Nice 993 Turbo

[wasserkuhl]

Healthy disagreement is good, I'd tend to listen to someone who has owned the car in question as opposed to heresay.

 

With any 911 Turbo the term "Big Thrills Equals Big Bills" is moderately true. However, like any vehicle as they age, prior owners who avoided expense via not servicing correctly or using a workshop that doesn't understand the importance and technology of these vehicles will yield larger bills for the next owner(s).

 

Porsche made the Turbo 4 like a bank Vault as they did with all 911's prior.

 

A Turbo 4 will only expire or fail prematurely if they haven't been serviced correctly and/or someone has had a play with the ECU and boost settings without engineering to accomodate the extra energy thats being produced.

 

Noting that the GT2 was 430 Bhp with little modification to the mechanicals and only ecu and mapping changes(Factory)

 

This car is perfect for the ultimate Turbo 4 Enthusiast, however I feel that the price is 15-20% above the market for this car.

[StevepGT3]

Steve

We could go around in circles on this for years, but I would ask you to consider this before letting fly with the B/S remark. The turbo has a lower compression ratio, it uses less revs for the same specific output, the gearbox is stronger internally, the engine has stronger internals, etc. You wont hammer it as hard as a n/a 911 to get the same performance result. Very few Turbos have had engine work, other than by choice. They really do just keep going if serviced.

I'll grant you that when they do go wrong there is more to fix, and the cost will be higher as result. I know that when mine eventually needs a rebuild it will be a major expense because I will choose to upgrade certain items while Im in there, but at 112,000kms it is using no oil (other than the current leak), and the rest of the car is as fit as a fiddle. Ive already done the usual suspects, the steering rack, bilsteins over monroes, and brakes. No clutch change so far and no sign of it being needed. Im no orphan, ask around, there are lots of very happy Turbo owners who havent had issues. The dealers love them, and ask higher prices over time relatively. People are happy to pay it seems, as the cars have no reputation for trouble.

Theres one my mechanic services that cops a merciless caning every time it is driven. Its now had new turbos by choice, and one clutch in 110,000kms. Otherwise its had exactly the same wear items as mine including the rocker cover gaskets recently.

The steering rack and shocks issues come at 80,000kms or thereabouts and if they are done, just keep driving......just like a n/a 993.

Simon , you may very well be right and I hope you are, believe me, I am not drinking from the N/A coolaid cup. I would love a 993 Turbo, but a motor making that much H/P has to be under more stress than a N/A making significantly less. hence the stronger rods/ forged pistons etc. there is no such thing as free H/P. Calling it a lazy low revving motor makes it sound like a Diesel taxi. which after having driven with a few, I would liken them  more to an F18 JET. I hope they all run for a million K/M before a rebuild but I would put my money on a turbo driven in the same way as a N/A needing engine work sooner than a N/A 

[Uncle]

Agreed on robust discussion.

My point about costing more in the long term has nothing to do with components being better or worse it's simply the fact that the oil in a turbo charged car is under more operational load than an N/A car. While oil tech has come along way the fact remains that the oil will see high temps as it passes though the core(s) of the turbo charger(s). This will in-turn result in faster degradation of the oil in the system than a N/A car.

More oil changes = More money.

[Russ]

when Bruce Anderson talks about Turbo's requiring engine rebuilds at closer intervals than N/A, was he talking about early 930s? or was it to do with technology limitations 'back then'?

[cyberpunky]

I would say so Russ as by the time they built mine they had learned a lot from the early turbos. My car has a pump that keeps going when you switch off till the temp reaches a safe level, like a turbo timer that many turbo cars have as standard now. 

 

Personally I agree with Simon. Any pre-loved Porsche can be expensive to run or not, depending on PO treatment but I think the worst thing you can do to a Porsche is baby it and worship it and not put K's on it, whether it's a turbo or NA. I think you will have less issues with a car that is used a lot Vs a garage queen. Sure it will have more stone chips but personally I couldn't care less, as they are meant to be driven. As they said in Ferris Bueller *oh no he never drives it, he just polishes it with a diaper* to which Ferris replies * a man with his priorities that far out of whack doesn't deserve such a fine automobile*

[tazzieman]

It's  a fair bet 993TTs will not depreciate. It's also a fair bet that all turbos require heavier duty components & wear/tear items (often double the cost of n/a ones). Given the increased complexity of the 90s 911s , the odds are the majority of owners will rely on specialists to service the cars. With genuine parts to protect the investment. And all low mileage cars suffer from not being used.

 

So in fact we have the Ferrari syndrome where the heart rules the wallet  Notwithstanding it's investment potential , it's a helluva desirable vehicle. Not to be garaged/sold until you retire at the new age of 70+.

[wasserkuhl]

They are meant to be driven.

 

Drive them.

 

Treat them with care and they will treat you back.

 

If you have the means to buy a 993 Turbo 4 then you have the means to service it correctly.

[Simonoz]

I think that if you read my comments in context, I agree with each and every one of you.

Bruce Anderson was certainly referring to the 930 Turbos not the 993's.

They are so dissimilar in every way.

My comments certainly do not apply to them, if only because I have no experience with them.

Not sure why, as I like them. I just haven't found the right one, ever.

When they cost more than a 993 Turbo, it makes no sense to buy one.

I buy my cars to drive not to polish.

I try to put myself in a financial position to be able to run them with an open cheque book.

I would like think that every one of them goes to a new owner in better shape than I bought it in.

I'm only a custodian after all (except for the 993 Turbo which goes to my son for sentimental reasons)

We're all in this for the fun of it, and it would be a shame for a prospective owner to miss out on the experience of a Turbo because he gets scared off for all the wrong reasons.

Think how much you would save buying a 993 Turbo over a newer Turbo.

If I'm wrong you could rebuild it, enjoy it, relish in the zero depreciation factor, and have the time of your life.

That's the one bit I can guarantee.

Read Adrian Streathers 993 book. He's an Adelaide boy, albeit Swiss based.

He calls the 993 Turbo the King of all 911's.

Lots of owners would agree.

That's why the ruddy things cost so much to buy!

This is a very interesting thread and I hope its useful to someone.

Thanks for all the input.

[wasserkuhl]

Nice work Simon.

 

Its healthy to have a debate to reflect on our passion.

 

and you definitely have the passion with realist eyes. Your son is a lucky boy. Just as I was a lucky boy of my father.