porsche). what is going to happen if porsche burns out?

What can you buy *at all* for $10K? Its even rare to see a 7 year old Honda S2000 listed for less than $14K on Ebay Motors these days. $10K just doesn't go very far in sports car world these days.

Good points by all. It will be interesting to see where values go on these cars. All the previous 911 variants have tended to hold value at a certain point, whereas cars like the 928 and 944 have little to no residual value in the general consumer market, other than for a few enthusiasts that are still running them. It's a complex question, but my guess is that 911's have held their value for two main reasons. Firstly they were fairly limited in production compared to many other brands/models (lower supply + consistent demand = continued value). Secondly, the design has become iconic and was not changed too drastically over the years. Most non-enthusiasts would be hard pressed to identify many differences between a 1975 911 and a 1997 one. So a guy buying even an older model still got a lot of the "image" of a newer one. It's a bit like Rolex watches such as the submariner. A 20 year old Rolex in good condition will sell for only slightly less than a new one, because no one other than the owner can tell the difference (this is of course a limited analogy from a functional standpoint, because watches last a lot longer than cars and are far cheaper to maintain, but from a styling standpoint I think it is valid). Cost of maintenance is of course the other big driver in value, and I have no idea whether the 996 will cost less or more to maintain than an air-cooled 911 over the long term. One problem I've found with the newer cars is their reliance on proprietary computers and electrical parts that can't be easily replicated in the aftermarket. I have a 1966 Vette that's still running strong after 40 years, and there's very little that can go wrong with it that can't be fixed with inexpensive and readily available aftermarket parts. I also own a 2000 Range Rover that is a nightmare in terms of repair costs. My speedometer stopped working and the only fix seems to be buying a $1400 computer bus (so I'm never going to fix it). The Range Rover was a $65K car new in 2000, and mine looks almost as mint today as when it left the showroom floor. Due to repair costs, and the fact that the styling of newer models have eclipsed it in terms of desirability, the value of my Range Rover is now somewhere between $4,000 to 10,000. I've spent $5K on repairs in just the past year. At some point, you're better off just junking the car and moving on. So to end my rant here, my guess is 996's will only hold their value if the market continues to view them as a "classic" design, and if aftermarket parts are available at a reasonable cost (i.e. things like tranny rebuild kits mentioned on this thread). Otherwise, they will likely go the way of the 944 and 928 - to the junk heap.

As per my previous post, $10K will buy you my 2000 Range Rover with 86,000 miles (sticker $65K new). The car doesn't have a single ding, the paint looks like new, all the tires/belts/hoses are new, and the interior leather doesn't even show wear. Still, no one wants one because the inevitable cost of routine parts and maintenance on this car don't justify its existence for most people.

Boy can I relate. Purchased price in 2000, $70k, sale price in 2005, $10k.

WOW That really sums it up The Rover is an awesome 4x4 and has the image of a "go anywhere" kind of vehicle. Yet its maint costs are through the roof. The avg buyer could not and will not buy a vehicle that will sink them This is where I see the Mass production model p-car going. Is it just me or is there something special about the metal that builds these engines and other components Even the aftermarket companies charge an arm and a leg. Could a company be built on the idea of cheap, durable aftermarket parts for these European machines like Mopar?

I just bought a 01 996 to turn into my track car for exactly this reason. My current SC needs major dollars spent on it to approach the performance of the off the shelf 996 then I feel like I am driving a time bomb. Motor goes on the SC I am looking North of 12K (as much or more than the car is worth) were as the 996 $ 7,500 I have a new engine.

Last year when I was looking for a beater 4x4 for work I looked at many 97-00 Land Rovers and talked to several owners. The cost to keep them on the road made our 996's look cheap. In the end I purchased a 1994 Toyota Land Cruiser with 135,000 miles on the clock for about the same price as a low miles Land Rover. The deciding factor was the cost to keep it maintained. Of course my Cruiser is not a nice as the Rover but it is indestructible.

