1995 456 GT vs 2000 456 GTA

Are you a manual or an auto guy ?

Does the 2000 car have all its fobs ?

 

Since you're looking for a "fun" car on which you'd just put a couple of thousand miles a year, I don't know whether the virtues of either car would be fully appreciated. I'd think that, although it might be more expensive initially, a well-sorted manual transmission 360 would be better suited to your needs. 456s are very expensive to maintain, even when well-sorted. I enjoy my car a lot, but it takes a lot of driving to fully appreciate its virtues. I don't think either car would be my choice if I just wanted a Sunday morning thrash down back roads. I find hard-edged sports cars to be a lot of fun for that, but tiring on trips. I drove my 456M from San Francisco to Portland in a day and felt great when I arrived. Although it can handle the twisties quite well for a car of its size, it is a GT.

However, if you're set on a 456, I strongly recommend the later autobox car. For your backroads travels, put the suspension setting on "sport," and the gear lever in third; turn the ASC off and go scare yourself.

 

The 2000 would be a 456M, which has quite a few significant mechanical and cosmetic upgrades over the earlier 456. If you don't mind the automatic (I like mine), and both cars are in similar condition, the later 456M would be the better choice.

 

Mike, I'm guessing the OP has probably made a choice by now....

 

Some people are slow to decide....gather a lot of data, let their thoughts simmer and age like a fine wine. 5 years ought to do it....

 

Fair point Eric, it took me two years following a year of “research” to find mine.

 

I was quick and impulsive. Only took a bit over a year....

 

I'm in the market for one of the 2 models myself but after driving a 97 which felt a bit rough both ride and every single bit of leather stiff to the touch and then a 01 that cosmically needed many touch-up and new passenger side headlight motor and interior half soft to the touch and half stiff (including a custom made arm rest?) I will probably be taking quite a bit of time to make a decision on what I pull the trigger on.

On another note to keep with the OP topic if anyone has first hand experience with both the models and can be more specific other then what we already know is changed between them please let us know things such as ride differences if there is any. For example during my test drives last week I don't know if the 97 was just a bad example or if the 01 was really that much smoother of a ride.

 

The ride should be similar, I suspect the 97 needs new accumulators, perhaps shocks as well.

 

I agree with Paul. There shouldn't be that much difference. Shocks, shock actuators (a bit notorious), and the rear accumulators (aka bombs) are the likely culprits here. Second tier might be some suspension bushing gone hard.