[H2Ojazz]

Well, I might be opening a can o' worms here, but on Rennlist there is a thread discussing which P-cars are best for learning to drive "fast" at DEs. A very interesting thread with a lot of varied opinions.



One such opinion states (I am paraphrasing here) the only reason to consider a 968 or other front-engine water-breather is that they can be had cheaper, but they are simply not as "tough" as 911s. and therefore may not be a wise a choice.



I recently bought my 968 after 10 good years of 944NA ownership, including some DEs and autoXs every summer, during which I was very happy with the integrity of the car. Sure, I replaced clutch at 100K, belts, water pump, etc, but basically it was one tough mother that was dead reliable.



My choice of a 968 over a 964 or SC was really based on my --perhaps somewhat biased--belief that these are rugged cars, that if taken care of, will go a VERY long time, and would serve me better than the 1980s vintage 911s I may have been able to afford.



Very interested in my fellow 968'ers opinions. Let the games begin.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - in considering ruggedness, i wonder if they took into account the higher frequency of unanticipated bank shots, doughnuts and other oopsies a new driver would have in a 911 that he probably would not in a 968?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[H2Ojazz]

[quote name='flash' date='May 31 2006, 04:43 PM']lol - in considering ruggedness, i wonder if they took into account the higher frequency of unanticipated bank shots, doughnuts and other oopsies a new driver would have in a 911 that he probably would not in a 968?

[right][post="22155"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



Well. there is that! Reminds me of David Davis' article when he bought his 968 over a 911, stating that he had a preference for cars that exhibited a certain willingness to go down the road in a straight line.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

can't speak to the comparative toughness of the 968 vs 911, since I never had any interest in 911s, though I test-drove various models.. after 20 years of owning front engine porsches, I have no major complaints about durability, though there is a common belief the 911 engine and overall build is of better, longer lasting quality. whatever <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/dry.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



as for which car is better to learn driving fast, or even after AFTER you learn..

IMHO, there is no friggin' comparison: a late version 951 ( hypothetically if both are driven by the same person .. a clone perhaps ? <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ) will massacre any 911 on any twisty track. Well may be not a 4-wheel drive turbo carrera, but anything else..



flash is right - the bank shots, dougnuts and numerous oopsies ( good technical term, Bob ) will be exponentially greater in a 911 than in a 944, 968 etc.. again, with the same skill driver at the wheel..

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[whakiewes]

It was a decision for me as well. There was a 964 C4, black/black, sport seats, 130k miles about 30 minutes from me for just slightly more than my car was. Original, but lacking records. I talked to my mechanic and this is how he suggested it to me -



How many 911 (whether it be 930 or 964) do you see without needing major work over 100k miles. To work the heads requires an engine R&R. What about those pesky valve adjustments. A rear engine Porsche isn't hard to drive at a track, just really hard to push it to its bottomless limit. He just suggested to me that for every $1000 I spend on a 968, im going to spend $3,000 on a 964. The other problem being that there is very little DIY for the whole 911 line, so its kind of a guessing game in most cases.



But I will tell you that WHEN I sell/trade my 968, it will be for a 965 (964 Turbo), either standard 3.3 or 3.6 if I feel lucky. I've tracked 930's and 964s, and they aren't hard to drive an enjoy. The fun factor is higher in my opinion than the 968 because its edgier, louder, and less refined.



A 911 that is in the range of a tracked 968 will be a cheap 964 or a 930, and the latter doesn't have PS, Power anything, or a single creature comfort. I would further bet that a stock 968 will own a 930 or a 964 almost anyday at any track, let alone comparable M030 cars. I've driven both, and I know which is faster in which hands. For the beginner/novice, 968 anyday. For the expert...well they're an expert so we'll let them choose <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> .



Wes

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[TheMirror]

Very interesting stuff here. I think the lack of appreciation for the front engined cars stems from the lackluster performing 924, and its heavily Audi-VW roots. Combine that with the ultra-complex and expensive to fix 928 and I can see why some 911 owners would end up biased.



All Porsches have their niggling little problems as I am currently learning, the SC era 911s do have many examples running into the high 200K range on factory bottom ends. I know some 944s have covered that kind of mileage on a factory bottom end, not sure about 968s.