I've been looking at a 99 cab with only 33,000 miles and looks incredible. Dealer wants $30K for it.

It's interesting, Porshe engines all have their little quirks but for some reason the 996 gets the lion's share of abuse. Honestly, I think the engine for the 996's might hurt their longterm resale value but not because I think they are particularily less reliable than older models. I think they will be a problem becasue the internet and the aircooled crowd have combined to create an atmosphere of panic about a car that is really quite excellent. I'm at a loss to explain why people want to push this 'all 996's have faulty engines' theory but they do. It really only hurts the value of all Porsche's but there is a very vocal air cooled minority that will continue to push this agenda.

I never said the engine was faulty Maybe you should go back and reread the thread from the beginning We could apply this theory to the 997 in 10 years

I think you guys need to put it in perspective (I'm a diehard aircooled fan who is looking for a 996 because the values are just unbeatable.) Has there ever been a 911 generation not plagued by some rash of engine problems? How about the SC with the exploding airbox? How about the 3.2 Carreras with the random failures of head studs (I can tell you all about that). Or the 964's with the dual mass flywheel failures and twin distributor static buildup detonations. And don't forget the 993's which had plenty of engine problems of their own? Every time a problem came up the previous generation fans were on their soapbox saying how this was the end of the P-cars as we knew them and how the "new" 911's would be on the junkheap in less than ten years. And guess what? In time the market judged them wrong - look at 964 prices that stabilized and actually increased over the last few years - this is a car that purists used to call the "orphan" 911. Only time will tell on the 996's, it is too soon yet and I think there is no other used car on the market that offers so much value for the money. (And yes, the engine replacement costs are sensational compared to "old school" 911's). Just my two cents but I'm an air cooled guy voting with my $$$$$$$$.

Without answering any of my questions directly, you answered my entire list of question. On a side note It still has to be proven, but it looks like the market for the older 996, 997 will be filled by air-cooled guys that had to eat their words and choke on it Flame Away

Hope you are not referring to me. I was never a wild fan of the 996 nor a detractor. The fact that I consider the 996 to be a great value doesn't strike me as "choking on my words" since I had very little to say about the 996 pro or con. The reality is that Porsche will never again build air cooled 911's and so if (like me) you like to have at least one relatively modern 911 as a daily driver then it is obvious that sooner or later you will have to purchase a 996 or newer. BTW, the "air cooled" label might be great class warfare propoganda but as anyone knows, pre-996 911's have been "oil cooled" for all eternity, hence the gargantuan quantities of oil required, not just for lubrication but for cooling.

The first part was in reference to you... Answing questions Not the Choking part. It was a side note I learn something everyday on this board (aircooled is really oil cooled) JK No hard feelings I hope just to much Chi in my Latte I know I know I'm being stupid again

No hard feelings, I've just never been into the intra 911 feuds. Our lives are hard enough without every jack@#* in some Jap or otherwise sports car saying "why do they still put the engine back there?" At the end of day there will always be something special to me about all 911's.

Yes I totally agree, 911 is very special Now, only if I could get the wife to raise my allowance I could get me a Red 964 C4 for the weekend drives. Then life would be real good

How many 996s were brought to the US vs. 993s?

I will have to agree with Jim B. While I loved my aircooled 911SC, the cost of a proper rebuild was over $12k. Porsche reman was hovering at $18k with a new one hittin about $25k. This was in 2000. I sold the SC since even rebuilding the engine was going to cost me more than the car was worth at the time. I bent a valve at 96k miles in my 996 so I purchased a reman from Porsche for just under $8 in lieu of rebuilding the top end. I was not going to experiment in 996 engine longevity when I could buy one with a 2-yr warranty (unlimited mileage) for so little. Keep in mind this is a complete motor with all accesories, just plug & play.

