Looking for a 996 advice needed

Well looks like my RSA might be sold. I had finally decided to keep her and make her what I wanted over the winter. Wheels and tires are all new along with a hundred of other things but I guess I couldn't refuse the offer. Now with the baby and the little family growing, I thought I might try something else, something with back seats and less raw. I know myself too well and know down the road the car will feel like my RSA but lets not tell the wife just yet. I have read numerous threads about 3.4 VS 3.6 but I have this tendency to lean toward a aero MKI..... I want your advice and please let's not make this a debate. Should I go for a low miles 3.4 or higher miles 3.6?? For now I have spotted a very low miles 00 aero for sale from weissach in CT. Does anybody know this shop?? Thanks guys for your help

I don't know the shop. I've been very happy with my '99. I think the general consensus is that you should steer away from really low mileage cars... Look for something with 30 to 40k miles. Oh, and the Mk1 aero kit cars are some of the sexiest! (And the 996s aren't half bad on the track either!)

So very low miles is a bad thing??

I would get an '02 and up and put the GT3 aerokit on it. '02s+ have the facelift, better radiator cooling, and stiffer chassis not to mention 20-24 more hp over the 3.4. If you were to S/C down the road, it is a 55 hp bump (475 vs 420) over the 3.4 also. Torque is better on the low-end of a 3.6 according to most who have driven both.

Thanks for the advice, keep'em coming!!

Quotes source post: 5483932

Yup, a car needs to be driven. At this point you want a '99 or a '00 to have done at _at least_ 5K per year and that's the bottom end. Get something in the 5-10K per year (average) range and you'll have a car in good shape that should have been used and maintained. Over it's lifetime my car has averaged 7K and I regard it as being in excellent condition.

2002 and up. Good luck. I think I am going the other direction. 964 with a 3.8. They are all good.

I'd agree with the above. 2002+ gives you the displacement bump, plus improved aero/cooling/chassis stiffness. If you can find a well cared for 2002 coupe... its at the sweet spot of market value.

Quotes source post: 5483979

That's BS. This has been commented on in a number of other threads and low miles does not necessarily equal more problems. Do a search and read the comments from people that have actually had low mileage cars.

Quotes source post: 5483932

Spend some time searching for "RMS" and "intermediate shaft". These are weak spots on some of the early engines... It seems that after a certain amount of miles, if the engine was going to break, it would have done so already. But, also because of this, many of the early 996s are absolute bargains.

Come on anecdotal people! There is nothing to support the idea that low mileage cars have more problems. Sign up at your local community college and take a course on statistical analysis please!

Quotes source post: 5484332

I agree, however... My belief about low mileage cars is this: Low mileage cars are not driven enough to have whatever issue "show up" with the previous owner, hence any (if at all) "upcoming problems" will come up with the next owner's possession. A car with normal mileage would have had its "problems" show up with the previous owner and presumably taken care off by the previous owner.

Quotes source post: 5484332

Really? Is there anything to support the premise that low mileage doesn't make a difference?

I know it is not empirical data, but I have had at least 4 different service managers over the years tell me they believed that Porsches that sit tend to develop more problems. But this is one of those arguments that is impossible to prove one way or the other. My personal belief is that a Porsche that have been drive 5K or more miles a year is less likely to have problems than one that was only driven 2K a year.

2002 and up have a glove box!!

Thanks a million everybody. I didn't want to create a debate between 3.4 and 3.6 but I guess I created one with low miles VS normal miles which should average between 30K and 80K miles. As a reference point, I find 30K to be on the low side and I'm not really looking for a 5K miles car. I get the point

Cw, I bought a 99 with 35k miles ablout 20 months ago and couldn't be happier with my Porsche. Other than a bad front wheel bearing, new brake pads and an oil and filter change, I've had zero issues. I now have almost 43k miles...no sign of RMS or other problems.I think it boils down to a PPI and repair documentation along with the overall condition of the 996 you are looking at.GL

Quotes source post: 5484368

Agree. I successfully looked for a higher mileage ex-wife. She was married 10 plus years, so I knew she was capable of long term...ooops O.T.

Quotes source post: 5484159

Wasn't there some recent 3.6 IMS failures?

Does this car have a replacement engine? Try to get the build date on the car first before making a decision. I spoke to this shop when I was looking for my car. They give their own warranty on the car for 12 months I believe and their price is about $4 - $5K over market. If you are willing to pay that price, I would find a similar car with a replacement engine and add the MK1aero kit with the extra cash saved. I think MK1 aeros are better looking that MKIIs but that's just my opinion.

