Comparing two 996's, which should I buy?

1. 2002 Cabriolet with 106k miles Silver/Black with a black convertible top. Brakes, tires, AOS, alternator, fuel pump, belt and bearings, spark plugs, water hoses, water tanks, air vacuum were all done in the last 12 months. The clutch was replaced at 50k but still on the original IMS. Convertible top in very good condition (think it was replaced at some point). The interior is in good shape, and the current owner replaced many of the black plastic parts that were nicked and scratched up over the years. Car was a California car its entire life, originally leased, then owned privately for 8 years, and then the current owner bought it when he moved to the US from France. He has owned the car for 1.5 years but just moved to New York City so is getting rid of it (parking too expensive/dont need cars in NYC). I would be the 4th owner. Asking price was $20k and I negotiated him down to $18k. 2. 2000 Cabriolet with half the mileage (53k) for the same price $18k. Dark blue exterior on Gray interior with blue convertible top. The car has recently had its 60k service, has good tires, brakes, and felt more solid over road imperfections when I drove it (less creaks and rattles, but the hardtop was on vs. the 106k mile car which did not have a hardtop). The softtop is in good shape but has the plastic window vs. the glass on the first car. The gray interior looks a lot worse than the black interior on the first car... scratches all over the center console, dashboard, door sills. One of the door panels needs to be replaced, and there is discoloration on the gray steering wheel and shift ****. In general, the interior was dirty it wasnt vacuumed, etc. The owner is a 78 year old man who has had the car for 9 years in New Jersey but only used during summer, and was owned by someone else for 5 years in New York beforehand. I would be the 3rd owner. I blame some of the interior imperfections on the fact that this older gentlemen was not as meticulous about the cosmetic maintenance and detailing, but he seems to have done a better job with mechanical maintenance. Also one of the headlights has yellow discoloration (they are the Xenon lights) which I am hoping can be reconditioned and doesnt need a new housing. So the dilemma is whether to get a 3.6L with better interior and 105k miles with higher risk of major failure (and possibly a more difficult sale when the time comes?) vs. a 3.4L with half the mileage and spend a little extra to replace some of the interior pieces. Any thoughts? I was planning to have PPI's done on both cars this week but I just spoke to a Porsche mechanic who said not to even waste my money on a PPI for a 996 with over 100k miles...

Well, clearly that is not the Porsche mechanic you want doing your PPI...

My first thought is you do need a PPI for a car with 106K miles (or more or less miles). You need a PPI unless you are quite comfortable and confident in your ability to evaluate a used Porsche. As for which car, all I can offer is to carefully consider both cars and decide which one is in the better condition and buy that car. Upon re-reading your post the lower miles car I believe is a bit more attractive. If the basic platform is sound then cosmetic issues can be addressed at your convenience. However, I'd not delay as generally interior pieces are the first items that are depleted for older cars.

The 2002 is quite an improvement on the previous years. That being said, keep enough money to do an IMS upgrade on either car; ask me how I know..... The Nov. 2001 issue of 'Excellence' magazine features the new [back then] 2002 Carrera complete with a 'first drive' and all of the improvements over the previous 996. Vario Cam Plus, 3.4-3.6 liters, suspension tweaks, 25% stiffer chassis, better sound system, better exhaust note and some safety improvements [read that as heavier, too].

what do you plan on doing with the cars? I actually like the 3.4s because the cars they came in were lighter and I like the older, simpler interior. Seeing as you're going with a Cabrio I'm going to assume performance isn't really a factor so you may want the 3.6 because it has some other improvements.

The one with the big ****. Oh, sorry, punch line to a joke that your thread title brought to mind. Seriously, I think the lower mileage car. First off, the improvements in 2002, although nice, were just evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Frankly, take away the glovebox and the headlights, and most people wouldn't notice the other tweaks if no one told them about them. I know people will howl about the 5% increase in hp/torque, but with the weight gain, the performance difference is minimal. I remember reading either an Automobile or Car & Driver article on that power increase, and the professional test driver scoffed at the difference. Also, the door pockets on the Mk I are large enough that I've never missed the glove box. Secondly, the 2000 likely has the dual row IMS bearing, so you can comfortably wait until you need to drop the engine or tranny to swap the IMSB (if you even feel the need to do that). 3rd, although I am not a cabriolet fan, I would think the hardtop adds significant value for someone in the Northeast US. Lastly, if you sell at some point, the 2000 model will likely still have well under 100k miles. I don't mind high mileage cars (actually prefer them, but due to the lower purchase price), but much easier to sell a car with 80,000 miles than one with 130k miles.