What I am coming to understand is at the older oil cooled engines are a lot more money than the water motors. I did not know this before today. I should rephase the title to Cost of Ownership as I do believe it's not just the engine rebuilt costs that make up the value of the p-cars. palladio I think said is best

I'm learning a lot too. I had no idea that a 996 replacement engine with accessories could be bought for $8K. I do know from friends experiences that a quality rebuild for a 993 or a 996TT engine is $15k and up. If that $8K number for the 996 is really true, what's the big deal about 996 longevity? I'd gladly fork over 8K plus install costs for a new motor in that car. Hell, assuming that's an upgraded 3.6 variocam engine, it might be worth doing even if your engine hadn't failed. How many guys here have spent close to that much just for exhaust/chips/mods??? Am I missing something here? What's the big deal getting a reman motor if it's factory warranteed for 2 years?

On the repairs : Excellent. Thank you for the correction. My reference points are old, for sure, and apparently no longer relevant. I certainly hope that when my 996's engine goes, I can afford a replacement. On the value : We'll have to see. I tend to be a pessimist, for sure, but I think the values will plunge in coming years.

That's a much better number than I recall from other threads, and it's one that appears with regularity in this thread. Can anyone clarify one point, please: Does that $7,500 include labor? (I can't imagine that it does.)

Me, too. But I have to say, there were two things that did it to Land Rovers that we could learn from. One was rumour and fear. They weren't all money pits; mine certainly hasn't been. With proper maintenance, done the way Land Rover wanted you to do it (pre-Ford ownership), they would last and last and not really cost you that much money. But the people who got burned were very vocal about it, especially online. Almost as vocal as the people who questioned Land Rover's oil recommendations and maintenance intervals. And it got worse when the depreciated trucks were sold into the hands of owners who were trading up from simpler appliances and couldn't afford the maintenance despite being able to afford the truck. They seemed to feel that because the used truck could now be had for a Honda price, taking care of it should be priced the same way. Eventually, with cars, the owners become the brand. The other was dealers. The brand appeared to attract greedy, unscrupulous dealers when it came to service, people who were more than happy to take advantage of the rumoured high cost of ownership by making it come true for owners. They were good trucks. They traded slightly more involvement by the owner for a lot more character and offroad capability. But not everyone who wanted to say they had one, really 'got it'. I think if 996 owners want to preserve their resale value (not to mention prestige), we could start by whining about them a little less. There's never been an affordable, flawless, low-maintenance car that was really special. And there's never been a 'special' car that didn't demand a little more from its owner.

Well said! I think a lot of P-car owners whine about their car because of familiarity. After the honeymoon period with your P-car is over, you get used to it. It becomes "normal", and you start nit-pick at every minor imperfection. My advice... go drive a rental for a week, and you will fall in love with the P-car all over again. Everytime I have to use a rental when travelling, it is sooooooo nice to drive the P-car home from the airport. 996s are great cars, and maintenance costs are nowhere near that of their aircooled siblings, which really makes them a great used car value. So quit whining and get out and drive!

I've owned Land Rover products as my daily driver for the past 15 years (currently own a 2000 RR and a 97 Defender). I do agree that they are great cars and that with proper maintenance they can last a long time. However it is a fact that these cars have more issues than most and they are expensive to fix. Their "bad" reputation is not just a result of whining by people who didn't know how to maintain them. I also concur with your point about unscrupulous dealers. I tend to have a bias against all car dealers, but the Range Rover dealers have been the worst of the lot in my experience. I can't tell you how many times I had dealers try to sell me expensive repairs that I didn't need, replace parts that had nothing to do with the problem, etc. The dealership in Atlanta is so bad that I won't even buy parts from them anymore. Why they are so bad I don't know. I wonder if part of it comes from the "uneducated" customers you speak of. The RR brand now seems to attract a lot of wealthy housewives and tennis moms who don't question anything the dealership says, and who are content to give the service department an unlimited line of credit on their husband's card. The typical reaction from a Range Rover service department is "we're the experts, don't question us, and if you're not willing to pay us $2,000 to change your alternator then get the F**K out of here". When going in to buy parts to do repairs myself, it's as if they don't even want to sell them to you. They certainly won't talk shop or give any helpful advice. I haven't had much experience with Porsche dealers since the 90's so no idea how their service departments are in comparison. So to get back on topic, are most people on this board using dealers or independent mechanics to maintain their 996? (assuming of course they have a choice in their local area).