Negotiate on this. Price is high and should be worth around $25-$27K. http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=581110

Here is a thread of happy Mk1 owners... The peformance diff between the 3.4 and 3.6 is very small., the price diff between the two are fairly big... GL, reliabilty is also a big debate over the two. https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...1+aerokit+pics

I got my 02 3 months ago w/ 50K miles for $32K. It was very clean, but had been driven on avg 8K/yr. One of the local dealer guys that also races 944s told me during my search that they see more problems on low milage older cars because seals dry out, exhaust systems have more rust, etc. vs cars that are started up and driven regularly. Just what i've heard... so take it for what it's worth.

got an '02 and love it, love the face lift and the extra HP...30K miles, now at 31.5K and strong

A couple of posts in this thread from people that actually have owned low mileage 996's. You have to remember, there is a difference between 2-3k miles per year and driving the car 15k miles in year 1 and then putting it in storage for the next 4 years. https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...ferrerid=21393

Quotes source post: 5484091

Actually, no, it's not BS. Porsche recommends that cars be driven a minimum of 7K per year and will invalidate some warranties if you do not drive more than their minimum. I drive my car less than 7K per year, so fall into the low miles category, but I recognize that good engine health will depend on making sure that it is heat cycled on a regular basis to ensure that seals, gaskets etc are kept in good shape. Letting a car sit and rot by not driving it is unhealthy for the car - it needs to be heat cycled, otherwise leaks will occur. I'm yet to meet a Porsche mechanic that does not believe that these cars need to be driven. That being said, there is a huge difference between driving 2K per year and 5K per year. I drive 5K per year and not a week goes by (except between December and March) when the car is not driven several times. 2K per year is a car that is not in regular use.

Thanks again guys I appreciate every post and am glad you guys are there to give your input. I will keep you posted on the search

Quotes source post: 5484653

I wouldn't worry too much about the debate of low/higher mileage. The truth is nobody here really knows. We have our opinions. You will have yours soon if you don't already. I think there are tremendous bargains on the 3.4's and have considered selling my '03 to get a '00 or '01. That way I could do the mods I want guilt free

I know this car use to belong to a rennlist member but can't remember who it was..... http://images.autotrader.com/images/..._A.565x287.jpg

Quotes source post: 5486907

It has belonged to a couple of Rennlisters... I forget who has it now, but the guy who was selling it earlier this year was vastly inflating the car in his ad. description... he painted it as a pampered garage queen and gave a long history of the things that he implied he had done, when in fact the previous owner had done most of the work. He also claimed that the car had never been tracked, even though the previous owner had tracked the car (and written about it here on Rennlist)

I don't really care if a car was track or not as long as they are honest about it. As for myself, the car will be going to the track for sure. I just want to know if anything bad ever happened to it and if someone knew the owner. Thanks

Quotes source post: 5486907

Don't know anything about the car like Wayne says but deeyaam, that is sweet looking.

Okay, I found it... here's a link to the thread... https://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/417340-who-s-car-is-this.html Alan C owned it in Cincinnati. Nosoup4U then bought it from him and was a little generous in his representation of the car. other than the misleading ad. I didn't find anything bad written about the car in terms of it's history. Alan C really looked after it while he had it. Do a search on him and you'll see how he used the car. It's a great looking car that has had some nice work done to it.

Quotes source post: 5485983

Seriously? There is a warranty statement that says the warranty is valid for 50k miles or 10k miles whichever comes first, or last, or in a certain timeframe, or not at all, or mileage doesn't matter? This sounds a bit strange and unenforceable.

Quotes source post: 5487214

Seriously. They have an exemption that allows them to deny warranty coverage on certain items if you don't do enough miles. An example is if your battery fails and you don't do enough miles, then they will deny coverage. I found out about this when Phil G's batter failed and our local dealer (who is a master of denying warranty coverage) denied to provide a new one under his existing warranty.

Quotes source post: 5487211

Thanks, Alan C is the name I was looking for. If I remember correctly, he's the one who did most of the work, including the wheels. I just carfaxed it and it's at its 4th owner. I guess I'll give the guy a call. Keep you all posted and if somebody else knows something about the car, don't hesitate.

Quotes source post: 5487280

So does nosoup4u still own the car, or is it onto another owner?

From carfax report, it looks like nosoup is still the owner.

