rai

True about these classics being mony pits, but consider any new car as being a money pit as far as depreciation goes, look at 10-15% depreciation per year so figure the Z will cost you $3K a year plus maintanence. These older cars will depreciate less, but they are better used for weekends rather than your sole means of transportation.

Sanderman

...I hate to burst anyones bubble but a Porsche 930 or Ferrari 328 would be a terrible choice compared to a 350Z.

I owned a 944, have driven numerous 944 turbos, 911s and a 930. The fact is the 930 is a bag of hammers. Great for its day but it's day is long past. Specifically:

1. Lift throttle oversteer that will cause the car to reverse ends if you lift off the accelerator in a curve. A buddy came upon a slow car mid way through a sweeping freeway ramp and found this out the hard way. I have seen at least a dozen 911s and 930s with damage to the rear panels - and they didnt get them form rear end collisions if you get my drift.

2. This car defined the concept of turbo lag. One huge turbo that comes on in an instant - you go from wallowing to screaming in a split second. Believe me, not a good thing when mid curve or when making agressive steering inputs.

3. Porsche maintence and unreliability. Mechanincal lifters (non-hydraulic) have to be manually adjusted at least once a year (at least $500+ for that alone), 12 quarts of oil every time you do an oil change (it's actually an oil cooled engine, not simply air cooled as most believe), Turbo replacements - frequent if you drive hard because unlike the 300TT, RX7 turbo and other more recent cars the 930 turbo lacked water cooling. Can you say oil coking? can you say catastrophic failure? Add to that the $1,500 - $2,500 in other routine and unscheduled maintenence per year above and beyond the cost of oil, filters, brake pads and tires. This is a car you can easily buy but yet not afford.

4. Oh yeah, creature comforts. The early 911 & 930 have ergonomics from hell. Actually a very unsportscar like upright seating position with switches and buttons hidden in AC vents, under the lip of the dash and with a ventillation control system that included dash controls and floorboard mounted levers that took a degree form MIT to figure out. Not that it mattered. The AC on this vintage of Porsches bears no resemblance to the current cars. I have ridden in these cars on 90 degree days with the AC on full blast - covered in sweat.

And finally, I never met an honest person (meaning non-total Porsche nut) who would describe the handling of the 930 with anthing other than one word - treacherous. Literally a take your life in your hands if you drive it agressively kind of ride if you arent VERY experienced and know precisely what you are doing. Experinced Porschephiles pride themselves on being able to master it. The average driver or sports car fan can literally get themselves killed in this car without much trouble.

The 328 has its own set of problems, most of them stemming from it being built from decades old technology requiring maintenence that makes the Porsche 930 look downright reliable. Plus these older cars used higher profile narrower tires than we use today and that sets fundamental limits on handling. And what are you going to do? Put modern rims on one of these vintage classics? Thats like putting a mustache on Mona Lisa.

The great thing about old exotic cars is they are cheap and sound like a good idea. The problems is they are old exotic cars that arent nearly as high in refinement or performance as we have come to take for granted and they will rapidly eat you out of house and home. This is not like buying an old Ford or GM product you work on in your garage - if youve never owned a Porsche or Ferrari and have no direct experience with what you are getting into it will be the most expensive mistake you will ever make.

joe

z350z

Good post, Sanderman. It's easy to get caught up in the romance of these old beauties and forget about the reality. It's nice to get a dose of that reality once in a while from someone who knows what they're talking about. Some car snobs will praise these machines and snub any modern Japanese car, but a car like the Z is superior in every definable way (so they have to throw out undefinable qualities like "soul").

On a somehwat related note, the new Porsches may not be so perfect either. This is probably an isolated incident, but someone I know just had his brand new Boxster S with 3,000 miles blow up its engine for no apparent reason. The engine will be replaced under warranty, but that should NEVER happen!

rai

Thanks, Wow that has to be the post of the week.

