I've owned dozens of the things-914s with 1.7s and 2.8 RSR motors, 944s of all varieties-including a RUF equipped Turbo, 928s and 911s-including a '67 vintage racer, a '73 RS, SCs, Carreras, etc.
a 928 in fanatically maintained condition is a nice GT that will eventually cost you money and retain nearly no value(unless its a GTS variant)
944s are nice drivers and work on the track, no torque and no real value. Some expensive bits to fix on occasion.
911s are really what Porsche is all about no matter how many SUVs and 4-doors that they sell. Unmatched steering feel, great brakes-even by today's standards, easy to mod, cheap to service(barring a major ka-boom) and able to run hundreds of thousands of miles with proper service. A no brainer, really. I prefer early cars or for a driver, a nice SC or Carrera. With a bigger budget, you can't go wrong with an RS America. Newer models are also nice, just a bit removed from the raw experience I prefer. A clean PPI is a must.
MrBenjamonkey wrote:
The 911 is rear engined for a reason.
Not to knock the 911. I owned one and loved it, and will own another again.
But the 911 is rear engined because the 356 was rear engined. The 356 was rear engined because the beetle the original was designed on, was rear engined.
I am not saying they are not brilliant and a joy to drive, but it is a heritage thing
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
Teh E36 M3 wrote:
I can haz fanboi? I'm a fan of the 911, especially its rally pedigree, but it is difficult to find someone who won't admit that they are a triumph of development over (orginial) engineering. The whole 'once you figure out how to drive it' argument doesn't sit well with me- sorry - it just seems like honda built the s2000 and the miata are built to drive out of the box. The real brilliant drivers cars don't need you to learn their quirks. On the other hand, maybe it's like dating a supermodel.... you pay the price for the high speed and nifty underpants.
"The really brilliant drivers" you mention are really brilliant only in the hands of someone who knows how to drive them. Some platforms make it more accessible for certain - but lets take the Exige for an example... its flat out brilliant by all measures but try to treat it like an S2000 and you will be backwards before you can yell berkeley. Its not going to tolerate any nonsense an M3 would put up with mid-corner. Is the M3 a better car because it lets you manhandle it? If you drove the M3 like an Exige... how many apexes would you miss understeering on entry? Wanna try to drive an SVT Focus like a Miata? Its a brilliant little car but its going off wide in turn one if you do.
The 911 has a lot going for it by design. It can change direction in an instant, accelerate like a live axle car but turn on independent suspension... its subtly brilliant and has won enough in all its forms (even short wheel based killer 912s!) to bear credence without having to qualify it as a triumph of development over design. Is it perfect? Hell no (The Exige actually is), its engaging for sure - and its not a "snap" oversteering car unless you are a driver who invites snap oversteer by winding up the bars and releasing them at the wrong time.
Wow. I am verbose this evening. I'll stop beating this horse. I need more scotch anyway - you see where I'm going by now I'd imagine. Its not wrong - its just different and you have to treat it that way.
Czech- I didn't mean to sound too harsh in that original post... I guess I hold the view that these cars that are 'magic in the right hands' are basically flawed, and that only great drivers can drive them means that something needs to be fixed- hence again, the 'triumph of development over engineering' term applied. In the right hands, a Daisia Sudera is fast (or a transit van). Point is, fast drivers are going to be fast in whatever they drive, while slow drivers will be slow in whatever they drive.
Perhaps the 911 takes some skill to master, and when mastered, can be fast, but I'd be curious to bench race an equivalent weight/power miata or s2000, or....
That said, I love the way they look, and will have one at some point. I think it would make a kickass retro-rally car if you could find a beat up early 80's version.
mad_machine wrote:
MrBenjamonkey wrote:
The 911 is rear engined for a reason.
Not to knock the 911. I owned one and loved it, and will own another again.
But the 911 is rear engined because the 356 was rear engined. The 356 was rear engined because the beetle the original was designed on, was rear engined.
I am not saying they are not brilliant and a joy to drive, but it is a heritage thing
And why was the beetle rear engined? 
MrBenjamonkey wrote:
And why was the beetle rear engined?
