+1.

MY99 here and ditto on the drive and enjoy (could be a fun inexpensive second car)

G/L

 

theres a very active member on the boards who have a 99... supercharged, and is running faster than a stage 1 turbo. These engines are a lot stronger than what people thinks........ 99 is a great car and is the lightest of all the h2o 911's.... truely one of the last rawness of the h2o 911's.

 

absoulutely, mine runs great no problems other than RMS / IMS and coolant tank.

 

I had a 99 cab 996 with 80,000 mi when sold and no problems except for that damm airbag warning light that seems to be very common

 

Ohh yea I forgot about the coolant tank leak also

 

I almost didn't respond, fear of tempting the fates... but I've got a 99 C4 that I've had going on 5 years, just turned 60k and doing great thus far (knock on wood). I've been reading about the 3.4 failures for years and it always made me nervous... With all the doomsday posts about the engine does anyone know of any good preventative measures that can be taken (other than the obvious)? I guess that's a topic for a different post though..

 

No, actually at the time the cars were about the same price.

 

very good points. My 99 at 55K had the RMS and a coolant tank. But that's it.

 

I specifically went for a MK1 over the MK2 simply becuase it looks far nicer than the latter with a full Aero kit.

It's an individual thing, go with what you prefer, in terms of weight the 3.4s are lighter and ignore some of the hype that goes on regarding engine failure, this can happen to 996.

 

There is a good article in excellence ( forgot what month) about the 996 motors and what can be done to aid in enhancing reliability. Jake Raby (Flat 6 innovations) and L & N engineering have been developing solutions for if your motor does pop so you have options in case the unlikely event happens. They also have some upgrades that they are working on that can help. They have developed larger IMS shaft bearings and seals and some others. Check out their site to see what they are working on.

They also have options to enlarge your engines displacement to 3.6 or 3.8 Liters so that might be a unexpected positive if you have to go through this process. Unfortunately, cost is the only downside on their options as they do not offer any cost incentive over the reman route. IIRC they are more expensive than getting the reman option.

 

looks wise, I would take a mk1 with an aerokit over an mk2 (exception of c4s). Those aerokit cars looks so sick on the roads and the early headlights are classic looking.

 

I have an MKII, I think the MKI aero look awesome in the back with the winglets on the bumper, too be it can't be retro fitted to an MKII. I also think e-gas is not that great, there is a little bit of a delay when you get on it. Otherwise my MKII has been great in all respect except for a leaky RMS.

 

I went with the 02 for a few different reason. I don't like the pre-02 headlights. I wanted a glovebox and cup holders. I drove both and preferred the feel of the 3.6 liter motor. Lastly, the 02+ cabs had glass rear windows instead of plastic. It's all personal preference, but I could not see any advantages to not getting an 02+. The prices are close enough that it just doesn't make a difference.

 

YES.. the motor, lights, and rear class were my biggest deciding factors!

 

thanks again guys! sorry for responding so late, it's finals week for me but i'm reading everything and it's been very helpful!