I love to look at and read about these vintage cars, but I am not into frequent service/repair on my cars. The only frame of reference was having driven an old 944 I switched my Z3 with its owner. I had always wanted to drive a porsche, but I was surprised at how crude it was. I got back in my then new Z3 and felt like I was in another demension. This 944 was a beater with 125K miles on it so I didn't think I could draw any general conclusions from it but if I ever drove a 20 year old 911 I'm sure it would not compare to a modern car just like you said.

For me the only "exotic" I can see owning is the NSX, I drove one once but had an issue with headroom (only about 1 inch clearance). perhapse if I got a targa... R&T did a retrospective on them and they seem like a normal japanese car ($28 dollar oil change etc..)

fatZo

Sanderman

All your points are valid and I am agreeable with all of them. Let's face it, although the old classics were way ahead of their times when they came out, the technology has advanced tremendously between yesterday and today. Unless one is willing to keep up with the somewhat expensive and time consuming maintenance of an old classic, a newer car is the way to go.

As far as the 930/911's handling is concerned, I can comment on this as I have driven my brother's 911 on many occaisions and test drove a 930 not too long ago. Both cars handle great, and I am yet to drive another car with comparable crisp handling of the 911, especially when negotiating tough corners. The steering is very responsive, precise, and quite predictable once you get a hang of it. I have pushed the 911 hard on few occaisions (hope my brother is not reading this!), and I must admit that the handling actually saved my behind a couple of times!

robbyn

This thread brings back memories. I had an '83 944 and an '87 944S. They were great fun, but EVERY time the car went into the dealer, and I am inclunding fricken OIL CHANGES, it was $500 before it came back out (not that the oil change was $500, but there was always some little thing not covered under warranty like a light burnt out) and it was ALWAYS $500 and that was back in the eighties. I test drove an 87 turnbo before buying the S, but I HATED the turbo lag. BTW, speaking of old technology, is that the difference between the 944 and the S is that the S had 4 not 1, 2 or 3, but 4 VALVES per cylinder. Whodathunkit???

The S was a fun little car, the problem was Porshe priced itself out of the market. I bought my 87S for $30k, and by the next year they were $40K. GAWD, its hard to believe that a car company could ever be so stupid as to take a nice little relatively inexpensive sports car and then keep adding to it until it was a $40K monstousity. I am sure GLAD Nissan learned from Porshe's mistake and didn't go down that road. Wait -- did someone say 96 tt, un...never mind then.

Sanderman

The handiling below the limit is nice. The steering feel is sensitive & direct (though it makes the car VERY sensitive to tire balance - if they aren't perfect the steering wheel shakes at speed). But the killer is handling at the limit - lift off the throttle at high speed in a curve for ANY reason and the rear end comes around. Were not talking 50/50 weight distribution here, or even 55/45. The single heaviest item in the car (the engine) is BEHIND the rear axle. Lift off in a curve and unload the rear tires and that engine wants to go straight and theres not enough rear grip in the world to stop it. The front end turns but the rear don't folow if you get my drift. Hundreds of these cars have flown off the road backwards after swapping ends in this situation. This is not rare, unknow or something you recover from. You stay on the accelerator and pray. If you havn't pushed it hard in a curve and lifted, you have no idea.

But I can't help but wonder what you are driving now. I had a 944, widely considered by many, (including Jackie Stewart) to be the best balanced sports car (and best balanced Porsche) of the 1980s irregardless of cost. And you know what? My 91 300 twin turbo destroyed it. As it did my best friends 85 & 87 911s. Superior acceleration (at least a half tick quicker 0-60 than the 911s) superior ulitimate grip and no lift throttle oversteer. The ONLY area the Porsche was superior was braking - Porsche has always put racing caliber brakes on their cars and their performance in that regard in incredibly confidence inspiring.