So you change your oil at 15,000 miles...

Not what I said. I said they aren't as bad as their reputation and depreciation performance would lead you to believe. They "demand more of their owners" - cost more to maintain, and there are more lemons out there (that's how it seems to go with them... they aren't universally bad, but there are a few terrible ones, and therefore there's a risk) - but the whining drove values down below where they really ought to be. Ask a reputable Rover dealer how many exploding front driveshafts they've actually seen, or how many rear main seals they've actually done, and the answer will look radically different from what you'd assume lurking on a Land Rover board. I should add, here, that my comments apply to the trucks built after BMW bought the company (which have depreciated horrendously). The D1s, a lot of the P38s, and the RRCs were real labours of love, no doubt about it. But even for those trucks, think of it like this: The people who drive them the way they were built to be driven have huge respect for them. The people who bought them to be mall crawlers or decorate country club parking lots don't. I think that might be another Porsche parallel...

LOL... busted. I follow the maintenance schedule religiously except for oil. I change it twice as often as LR recommends (they recommend every 12,000km in Canada, and I change it every 6,000km). That engine block was designed before 1964... sludge is death.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif

Took my 84,000 mile '99 C2 in to have some minor warranty work done while the CPO warrantly is still in place. I asked the service manager what the highest mileage 996 engine he had ever had to replace was. He said it was a turbo at 55,000 miles. It was out of warranty and the owner had made some modifications, but Porsche paid for half of the replacement. He also told me he had never replaced an engine on a CPO car. Of course, all of this really means nothing, but it is comforting to hear it. Obviously there are failures on some high mileage cars, but reading through the posts, there seem to be quite a few of us higher mileage cars out here that seem to doing ok. It does seem the really bad stuff is concentrated at the lower end of the mileage spectrum. Still selling a high mileage Porsche is never going to be easy when there are so many low mileage garage queens out there. And eventually everything wears out. I figure I am good with my car for another 50,000 miles at least before I really worry. Of course an engine failure before the CPO warranty runs out would not ruin my day. A day after might not feel so good though.

PERFECT post for the Rover dilemma....I had a 95 Rover that I sold at 150,000 miles....other than a valve job, water pump and air suspension regulator, it had nothing other than NORMAL upkeep....I sold it for 10k to a friends assistant...we had offices in the same building so I saw the car daily...I STRESSED to her the importance of upkeep, and that it will be a HUGE headache if you dont maintain it. 6 months later she sold it to my old mechanic for $2k. It had NO brakes, and various other problems. She drove it into the ground and never did any upkeep....She said she couldnt afford the brake pads, so the rotors went, then the calipers, then the master cylinder....it was literally using a whole thing of brake fluid a day and leaking it out....crazy...I drove the car 100 miles a day and it never left me stranded...

Ok you've lured me back off topic. All depends on the car. I had an 89 RR that I drove for 170,000 miles and it required nothing of me but routine maintenance and two alternators. I'd probably still be driving it if my girlfriend hadn't wrecked it. I've given my 2000 RR the same amount of TLC and it has had all sorts of issues after the 70K mile mark (head gasket, temp sensors, speedo, A/C failure, etc., etc.) I've put nearly $10K into the car in two years and it's not even worth that at resale. I believe the newer RR's have parts that don't last very long (my indie RR specialist mechanic agrees) and they are expensive to replace/repair. So to bring this back to P-cars, if the 996's newer models have more electrical or complicated proprietary parts that can't be bought reasonably on the aftermarket, their values may continue to drop.