The beauty of our cars of course is that you can just drop the crossmember and pan and change the rod bearings. Nice. Handling-wise its just no contest for the reasons mentioned above, as well as hugely better ergonomics in the 924/944/968 series.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[josephsc]

Just an observation -- but in the original Rennlist thread, there was only one expression of weakness in 924/944/968 and I don't think it's the concensus view. If anything, the racing forum on Rennlist is dominated by 911 owners -- and people have a natural tendency to prefer vehicles they own -- and that's about the extent of it. As a gross-generalization, running DEs is an expensive hobby that typical water-pumpers (in particular the non-turbo 924/944 crowd) can't afford.



It also doesn't help that the 944's that do get to the tracks are often 'disposable track cars' that are in poor shape to begin with. The 944spec is based on the premise that these cars are cheap to replace -- so just run the car to the ground and get the next one.



There does seem to be a lack of appreciation for guys who track "too much car" for their skill level, however.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[smshirk]

[quote name='josephsc' date='Jun 1 2006, 02:05 PM']Just an observation -- but in the original Rennlist thread, there was only one expression of weakness in 924/944/968 and I don't think it's the concensus view.  If anything, the racing forum on Rennlist is dominated by 911 owners -- and people have a natural tendency to prefer vehicles they own -- and that's about the extent of it.  As a gross-generalization, running DEs is an expensive hobby that typical water-pumpers (in particular the non-turbo 924/944 crowd) can't afford.



It also doesn't help that the 944's that do get to the tracks are often 'disposable track cars' that are in poor shape to begin with.  The 944spec is based on the premise that these cars are cheap to replace -- so just run the car to the ground and get the next one.



There does seem to be a lack of appreciation for guys who track "too much car" for their skill level, however.

[right][post="22190"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



This is a discussion with a thousand angles. The only fair comparison, and I use "fair" loosely, would be to limit the 911 base to NA 92 to 95 964 RWD only models. This was the first of the modern day 911s and is a much more sophisticated car than the SCs or even the 84 to 89 3.2 litre cars. In this comparison, Porsche made sure the 911 could out perform the 968 in every measurable way. The hottest P-car of the day, and the easiest to drive fast was the 928GTS, arguably the first Porsche super car.



As one who has owned, driven, and appreicated a lot of different Porsche models beginning in the 70s, IMHO there is still no comparison between the feel of a 911 steering wheel, and anything else I've had the pleasure to drive. That does nothing to detract from the 968, I love the way it drives, handles, looks, but most especially the feel of spirited driving in 4th gear. I see that point as "better" than an older 911, with around the same power. The knock on the older 911s swapping ends is due to a rookie mistake, although many experienced and very good drivers still make rookie mistakes and lift off at the exact wrong time. The beauty of the older cars is in not lifting and the reward the car gives you for driving the only way it approves.



All that meeting yourself stuff is gone now with electronic nannies everywhere. I thought I would never want one of electronically controlled, water cooled 911s.....until I drove one, which is the moral of the story. They just keep getting better. And not just the 911, but every model offers its' own genius, beauty, and fun quotient. How do they keep doing that? Comparing one model to another, one time frame to another, just can't be done. There is no substitute and thats for each new version.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[TheMirror]

Very, very good points above. Interestingly, the 964 was the other model I was looking at as well as 968s. At the end of the day, the combination of driver's side footwell intrusion, skewed driving position, and higher price put me out of the 964 game.



Having driven enough older 911s, I agree with the steering comment. My car will probably have a manual rack at some stage because I've had manual rack cars before and I really like the way they feel and drive.



To josephsc's point about disposable 944 track cars, true again. Lots of those on the street as well!



Cheers,

-Mirror

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Royal Tiger]

I think the point about comparing eras is very important. Does a 1967 Corvette 427 handle as well as a 2006 Z06? Heck no. Does it diminish the thrill of driving the 67? Also, heck no. Each car has it's plus' and minus' based on it's layout and era. To each thier own. You'll never convince the "911 Mafia" you car is just as good anyway, so take thier banter with a grain of salt.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i think we are getting off the point



the question was in reference to a new driver - the 911 is not as good of a car for a new driver

but, yes, those 911 guys will fight you tooth and nail to defend their car - that's fine - somebody has to be in the back

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[jeffm40]

Good word..... "banter", Tigershark.

I live in a community of 911 and 928 owners that of course, think their cars are the best model ever conceived much less manufactured. To each his own. We own a great car and should be proud that we have the opportunity to drive a very rare and unique offering by Porsche.

