996 versus 993 depreciation

Hi, Please does anyone know the reason why the 993 considerably hold their value when compared to the 996 (or even the 997 for that matter)? Is it because the 996 was more mass produced? Water cooled versus air cooled? Better build quality? Lack of availability? Running costs? Reliability (ie. this 996 engine issue I keep reading about)? All of the above? It's clearly a supply/demand issue, but just curious as to what's creating the demand. I'd like to avoid a thread along the lines of "because the 993 is better".

In my opinion I think that its largely due to the fact that the 993 was the last of the water cooled, and what many enthusiasts feel is the last of the true 911's. The fact that they are not making the 993's anymore, and that there were around 150,000 (I am not sure on exact figure) 996's built, means the market is full of used 996's, which all contribute to it Personally I love the look of the 993's (esp the rear), but will be going for a 996 when i find the right one. Not sure why tho lol

IMHO... combo of things you say but I think its mainly the much lower 993 production figures mean they just aren't as common, potentially 993 more of an 'enthusiasts' car, the 996 opened up the market to a wider audience and at a time of increased affluence so many more about and likely to see higher % depreciation esp if spec is not perfect. I wonder is this just in the UK or across Europe? I didnt look at the 996 because pre-facelift they missed something in the looks, except the C4S with its rear reflector and flared arches. Another reason is that model updates have become very common and maybe buyers buy-in at the higher end of the used market? My 993 is I believe only one of 375 rhd models of its type (body/transmission) which to be fair makes it quite rare and there is a big gap down to mainstream models even in great condition.

Having had both and working with the trade I would say there are a number of factors: The 993 is NOT a better car IMO. From a specification, performance, handling and just about every rational point of view the 996 is a better car. However, it is emotional factors that ultimately sell expensive cars, and that is where many people favour the 993... The 993 is more exclusive, as it was built in lower numbers, and is more 'involving' for the driver - aurally, kinesthetically, and for many, visually. It is more raw and charismatic: To an engineer, air cooling is fundamentally flawed - especially in hot climates - but, to an enthusiast it results in a wonderful distinctive noise. Ergonomically, offset pedals, a flat panel dash with pull-knob controls and more reflections than the hall of mirrors, are a disaster... To an enthusiast they add character - a bit like a 6' bloke buying a house with worm-riddled original oak beams 5' 10" high (yes, that's me and I have the bruises to prove it!) Ironically, I am an engineer by qualification, and that's why I will keep my 996 as my daily driver... In every rational criteria it is a no-brainer! But I still hanker after my 993, and if I ever could afford a 993 as an 'extra' car that's exactly what I would have! And I think, in a long-winded way, that answers the question... Most sub-£40,000 Porsche buyers are not looking for a daily driver, they want something special, with bags of character and emotional appeal, and that's where the 996 falls down IMO - it is just too clinically proficient... After all, how many people buy a modern, fully equipped, Barratt semi-detached house as a second home? How much extra do you pay for a 'character' country home - with draughts, damp, spiders, uneven walls, odd-shaped rooms, wobbly floors, tiny windows, etc?

^^^nicely put Wattie. Only point I'd question is about air-cooling, perhaps I'm naive but are air-cooled notorious for over heating? I know its not popular to have air-cooled but the Beetle was air cooled too and IIRC they still make in Brazil where they are very common? NOT wishing to start a debate, maybe i should read up about it!! TBH I never bought air-cooled 'cos of teh sound, I'd love to have PSE instead!!

Air-cooling is fine for relatively low powered beetles in hot climates, but not so good if you want air-conditioning as well on a 300bhp+ car with the engine the wrong end! Mine was a daily driver, and I often wished for more efficient air-con, and on a few occasions had to stop under a bridge and open the engine lid and wait for the engine to cool down a bit! (Once on the Brussels Ring in the rush-hour, which was a bit inconvenient and embarassing!)