Were I to hazard a guess... in the case of the people's car it allowed for more passenger compartment space and simplified the driveline packaging which reduced cost. It also put weight over the driven wheels for more traction on less than ideal surfaces like snow and mud.
It was the natural tendency of people to race stuff and the proliferation of that platform that caused someone to discover that if you replace a swing axle with something that won't roll over on its roof at the first sign of a corner - and if you can be precise - you can trade a little stability under hard braking on entry for a faster mid corner speeds and earlier acceleration on exit. Something that successful race cars strive for. Then they went out and stomped a whole bunch of better designed race cars with it ;)
4eyes
HalfDork
8/7/10 10:25 a.m.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
MrBenjamonkey wrote:
And why was the beetle rear engined?
Were I to hazard a guess... in the case of the people's car it allowed for more passenger compartment space and simplified the driveline packaging which reduced cost. It also put weight over the driven wheels for more traction on less than ideal surfaces like snow and mud.
It was the natural tendency of people to race stuff and the proliferation of that platform that caused someone to discover that if you replace a swing axle with something that won't roll over on its roof at the first sign of a corner - and if you can be precise - you can trade a little stability under hard braking on entry for a faster mid corner speeds and earlier acceleration on exit. Something that successful race cars strive for. Then they went out and stomped a whole bunch of better designed race cars with it ;)
Bingo, the same things that were good for the Beetle, in many cases, are good for semi practical sports cars.
the first pre-production design study for the 356 was mid engined. They decided to make it a rear engined car to fit in a rear seat....oh how the world would be different if they hadn't.
Teh E36 M3 wrote:
Czech- I didn't mean to sound too harsh in that original post... I guess I hold the view that these cars that are 'magic in the right hands' are basically flawed, and that only great drivers can drive them means that something needs to be fixed- hence again, the 'triumph of development over engineering' term applied.
we could start a list as long as your arm with all the of "magic in the right hands" cars..
viper
lancia stratos
Metro 6R4
any group B car for that matter.
original Cobras...
just about any of the top performing race cars from the 50's and 60's...
bicycle tire bugattis.
blah blah blah.
ignorant wrote:
Teh E36 M3 wrote:
Czech- I didn't mean to sound too harsh in that original post... I guess I hold the view that these cars that are 'magic in the right hands' are basically flawed, and that only great drivers can drive them means that something needs to be fixed- hence again, the 'triumph of development over engineering' term applied.
we could start a list as long as your arm with all the of "magic in the right hands" cars..
viper
lancia stratos
Metro 6R4
any group B car for that matter.
original Cobras...
just about any of the top performing race cars from the 50's and 60's...
bicycle tire bugattis.
blah blah blah.
Yeah, and that damn near any car is great in the right hands- the Ford Transit reference was aimed at the "queen of the 'ring", who nearly beat Clarkson who was driving a much faster vehicle.
When I was in Germany on my mission, there were lots of 911's and a few 912's. The 928 had just come out and I found myself slobbering on the Porsche dealer windows over the 911's that were going cheap. US$ 200 per month doesn't get any respect, though. But at the time I thought I'd like to try a 911 if ever I had the chance. Now it's beginning to look like a good idea. Thanks for the thread!
M030 wrote:
Platinum90 wrote:
the first pre-production design study for the 356 was mid engined. They decided to make it a rear engined car to fit in a rear seat....oh how the world would be different if they hadn't.
+1
Well, even though the club racers who drove modded street cars had to worry about it, I really don't think Porsche's overall history would have changed. IMO, if they didn't already know, they wouldn't have made the 550 back then. 
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:
MrBenjamonkey wrote:
And why was the beetle rear engined?
Were I to hazard a guess... in the case of the people's car it allowed for more passenger compartment space and simplified the driveline packaging which reduced cost. It also put weight over the driven wheels for more traction on less than ideal surfaces like snow and mud.
As in the case of the Fiat 500. it was probably cheaper to put the engine in the rear of the car driving the rear wheels than it was to make it FWD. by placing the engine with the drive wheels, it increased traction (like said above) and lessoned the packaging space to mount it.