Whether a daily driver, weekend warrior, DE or tracked, the 968 is a great machine. Sure it has its quirkiness but man what a car!!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[JoeUtica]

[quote name='TheMirror' date='Jun 1 2006, 09:23 AM']Very interesting stuff here. I think the lack of appreciation for the front engined cars stems from the lackluster performing 924, and its heavily Audi-VW roots. Combine that with the ultra-complex and expensive to fix 928 and I can see why some 911 owners would end up biased.



[right][post="22186"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]





"Lackluster 924?" OK, but let's not confuse those almost-Audis with the 924S.



You want tough? I got 360,000 milles out of mine, bought new in '88. I did the engine at 310,000, more out of appreciation of the car than out of necessity. It died in December/'06 when a kid with a new license slammed into me at 60 mph as I sat at the end of a gridlocked line of cars. My "Bertha" folded an inch or so right behind the door, over the top and down the other side -- absorbing the hit and allowing me to unbuckle and climb out with nothing worse than the usual nagging whiplash. I might well have died in a lesser car.



I found a '94 968 in Florida with only 58,000 miles and had it shipped to California. I'm looking forward to another 300,000 miles in my tough, reliable, front-engined Porsche, "Bertha II." It never occurred to me to buy anything else.



Besides... What other great sports car can haul a 4x8 piece of plywood?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[TheMirror]

Oh yes, the 924S was a completely different car in my mind than the checkered cloth, Audi truck engined original example. 924S very much excepted from that comment!



Great to hear about a 300K plus front engined water pumper!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

I sold my 944 ( bought it brand new ) after more than 250k miles on it, and it was still running as strong as ever - furthermore, this car was ignored in terms of prescribed maintenace - oil changes at 12 to 15 k intervals ( not synthetic oil, mind you..) , tune ups when and if I remembered ( may be at 30 - 40k mile intervals ) and yet it never had a material engine problem / failure. However, quite a few motor mounts changes, a couple of water pumps, one clutch job IIRC, PS rack, and all the nickel and dime stuff for which these models are infamous, but the engine could have gone another 250k IMO..



so all and all, the water cars are pretty damn durable... at least, in my experience...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

and then there's ron



at a bit over 100k, in a meticulously serviced and immaculately kept car, has had well over 5 grand in oil leaks, 2 clutches, 2 sets of motor mounts, a sunroof, countless other small stuff, and is now about to go in for its SECOND pinion bearing job (no idea how that happened)



just no telling

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[josephsc]

OTOH, I blew my engine in my 944 at the end of a cross-country trip. I think running the engine for 36 hours non-stop at 4000rpm in the dead of summer might have had something to do with it.....

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Bob Kovacs]

Say what you will about the early 924, it was my first Porsche experience and I enjoyed it. The car was good looking, comfortable, and the most tossable car I ever drove. The non-power steering had perfect touch in the twisties and I could make the tires go any way I wanted in the curves. And I also got gas mileage in the low-30s on the highway and could carry as much under the hatch as you can in a 968. If the clutch hadn't gone at 150k miles, I might still have that car and not a 968.



Sure, the early 924 could use more power but so can a 968.



--Bob

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='josephsc' date='Jun 6 2006, 09:58 PM']OTOH, I blew my engine in my 944 at the end of a cross-country trip.  I think running the engine for 36 hours non-stop at 4000rpm in the dead of summer might have had something to do with it.....

[right][post="22439"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



Hmmm, two thoughts :



1) all else being equal ( engine age, wear an tear ) would an oil cooled engine do better in that scenario ?



2) my daily driving, commute to work, is almost always around 4000 rpm because I just like how the engine sounds and feels at that level.. I'm not concerned about

the gas mileage issue, but now am wondering if running consistently above 4000 rpm every day, for years and years will have an adverse effect and at much earlier stage than if I ran it at 2500 rpm, it'll follow Joes' 944 engine to motor cemetery <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/huh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Renalicious]

I think it's safe to say that higher RPM will always equal more stress, despite an engine being built for it. I typically do no more than 3000 in my dainly driving to work, with the occasional sprint back home on fridays, which is 3000 or higher <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



I really can't speak about 911s since I've never owned one, or driven one, and only sat in one briefly <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/ohmy.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> But when it comes to learning how to drive (a performance RWD car), I sometimes catch myself putting on a bit too much power and having the rear end skip a bit. I could only imaging this would be more pronounced in a 911. I don't think it's necessarly a bad thing mind you. If anything it would force the person who is learning to drive smoother and be more carefull with their inputs.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.