930 advice please

My advice is to not get a 930 as a first Porsche. If you are buying the look get a 'Turbo Look' Porsche. They were made for the US market when Porsche stopped 930 sells to the US. Like the name implies (that is the Porsche name 'Turbo Look' )they have that 930 look but a NA engine. They will not have the power but you will not have to deal with the turbo lag, the high geared 4-speed transmission, or maintenance cost of the Turbo. A 930 is a peculiar beast that does not represent the "do more with less" early Porsche philosophy and is not a fun around the town car, as a matter of fact it feels slower in town than its NA brothers. If they are stock, off the line they are Dogs.
The 930 is a great Porsche, as a second Porsche, not a primary Porsche. IMO.
I have one and a 68S.

 

i don't subscribe to the theory that your first Porsche should not be turbo. if you have other cars and want 1 Porsche, why not get a turbo if you want to live the true Porsche heritage and know up front what you are signing up for. the prices will only go up so if you wait you may be out of the game later. I would say drive a couple examples to see if in fact you do like them. they are dogs around town but that is NOT where they shine. My 88 911 is definitely more sprightly in town than my 79 Turbo. Part of the reason is it is a narrow body car and is lighter on it's feet and the other is no lag....but you still need to be in the right gear if you want to get somewhere quickly. Personally I like the 76-77 3.0s better than the 3.3s (lower build #s, homologation status, lighter, 3.0 engine revs quicker than the 3.3, like the look of the non intercooled tail). the 78-79s are my second favorite as they are the last of the hand built 930s and do have more power an better brakes. in the 80s the cars got slightly heavier but you will have more to select from. Early 80s grey market cars could be a good buy. Be careful on how they were federalized, i.e who did the work, quality of the work and if it has ALL the papers to document the work. this is important as the speedos were changed from KM to MPH. some cars i looked at did not have proof of the KM on the OD before the speedos were change, and they were reset to Zero. At that point, the the true mileage is really unknown, but were still being advertised as low miles. get a PPI. look for busted head studs particularly on early cars. If the thermal reactors were removed for headers (good thing), it is nice to have the old system available with the car. look at and drive as many as possible in your search so you can weed out the good ones vs the bad ones. i physically (drove to or flew to) looked at at least 10 across the country when i was shopping. this is good forum if you haven't already found it.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/911-930-turbo-super-charging-forum/

have fun.

 

All can say is this is shaping up to be one whale of a sellers' market... Good luck and get in line!

 

I think a 930 is fine as a first Porsche. I choose to go with the 3.0 litre early car. I like how quickly it revs, and the cars lack of bulk compared to the later cars gives it a more racy feel. The four speed isn't an issue, in fact, I actually prefer the way the 4 shifts vs. the 5 speed 915 transmission. I also think that calling the 930 a dog around town is not accurate. Even off boost, the 930 has more zip than you will be able to apply in traffic, and when that boost kicks in, it'll put a smile on your face every time.

If you are going to spend a lot of time on the track, the later cars are a worthwhile investment for their larger brakes. You can modify a 3.0 litre cars brakes, but with their values rapidly appreciating, you might want to keep it stock. Either way, a 930 is a great car that will give you a lot of smiles and typically not a lot of hassles.

 

My 930 is my first Porsche.......not a problem.
Apply proper maintainance, follow a few basic operating procedures to the letter and the 930 is as bulletproof as any other 911 of the era.

- Treat it with fresh oil / filter every year (or something like that)
- Check oil level religiously.
- NEVER EVER try hard acceleration on cold engine.
- Let engine run at idle for a few minutes before shutting it down (to cool turbo bearing)

A 930 is not a complicated car to work on.
Some parts are more expensive compared to other 911´s but a well kept car will not require a lot of service / parts.

3.0 cars are raw, revy, light and very collectible.
3.3 cars have more torque, more HP, better brakes.
But they carry more weight (quite a bit of that extra weight aft of the rear axles)

What ever you decide, find one that was cared for and properly maintained.....or the adventure may turn expensive.

 

+930

There's nothing more expensive than buying a "training" car that wasn't the one you really wanted in the first place.

 

Get a 930 if that's what you want... even as an investment it's probably a good choice.
And they are fabulous cars. Fun.

On the other hand, the 'turbo look' (All hat, no cattle) is, well... anyway...

 

I'm another one that says get the 930. However, there are 4 different flavors of the 930 experience.

75-77 3.0 - lightest of them all, revvy, good luck finding one for sale/winning the auction
78-79 3.3 - first of the ic 930s, fairly light, getting hard to find
86-88 3.3 - Return to the US market, car was heavier and it felt it, had a little more power, stronger brakes, new style front valence
89 3.3 - 5 speed, very collectible

I've had all of them except for the 89, but I did have a 91 turbo with essentially the same motor and trans. The shifting was very, very nice, but if you have a properly set up 930 box, it is very enjoyable too. I've never driven a RoW 80-85 turbo, but I would think it is similar to the 78-79.