Quotes source post: 12025778

Why is only one headlight yellowing? That sounds to me like a story you've not been told. I'm also suspicious of anyone who doesn't bother maintaining the appearance of a look-at-me car. What else was he willing to ignore or skimp on? If you're looking to buy and hold, I'd keep looking - I don't want to buy a keeper that already has 100K miles, and I don't want a car with a beat-up interior that's going to catch my eye and bother me every time I get in. OTOH if you're looking for something to drive for a few months and then move on, the one that requires less work to get it to a point where you're satisfied with it makes the most sense. If you are shopping for a car of which only 26 exist, you accept that you'll be inheriting some issues. But for a 996, there's no reason to settle - ESPECIALLY for the lease-spec (silver on black cabs with basic options) cars. There are SO many 996's to choose from... That's lousy advice - did he provide any reasoning? It seems a bit unusual to PPI both cars, since you KNOW you'll be paying to PPI at least one car you won't buy anyway. That could turn into an expensive habit if you wind up with more cars on your radar...

I like the sound of the lower mileage car myself.

Thanks for all the feedback.. To clarify, when the mechanic said not to waste my money on a PPI for the high mile car he meant that I shouldn't even be considering the car. He wasn't suggesting to buy it without doing a PPi. I will 100% be getting a PPI on any car I buy. His reasoning was that 996's don't last well over 100k without significant maintenance and that mileage is the most important driver of value. He basically was recommending against any 996 with over 100k as a general rule. That being said, a few days ago a more senior mechanic at the same shop wasn't as quick to rule it out and said it depends on how well they were taken care of. I am buying the car to use for 2 summers, I'm not planning on keeping it long term. So resale value and ability to sell will be important for me. I used to do auto-x in my e36 M3 but not planning to track this car (hence getting a cabrio) and while I would like the extra oomph from the 3.6, I would be totally happy with the power of the 3.4 too. I realize if I get a PPI on both I am wasting some money, but as long as I end up with one of these two im ok with that. I can keep looking but spring is coming and prices may be a little higher, and I've been spending way too much time over the last month with this and need to just get it over with

The 2000, with a little clever part sourcing and elbow grease sounds like a better prospect for resale in the future.

I always choose the lower mileage examples over the higher. I rather pay a few thousand more up front then end up throwing money on all the other wear items that come with higher miles. Higher miles doesn't necessarily mean bad and worn engine but It definitely means all the other basic wear items starting from the interior, rubber, suspension, etc. are going to need to be freshened up if it has not been done yet.

If all the work done on the 2002 car can be documented than I would go with the higher milage car. It has simply been better taken car of. A hundred thousand miles is not the end of a modern car's life. In fact it was driven about 8 thousand miles a year and I like the sound of that a lot better than the other car which was driven less than 4 thousand miles a year and looks pretty beat up. The older beat up car is the same price as the newer better cared for car...so which one do you think you are going to have to start putting money in. For the price you negotiated on the newer car (with higher milage) it sounds like a turnkey entry into lots of quality Porsche miles with little if anything out of pocket.

No question in my mind. The 2000 Cab with hard top and double race IMSB.

Quotes source post: 12026554

Hurdi, MY2000's can have either the single-row or dual-row IMSB. Please verify your facts before you weigh in with "expert" advice that may affect someone else's financial decisions. IMSRetrofit.com: "The earliest design incorporated a dual-row ball-bearing used through model year 1999 and in some 2000 and 2001 models. Starting in model year 2000, a single row ball-bearing with a significantly reduced load capacity was used." On the plus side, a little WD-40 will probably make that IMSB last forever anyway.

I, personally, like a car that looks as if it's been well taken care of. Having said that, one can forgive a 78 year old for not washing/waxing the thing - or vacuuming out the interior every so often. Sounds like he did spend money taking care of it. Given the age of either vehicle, as long as you are prepared to spend (what would the "correct" annual $ amount be?) anywhere from $1500 to $2500/year keeping it up (or bringing it back) you should be fine. Best of luck with a purchase.

My my2000 had the double row (now LN swapped). I would go that way.

Just picked up a 1999 with 63K, and will be doing the IMS in the next month.

Lower mileage one with the probability of it being a dual row bearing is the one I'd get if I had to pick between those two. If it was me I would find a better one than either of those for 18000, its not that hard.

Quotes source post: 12026571

You are a BERK at times. I was telling him I would buy the 2000 and the reason why. Not what he should buy. I knew it could have either bearing but would guess it has the double. Dyu want to gamble with me that it has the single or what? Do you honestly believe that I didn't know that the 2000 had only the double row? I know enough about these cars after 4 years of reading about them then you obviously imagine. I am having a 'GO' at you because you had a 'GO at me. Your posting was for me and not him. This posting, unfortunately, is for you. Oh and squirt a little WD40 in your ear to oil what little brains you have inside your thick head hahaha.

And you are a tool yourself sometimes. Please explain to OP how to ensure the car he is considering has a dual-row bearing, as it certainly isn't evident from your sagacious post. I'll try to refrain from commenting on your generally absurd and occasionally completely inaccurate contributions in the future...hopefully someone else can intercept upcoming "Hurdi's Hints."

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/500x532/55919573_56f4213c20c6280b579784722bd57ec1b4fd9b03.jpg

Quotes source post: 12025989

This is the funniest line of the week. Schnell you are falling behind.