Not true. The 3.2 engine was moved .75" back when they went to the G50 box. From another thread, Tyson Schmidt of WEVO:

"...The '78-'89 Turbo's have the engine moved about 1.5" rearward due to the larger bell housing.

The G-50 cars are more like 3/4" farther rearward.

BTW, you won't see a part number difference in the rear engine mount for these (G-50) cars because it was the rear section of the chassis that was changed.

Porsche made an attempt to minimize this rearward movement by modifying the rear torsion bar tube. That's why the torsion bars stick out so far on these cars. I think it would be cool to pick up an '87-'89 chassis and install a 915, (or a short bell housing G-50) enabling you to move the engine and trans even farther forward than 915 car."
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showt...=163980&page=3


So it's both a "short" G50 (compared to the later cars) and moving the engine back.

C2s are still good values- I'd probably vote that way.

 

according to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche...2.80.931993.29

1991+ has dual air bags



and 1993 is dual year of 964 & 993?

just like 1989 is dual year of 911 & 964

 

In the US is was 89 (carrera 4)-94 for 964 and 95-98 for 993.

 

Wow, you're right, I must have had brain fade more a moment. I stand corrected sir. It seems like I recall seeing 2 locations for the gearbox mounts under a car some time ago, one foreward and the other set of threads rearward about 1.5 in. Am I fading again or was this during a transitional year of 911 tubs? I always thought they made it up on the bellhousing. I also recall having an input shaft and bellhousing modded on a g50 to get it into an earlier car. We don't see too many of these earlier cars anymore here, i miss them. Thanx, Russ

 

Actually the bigger a/c vents came from the 1986 and later models. The 915 gearbox is actually a very stout transmission and believe it or not I prefer it as it feels much more raw than the G50 BOX. I own an "86" 911 coupe that I find I enjoy driving everytime I step into her....I also work for Porsche at a dealer in CT. I prefer the aircooled cars over the watercooled cars...but must say the current 997 car is much better than the outgoing 996 model. The 996 car got away from the true sports car feel in my opinion and the new 997 car feels much closer to the 993 car but with a modern twist.

 

imo the best way to determine between a 3.2 or 3.6 911 is to test drive as many as possible. I personally love the 3.2 ( aside from my turbo ). My next Porsche will be a 3.2 carrera. the 3.6 C2-C4 is a more modern ( compared to the 3.2 Carrera ) car but i'm partial to that 80's look. in the end it is up to the individuals' personal preference ( and wallet ) that will determine the outcome.

 

I am going to sell my 1990 C4 Cab..about 43K miles..I've had and have many Porsche's I would take the 964 over many...

 

Well, no **** a 1989 interior is dated!!! It's 18 years old for chrissakes!!! Most of today's college freshmen were born in 1989!!! LOL

 

If I were to choose between a 78-83 SC or an 84-89 3.2 Carrera, I'd go for the 84-89 Carreras without thinking about the SC for a second. Better in every aspect. I would buy a 1987 onwards car so that I can get the G50 transmission. As a matter of fact, apart from my 2006 X51 Carrera S, my other car is a 1987 3.2 Carrera Coupé as my daily driver and DE car. I've owned previously a 1984 Targa (would never buy a Targa of that vintage ever again) and a 1985 Coupé, both of course with the 915 transmission, and the G50 is so much better that it doesn't even stand comparison.

 

I'd still consider the 3.0 SC. virtually bulletproof engine as a previous writer noted. Mine even ran well on the aux valve springs for a short while. needed to replace a main bearing at 160K, and did the pistons and jackets, etc. at the same time. strongly considered putting in 3.2 parts and a new trans and running gear, but didnt want to change the set up of the car. the 3.0's were great "drivers" cars, and, sorry, my personal bias is showing. I'm going to be selling mine, but only because I have a newer daily driver and don't want to just let it sit around the garage. One thing to do for sure if you do end up with a 3.0 is to put in the carrera hydraulic chain tensioners. I think this would be the only mandatory fix for even a strong 3.0. Oh, and if its a CA car for sure lower it back to original perf specs. New CA cars had a bumper height requirement that skewed the CG. and.....good luck with whatever you settle on.

 

I just more carefully noted the date of this thread. so what did you decide to do????

 

One of the first things I noticed when opening this thread was the age of the thread. Can we perhaps get an update on what was decided?

 

A well maintained SC is better than an ok condition G50 3.2 . A well maintained G50 3.2 is better than an ok condition 964.
You will get what you pay for...learn now or learn after your car is sitting because you cant afford to fix it correctly. All of these "bargain" 911's keep getting passed from one cheapo to the next.

 

I started this thread.

I have not purchased anything yet. It's hard to find time to look for a good one with 3 kids and work. I was close to buying a 996 though.

I will for sure report back when I made a purchase.

Thanks for everyone's reply and comment.

 

DON'T BUY A 996!!! Real Porsches died with Dr. Porsche in 1998!!!!!
A nice SC or Carrera is the way to go if you enjoy driving!!