That's the thing with Land Rovers that's a bit different from Porsches. There were some spectacular lemons. If there was ever a used vehicle you wanted to see a service history on, it was that one. But soooo many of the problems were assembly related rather than design related, so once you got them fixed, they usually stayed fixed. The newer, Ford-era ones... I wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

Yes thats my point....and 996 rebuilds are get this....$3500..... The value isnt gonna drop to 10k...hell a 1979 911sc is 10k. and yes a rebuild is 15k....and that goes all the way up to the 993's...top end rebuilds for air cooled cars is 8-10k....yes thats a complete new engine...Also a well maintained 996 engine should have no problem reaching 200,000 miles....So it looks like the 996 will be the CHEAPEST Porsche in the last 30-40 years to keep on the road....

I got one of those with the BMW drivetrain...and its SOLID.....drives like a new car and it will get me 200,000 miles if I keep it that long...I am at 55k now....its 4 years old.....had its teething problems, but again, stuff got fixed under warranty and it stayed fixed....one of the best cars out there....PERIOD. I drove many many SUV's and the 03-05 Range Rover is one of the best there is. I dont have the same confidence in the 06+ wwith the Jaguar drivetrain.

There were indeed some spectacular lemons (I have a friend who owned a low mileage 02 that caught on fire and practically blew up!). I wouldn't consider my 2000 a lemon as it ran well for the first 70K miles. The problems I'm having now are in my opinion quality issues. Parts are failing before they should on a car that cost $70K. You don't see $25K Hondas needing all this work at 75K miles. I am speaking specifically of the Ford era RR's. I haven't had any major issues with my Defender or my previous RR. The question for the 996 is whether Porsche skimped on parts quality in order to meet much higher production levels than in the 993, and to sell the car at a lower cost (when adjusted for inflation). Having owned a 944 in the past, I can state that the quality of that car was nowhere near that of a 911. To me it felt more like a glorified Audi (and that's before Audi was as upmarket at it is today).

Well I have 135k miles on the clock and it LOOKS like a new car inside and out....Nothing is wearing out prematurely and its actually a VERY solid car....I am sure they didnt skimp on their flagship car....the icon of the brand is the 911 and if they are falling apart now or in 20 years it makes Porsche look bad....These cars are very solidly built, with very solid materials....

That's great to hear. What model year is your car?

I have a 1999 C4 Cab....so an 8 year old car with 135k miles on it...I drive 100 miles a day in it....Funny, just yesterday I was amazed how strong the engine felt and how solid the car felt...My wife tjinks we should buy a new car....she has never had a car with so many miles on it...I like keeping cars until they wear out...I think I am a LONG way off from wearing out this car. In the meantime, i am enjoying my commute...lol....

[QUOTE=newport996]I have a 1999 C4 Cab....so an 8 year old car with 135k miles on it...I drive 100 miles a day in it....Funny, just yesterday I was amazed how strong the engine felt and how solid the car felt...My wife tjinks we should buy a new car....she has never had a car with so many miles on it...I like keeping cars until they wear out...I think I am a LONG way off from wearing out this car. In the meantime, i am enjoying my commute...lol.... QUOTE] I beat you on the commute, mine is 130 miles a day. I have to confess though that since the wife changed jobs, I am able to carpool 3 to 4 days a week and we use her Honda Civic. There is real difference going to the Civic, the Porsche is so much more comfortable. But with gas where it is, the allure of regular gas and 36mpg on average versus premium at 21mpg, I don't mind the extra 10 to 15 minutes it takes to go the same distance. The inside of the car and the outside still look new. The only visible wear on the inside are scuff marks on the driver seat by the door. I am a bit worried that someday I will wear that out. I think it is my belt that does the damage getting in an out of the car.