Quotes source post: 5485983

Who told you that? Have you ever known anyone that has owned a low mileage 996? I have and my 996 had 8,200 miles on it when I bought it in Sept of 2004 and it had been in service for almost 5 years. That's less than 2,000 miles per year. According to your logic, my car should have been a timebomb. After almost 3 years, all I had to do was two oil changes, new wiper blades, and new tires all around (replacing the originals). These are facts, your statements are opinion. If the car is driven periodically, and is not sitting for weeks/months at a time, it is not going to have any problems. Remember, these cars are not 911sc's that have been sitting in a barn or someone's backyard for the last 10 years. The oldest 996 isn't even 10 years old yet. Here's a couple pics of the timebomb when we shipped her off to the next unsuspecting owner...

Quotes source post: 5487275

OK, not to belabor the point, but I have my Porsche factory warranty and I can find no such clause. Regardless, the idea that a 996 that is driven less than 5k miles vs. 10k miles/ year is somehow unreliable is moot without any substantiation. It also doesn't make much sense. (to me at least)

Quotes source post: 5487923

Chris, it is true what Wayne said about certain limitations to the Porsche warranty due to the LACK of driving. Here is a link to the post by Phil G. about a sulfated battery and Porsche denial of warranty coverage because the car was not driven enough. Phil's battery claim denied.

Quotes source post: 5487923

Hey, I didn't come up with it. I'd never heard of it until the Porsche dealer invoked it on Phil.

Quotes source post: 5487476

I'm not getting into an argument on this, because to be honest noone has real data. Just bear in mind that my comments reflect good common sense and the experience of many mechanics. The comments are not specific to Porsches, but ANY car. I'm pleased that you had a car that didn't implode on you, because to be honest I kinda feel sad for any car who's owner pays so much to acquire it, then suffers depreciation, and the cost of insurance and then lets the car sit there like a museum piece - that's a crying shame. Just remember, the exception doesn't prove the rule.

Quotes source post: 5488135

Thanks Tim - I'd forgotten the title of the thread where they was posted.

Quotes source post: 5488135

Got it, interesting, but it is just the battery. My point is, I don't think it's right to steer people's purchasing decisions based upon arbitrary mileage numbers, especially without any real support for the hypothesis. FWIW, my car has 75k miles, is driven regularly, and just about every seal has blown at least once. I know it's difficult to digest all of the information before purchasing a car, and a single opinion can have a big effect. I guess my advice would be first read Adrian's book and then a PPI. I think the rumors are explored fairly and researched thoroughly in the book.

Quotes source post: 5488407

Actually, no. In this case it applied to the battery, but I was told later that the policy could be applied to other components that would be adversely affected by lack of use. The dealer has the discretion to apply warranty coverage as THEY chose. I go to the same dealer as Phil and in the time I've been going there they have refused to warranty a MAF (because I have an EVO CAI) and Porsche OEM aero side skirts (because they didn't like the tape that is used to secure them onto the sides of the car - these were Porsche parts that they didn't like and refused to warranty!). The point is that a warranty is a very flexible item that can be applied or denied at the discretion of the dealer that you use.

Quotes source post: 5488312

WOW, now the difference between 2,000 and 5,000 miles per year makes it a "museum piece"! You neglected to answer my specific question as to whether or not you've seen anything posted on these boards regarding someone who bought a low mileage 996 and had MUCHO problems with it. I'd love to see the links because I haven't seen them... Now, you've digressed to saying that the warranty (which the majority of 996's don't have anymore!) won't cover batteries, aftermarket equipment, etc. Who cares what the original warranty covered when the vast majority of 996's are out of factory warranty! Fact is, this is a post to Rennlist newbie 996 potential purchasers and the FACT is, I had a low mileage one and it was a great, trouble-free car. Since you have no actual examples, mine might be the rule!

Quotes source post: 5488407

+1 Great post!

I guess I have a low mileage 996 also. I bought my 2000 cab in 2005 with 5200 miles. Since then, I've gotten the mileage up to 23,000. I don't use the car as a commuter so I consider that decent driving for a city boy. Incidentally, the motor has never had an issue. However, I can understand what people who are talking about low mileage issues are talking about. Driving a car regularly is definitely better for it than leaving it sitting around while it becomes a rust basket. I think that's part of the reason that some Ferrari owners run into so much trouble with their garage queens. But I think driving it 30 mins a week (call it 30 miles a week) which would total 1560 miles a year is probably more than fine. Really, engines today are so much more reliable than decades ago. Hell, I still can't believe that my car is almost 8 years old and still runs like a champion.