Frankly the 80s vintage 911 platform could be a bit of a handful at times but adding the turbo put too much power in a chassis that was never designed to take it. Add to that it used one of the first widely available turbos (large with enormous turbo lag) resulting in an on/off switch type reponse that occured long after you pushed the go pedal and that only made it more, er, ah ..interesting. I know it feels fun if you don't drive too hard, but be warned - it can and will bite you when you least expect it.

joe

rai

you said it, look at the Boxster, there is a nice inexpensive car now going for up to $60K!!

fatZo

see my avatar

I have only test-driven a late 80's 930, and never pushed it even close to its limits. However, I have driven old and new 911s and never had any problems with the lift-trottle oversteer in curves, even at reasonably high speeds. But I have heard of the dreaded oversteer with older C4's. Apparently, the situation may be somewhat alleviated by modifying the shocks/suspension.

As for the turbo lag, your comments are on point. I personally prefer sequential twin turbos, but unfortunately the new twin turbos are out of my price range.

I find it absolutely amazing that Porsche has taken the 911 plateform into so many different directions throughout the years, yet the cars still performed well beyond the expectations. Let's face it, the car is a performer, a kick-*** car. To the purist, it doesn't matter if the pre-1999 cars lack creature comforts and have erradic behaviour at times. What matters is the superior performance. (note to those who complain about the Z's interior!)

rai

speaking of twin turbos out of your price range, what's your take on the F40 vs. the 360 ? The F40 (?twin or single turbo?) can still kick ***, but it defined spartin interior.

fatZo

I personally don't have much knowledge of the Ferraris, but as far as I know, the F40 is a monster. It generates a lot of horsepower out of the twin turbo aspirated V8. I reckon 0-60 is probably comparable to a late 930 (around 4.5 sec?).

We don't have many F40s kicking around up here in Canada, and I doubt whether it would be possible to get an F40 at the price of a 930. Perhaps someone else who knows about this car could please comment?

rai

No No, the F40's go for like $200-400K I think. They had a small 3.8L V8 with turbo, they were more comparable to the 959 porsche than the 930. Only like 400-800 were made and unlike the 959 they were certified for the USA. At one time they were selling for a million dollars. I still think they are faster than the 360 ( ran 11.8 sec 1/4) the 360 runs more like 12.3 or so, but is much more livable AC and stereo etc..

here is a good link, I am not sure where they got the numbers, and your bike could do better than any car. What is your bike? and what can it do in the 1/4?

http://www.phathonda.com/times/

fatZo

I checked out the F40 on the net (that's probably the closest I can get to this car!). The F40 is actually a twin turbo 2.9L V8. When it came out, it was going for US$415k (or like CDN$10M

Only 1300 F40s were produced for retail between 1987 and 1992. The F40 is stripped of all creature comforts (no carpets, no power locks, pull cord door-handles!!!) to make the car as light as possible (only 1100 kg). I hate the 959, and am glad to find out that the F40 kicks the 959's ***: factory claimed 0-60 of 3.5 v. 3.7 for the 959.

My bike is a 2002 Ducati 748. Lots of low-end torque, and very well-mannered motorcycle. The Brembo brakes are incredible! The riding-position is atrocious ... I'm in the process of breaking-in the bike, so I haven't really rev'ed it (trying to keep it below 4000rpms). I honestly don't know the 1/4 figures for this bike, let's just say that it's very very fast

rai

thats the problem with those supercars. The F40 was very close to a race car for the street, but no one want's to race a car that costs more than most houses, so they sit in storage in hopes they will be even more valuable later on.

BTW that bike is probably like 10 seconds or less. Not sluggish off the line.

Zoro

The porsche is gonna weigh way less than the Z probably around 500lbs approx, and a porsche that old will have had it's brakes and rotors replaced and they won't be the ones you get at muffler man or kmart. So they Z is NOT gonna out brake a the porsche.

alear

One of my brothers owned a very nice porsche 930. Now, I haven't driven the Z but I don't think there is any way the Z will drive as good as the 930.

However, if you are looking for the whole package, which is warranty, reliability, creature comforts, and modern day technology (i.e. xenon lights, navigation, etc.) the Z will walk away with the crown.