May I suggest that you come to Ontario, and look at the Porsche batmobile
HiTempguy wrote:
Late 80's/early 90's Porsches seem to have hit a really nice pricepoint.
I've had some spare time in the office lately, so I've been day dreaming: which Porsche is best?
Basically, I see the 944 vs the 928 vs the 911. Depending on which models you look at (in this case, the later 944 turbo s, the 928 S4 variant, or a 91-ish Carrera) they all come in pretty close to the same price point.
So GRM, which is better? I'd really like to pick one up next year once my student debt is finished being paid off. It would be used as a track toy and weekend cruiser.
Let the fighting begin!
It all depends on what you want from the Porsche and how much coin you can drop. I think a 944 Turbo is the best performance/value equation of any of them. Here is my 88 944 Turbo S. 250hp (factory rated), 160mph car. Back in the day it turned a lap faster than a 911 Turbo at Willow Spring raceway in the hands of either Car and Driver or Road and Track. I bought this one in 1997 for $12.5K with 90k on it. It has 140k on it now. Picture was taken about a year ago at a PCA event.
However some people just love the 911.
I've owned an '86 944 and an '86 911 simultaneously. I agree with pretty much everything said here in defense of both cars. In my opinion the 944 is a much better car but the 911 is just incredibly cool, so I'd rate them close to equal for my purposes. That being said, I paid five times as much for my 911. There is no way in the world the 911 is five times the car as a 944, but everybody needs to own a 911 at some point.
A 944 turbo confuses the issue. A well set up example has the potential to embarrass even a newer 911 on a track.
So the A/C on the '80s 911s sucks? Is there anything that can be done to help this? I really wanted to get one as a daily driver when I got out of college and saved a little money.
Cotton
HalfDork
8/10/10 9:38 a.m.
Otto_Maddox wrote:
I've owned an '86 944 and an '86 911 simultaneously. I agree with pretty much everything said here in defense of both cars. In my opinion the 944 is a much better car but the 911 is just incredibly cool, so I'd rate them close to equal for my purposes. That being said, I paid five times as much for my 911. There is no way in the world the 911 is five times the car as a 944, but everybody needs to own a 911 at some point.
A 944 turbo confuses the issue. A well set up example has the potential to embarrass even a newer 911 on a track.
I currently own an 87 944 turbo and an 85 Carrera. I paid about 3 times more for the 911, but it was in much better shape than the 944t. The cars are so very different they are hard to compare. If I had to pick a favorite it would be the 911, because I love the air cooled 6 and the raw nature of the car, but for me they serve different purposes. The 944t is a semi daily driver and occasional pleasure car and the 911 is only used for fun. If I could only have one it would be the 911, but I'd miss the 944t every day.
Also my 944t would whip my 911 on the track, but the 944 is slightly modified, while the 911 is stock.
Cotton
HalfDork
8/10/10 9:40 a.m.
96DXCivic wrote:
So the A/C on the '80s 911s sucks? Is there anything that can be done to help this? I really wanted to get one as a daily driver when I got out of college and saved a little money.
There are a few threads on Pelican regarding AC on the mid 80s 911s. There are several guys that modified their ac systems and they have very nice AC.....not sure what they spent, but if it's important to you a quick search over there will turn up what you need to know.
In reply to Cotton:
I looked into the modifications when I had mine. It was going to cost around $1500 if I recall correctly, and the a/c was still going to suck.
I've never owned one - but have spent time doing the same day dreaming you are. I read a lot about the 928 just over the weekend. It's an amazing and underappreciated car that sell for much less than it seems like it should. Not a light weight, so I'd probably not the track monster, but for weekend cruiser, I'd love to have one to play with.
96DXCivic wrote:
So the A/C on the '80s 911s sucks? Is there anything that can be done to help this? I really wanted to get one as a daily driver when I got out of college and saved a little money.
Yes and yes.
The factory A/C sucks. For about two grand, you can remove and replace everything yourself, get it charged and have acceptable air conditioning.
But drive a 911 first. You may not care.
And what's the deal with Valeri Bertinelli?