The big deal is that when most people (like me) buy a car for almost $50K, they expect the motor to last more than 8K miles. $1K for each 1,000 miles driven does not sound like such a great deal, now does it? The problem is that no matter how many $8K motors you put in it, when the 2 year warranty period is up, you are gambling again. It could be $8K every 2 years if you are unlicky. If that still does not sound like a crappy deal, maybe you should be shopping Italian.

Well, here is the real scoop.....The early 3.4L cars had some issues, after all its Porsche's FIRST water cooled flat 6...all the new remanufactured engines have been updated to reflect the changes made by tearing down all the old motors and finding out WHY they failed....this is why they didnt want dealers tearing them down, they wanted to replace them, and find out what was going on with them in Germany. The chances of you getting 2 bad engines in a row NOW are probably lower than you hitting the lottery. So if you just run out and buy a car without researching it, and knowing that SOME 99-01 cars had some engine issues and to either get a CPO car with a warranty (I did) or buy one that has gotten a new engine. Thats all....its not rocket science. In all my time on the forums, I have not seen 1 guy drop an engine in the car every 2 years. I have seen Boxsters with original engines at 170k+ miles and 996s well over 100k on original engines....so there is something to be said about 996 engines....Also if you bought a used car and the engine went, how do you know the previous owner didnt do something to it, and now you blame Porsche for a bad engine....How many of those bad engines ae user related, not Porsche related?

agreed. just one small note. when porsche started 996 production, they've already learned a lot from boxster. only 2 big problem with 996 are: 1. water/oil mix. manufacturing problem around 1999, both 996 and boxster were affected. 2. crank shaft. design problem, though it occurs rarely.

yes....mine had the water/oil mix problem...its a 99...happened at about 64k miles...I had a CPO warranty and it was replaced under warranty...new engine is at about 70k miles...its seems very strong like the day it was put in....I think its alot of paranoia...I had a 97 Boxster and sold it with 75k miles on it and it ran perfect til the day I traded it in on my 996.....

I may be late to this thread, but let me posit another theory: overproduction is killing the resale value on 996s. I don't think mileage has much to do with it. Yes, lower mileage cars hold their values better, but there's more than one reason for that. One is that fewer miles = less maintenance (obviously with some exceptions). Another significant reason is that the lower mileage cars are typically newer, and age certainly takes a toll on a car beyond simple mileage. Last but not least, there is a small contingent of people out there who place a premium on very low mileage cars. So this will raise the average a bit. I have no reason to believe the 996 suffers from a high cost of ownership, both anecdotally, and from spending years on Rennlist. It's certainly not a cheap car to maintain (I bought a Mazda for that!), but when I had my C2 for a year, I only took it into the shop for a 60k service and new tires. Well, besides that time the engine blew up But beyond the simply first-hand, there are plenty of RL'ers whose 996s have had a wonderful track record, even with higher miles. The volume, though, is there. I'd compare the 996 to the E36 M3 in the sense that now that the 997 is out, especially, there is a glut of used 996s for sale. The 911 is still an iconic/dream car, and so many people would love to get their hands on one. The older ones will scare people off, being older (and thus more expensive to maintain), harder to drive, and so heavily slanted towards manual transmissions. However, because the enthusiasts know what they are up against, the relative scarcity has held prices stable (and as others have pointed out, the 964 is even increasing) for good examples. It's not maintenance that's killing them, it's overproduction. Cost of ownership is helping them, if anything. I don't think the floor can accurately be predicted. When I paid $36k for my 2000 last year, I didn't think it would drop much below 30k for several years. One year later, almsot to the day, I sold it at a $9500 loss. Granted, I could have held out for a little bit more, but even fetching $30k for it would have required a lot of patience. That was with 66k miles. If I'd had, say, 40k, I still don't think I'd been able to get above $32k. So, while I say it's nearly impossible to predict, if I had to, in the coming years I'd think 3.4s will range from $17k for higher mileage examples to $28k for lower mileage examples. A lower mileage 3.4 already has a hard time fetching more than $35k, unless it's very, very low mileage or has a taco and is in perfect shape.