This is just my opinion, but having owned a 996 and now a 964, it is a combination of most or all of your points. The 996 is more modern and will probably appeal more to someone switching from a higher end car from another european manufacturer. They are produced in true volume manufacturing quantities. Their reliability is more questionable with some high profile problems, whereas the air-cooled engines have a reputation for being bullet proof. One fact remains though - in real terms the earlier cars were a lot more expensive than the current ones. In the early 90s you could put yourself in a 911 for about £52,000. You could do that in the mid naughties for about £57,000. In real terms, that should be about £100,000 if you look at the relative increases in salaries and the cost of other goods. The hard fact is tha a Porsche is just so much more affordable now than it has ever been and the myth of depreciation-proof motoring has been well and truely busted. Do try driving both and try to keep an open mind. You don't get PSM or indeed any traction control with an earlier car but they are in fact wonderful vehicles. They just are not for everyone.

Water is a better coolant than air which is why Porsche moved to WC and why top end cars like the 959 had water cooled heads (with air cooled block). However aircooled 911s do just fine as they are so superbly engineered by the maker - overheating is almost unheard of on late AC cars. Take the ultimate expression of AC 911 - 993 TT. Top models produce 450bhp and are cooled only by air and do just fine! With regards to air con ( cooling ) - the efficiency of the system has nothing to do with whether the car is cooled by air or water. It's completely about the design of the system - in the 993 it's crap (v basic and old fashioned ), in the 996 it's how it should be, which is why it works much more predicatably. If we're talking about the heating system, then the cooling system does make a difference - the aircooled design is notoriously complicated and inaccurrate, while the 996s is alot more convertional using a heater matrix.

I think the 993 relies on oil cooling as well as air - hence the radiator(s) at the front. I'm not sure of the relative split of 'work' between the air and the oil - but I do know that the front o/s wing on a 993 is very warm after a drive, due to the oil radiator hidden within! Does the 996/7 have a similar set up of oil cooling, or is is mainly the water system? cheers tim

Aesthetics also play a large part here. Look at a 993 next to a 996 and the former is a much prettier car. Even Porsche seem to have realised this with the 997 which reflects more of th 993 than the 996 in it's design.

The thing which intrigues me is the difference between the 993s and the 964, 3.2 etc. A blue chip, gilt edged low mile 964 would be £20k, which looks a storming buy. Just a bit more will buy a high quality 3.2. Yet, a top-q 993 is north of £30k, maybe £40k for the best S. So if you're looking for a fun car just to tuck in the garage, really a 964 etc is a better bet- my 3.2 appealed to me on a more visceral level than my 993. The 996 is a hugely accomplished everyday supercar, designed with the sole aim of nicking sales from BMW, Jag and Merc, but still with the essential driver focus there for those that care to notice- its only when you drive other cars you realise how much character even a 996 has. But you wouldn't buy one just to use for high days and holidays.

Simple answer IMO is that the 993 is a pure enthusiasts car now. No one other than a real 993 saddo wants to buy them. Luckily there are a lot of us out there. Whereas the 996 still appears on the 'What to Buy' list of the average middle salary / middle manager along with a BMW 330ci, a Merc SL, a Jag XK and probably a Lexus creeping in. And there are a lot to choose from. No doubt they are a better all round car than the 993 for lots of reasons. But for me and countless others, there will only ever be the 993. (He says whilst seriously considering a 996 C4S).

:shock:

I think you mean last of the air-cooled :wink: .

Being a 32 year old, IT nerd who just bought a 996 Mk1 GT3 I will explain why I went this way over a 993.... Firstly I love to race, hence the GT3 choice. I want lighter than more features, but I still want some comforts. I still want power windows and a heating and cooling system that works reliably. More important for me though was (and probably due to my age) a like of more modern designed car. I have never been the type to appreciate cars from the 60's. I prefer modern styling, curving lines, nice switchgear etc. Now don't get me wrong, I didn't imply the 993 was unreliable, but from a interior styling point of view it was quite out of date. The outside is gorgeous but I just couldn't accept the interior style - it was just too old for the age of the car. Now that is what makes most people love the Porsche - the history that comes with it..... I think it's fair to say the 996 was a massive step away from the classic Porsche in so many ways. I am not a fan of the front end, preferring the 993 or 997, but I couldn't afford a 997 and again, couldn't get over the interior of a 993..... and oh my gawd, how well does a GT3 handle! My friends are jealous! Regards, Jeff