 

Don't worry about Larry.....he has what it takes to own a snap oversteer 930.


Would recommend an '89

 

Nah, I'd recommend the 75-77, but people are going nuts in the auctions for the early cars. I love the way that car drives. My 86 was modded and fast as hell, but it felt and drove heavy. The 77 just feels light.

 

I have owned them all too and would say the 86-88 might be a great consideration.

I have never found them heavy feeling and the one I kept is my 87. it has been modded but is totally stock appearing. I love the 4 sp box too. I have owned 930's for 20 years in total but I have kept my 87 for 11 of those years.

75-77 are 6 figure cars if well kept.

86-88 good ones can be found for $50k and can get more costly if in great shape with low miles.

not sure of the 89 market as I have no interest in the 5sp.

my car is 500 whp and te 4sp is perfectly matched.

 

I would also say that the early cars if stock are quick but the intercooled cars are faster w/o question.

 

'89 was also the heaviest 930:
1975………….1140kg (2514 lbs)
1976-1977…1195kg (2634 lbs)
1978-1985…1300kg (2866 lbs)
1986-1988…1335kg (2943 lbs)
1989………….1350kg (2976 lbs)

I would disagree that the 86-89's had stronger brakes than the '78/79's. The floaters on the '78/79's are quite amazing and if this same type 917 style floating rotor had been used on the 1975 930 at Le Mans, it would have probably placed higher than 15th place.

 

The floating rotors were nice, but I thought the brakes on my 79 were not very good. I worried about hauling ass then getting on the binders. I can't say anything about the stock 75-77 brakes as my car has a BBK on it.

 

The OP stated he is attracted to the 930 because of its looks, no mention of the way a 930 drives. Porsche made a car for those people.

 

Porsche 930 floating rotors were exotic, high maintenance and expensive which is why so few ‘78/79’s still have them today. I think it’s very cool that some road-worthy 917’s today use 930 floating rotors (mounted to 917 hats) since 917 rotors are even more NLA than the 930 floaters.

Back to the original poster, you can’t go wrong with any 930 but finding a car that hasn’t been molested or abused is the key.

 

It's worth adding that there are a fair number of '80-'85 gray market cars that made it over here. I've been trying to buy a neighbor's '82 for a year; very nice combination of light weight, more power than later 3.3s, with added appeal of no sunroof and neat colors.

 

Well, I have had 10 "regular" 911's and my 930 scares the sheet out of me, and its for sale in FerrariAds and on Pelican. I have no idea what the hell you guys do with over 500+HP on public roads. I am going to to stay in the shadows with my sub 250 hp 308's and stock 911's after this 930 Ruf thing I have sells ! Can you say : cartoon fast ?

But I would say get a 930 if that is what you want. Not buying what you desire is going to leave your mind wondering what the 930 will be like, plus you have to deal with the logistics of selling what you have to buy what you wanted in the first place. prices are not going down any time soon.

 

What added the extra weight on the later cars? Safety regulations?

 

Bigger clutch, revised gearbox, intercooler, revised engine, bigger brakes, bigger wheels, electric seats, central locking, rustproofing, bigger torsion bars and sway bars etc.

 

I would avoid the '80-'85 grey market cars. No way of knowing how many miles were on them before the conversion. I also believe they will have a lower U.S. resale. If you plan on going fast or occasionally tracking it, I would also avoid the '75-'77. To me, they are under braked and under tired.
The other thing to consider is what are you going to do with it. If you want a bone stock period piece, then any year is a good year. If you want a slightly modified one, then '78-'79 '86-'88.

 

agreed.

I must note that low mile 79-79's are also fast becoming 6 figure cars too.

the 86-88 is a tremendous driver even when creeping around....long legs, mean and nasty sounding in the city but completely insane when uncorked!!

there are some GREAT examples available and the prices while moving up fast...are still in the bargain territory.

pcb

 

Yeah, but unless he's a guy that sleeps in PJ's with feet in them... He's going to wish he'd bought some cattle too, instead of just the hat.

Like after the first drive.

 

Avoiding the early cars on account of brakes and tires is taking it a bit too far IMHO.
I have heard that arguement a lot through the years though.

I know that early US cars were on slimmer rubber 195 forward / 215 rear.
But Euro cars were on 205 forward / 225 rear......same as every other 930 untill somewhere in the 80´s.

I have never heard of anyone getting into trouble because of the early alu brakes.
They are capable of locking up the wheels = more than enough braking power.
Remember, the entire car is lighter.

On the track however, they will heat up quite quickly unless measures are taken to aid cooling.