I really believe what is dropping the value is all the bitching some people do about the car and the fact that a lot of the 'new' Porsche buyers are idiots with too much disposable income. These people buy the car and drive them like some muscle car of the sixties rather than the sports car that they are. The cars are made to be driven smoothly to speed no clutch dumping burnouts and power shifting. Porsche, fortunately for me, has created a fine automobile that an enthusist can afford to buy, that I love to drive, has working A/C, and is very reasonable to maintain. They has built a car in mass that is a blast to drive and affordable to own which turns heads everyday. And thank you to the bitchers because you have made this car affordable to purchase far before it's time. 108,000 miles original engine and RMS, knock on wood. But for $7.5k/engine, thank you Porsche for taking that worry away. If I bought the 993 I'd be pretty worried about driving it everyday as I do. Also, this is the first Porsche I have owned that still has all of it's sycros intact, so much for the **** transmission claims. We wanted the bike so now we have to peddle.

I'm not wrapped up in the resale value deal. It's a car. It wears down. It breaks down. 997s will "suffer" the same fate as the 996s. 993s will do much better not because they're aircooled, not because they are considered the best looking very, but because they made a lot less of them. Enjoy, fellas. Just enjoy like Newport. His car is only 16K miles a year and that's NOTHING especially if you live in a freeway state like LA.

I think the 997 factor has to play in here as well. Now that the new car is here, and not so new that it is un-available, many P-philes may be upgrading. The new car has a new look - particularly from the front - and has a much needed face lifted interior. Those who could afford a new 996, probably can also afford a new 997, and are moving on. When they trade in or sell that 996, the number available in the market go up and the prices go down. This what I would guess is driving prices down - not reliability issues. I've owned Porsches for over twenty years - mostly older - 911s and 944s - and am looking forward to future 996 ownership. One of the biggest reasons is I thought they had much greater reliability and reduced cost of ownership. My 2 cents.

very true^ much like our current all time high fuel prices its simple supply and demmand. Low supplies and high demmand sends petrol to $4. High supplies of 996s and Boxsters drops demmand to its plateau point quicker than expected. Buyers don't care if a 993 engine costs 2 and 3x's to rebuild, if an M96 engine costs a third or half of the price of the whole car to replace, its going to further shrink demmand for 996 and Boxsters. Not many enthuasiasts have $8,000 sitting around to spend on a rebuilt egine.

This can be said for any car. Someone new comes, it's got better goodies in it, more advancements and people upgrade. Supply/demand. Out with the old, in the with new. Very simple. For those of you trying to prove which will depreciate harder/faster, 996 or 997, enjoy your time and effort.

We just need Bush to get some interest in 996s at we'd be set

Not many enthusiasts have $15,000 for a rebuild on a car that cost $10k-30k....and then have a slower, worse handling, more uncomfortable, more expensive car to maintain, etc.....

All this talk of gas mileage, I just got 25 MPG last tank (car has 92k miles). Everyone is making it sound like these are gas hogs.

Dude, it's a Porsche, not a Caddy. Go have some fun

Just my final two cents on this subject - even some of the best car manufacturers have had serious outbreaks of engine failure in their non-sporty cars. Just look at Toyota with the huge engine sludge failure rate in certain cars and VW/Audi with engine sludge and ignition coil failures that because of part shortages left some Audi owners unable to drive their cars for weeks. In fact both those companies refused to honor their warranties in some cases claiming the oil wasn't being changed at sufficient intervals and only caved in under pressure from consumer groups and the DOT. I don't think Porsche's problems are anything exceptional on a statistical basis, particularly given the high performance nature of their products. Yeah, I know, if I had just shelled out $10K for a new engine I would be singing a different song but as I said this is just my two cents.

I've only owned my '00 996 for under 2 months. But at this point, I plan on keeping it a long time. Even if it's worth ZERO, I will still open the garage and smile when I see the car!

I think that wears off when you die.