High Mileage Porsches

[dry664]

A purely hypothetical question.....from the perspective of RELIABILITY AND RUNNING COSTS ONLY which would you choose:

987 Boxster 2.7
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

968
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

For the sake of comparison assume both cars have similar qualities of service history.

And the reason I ask? I'm looking for some cheap Porsche thrills to tide me over for a couple of years. After lots of research I find it strange that so many are willing to recommend a 120K+ mile mid 1990's 924/944/968, yet it seems a much newer 120K+ mile 986/987/996/997 is due an imminent, catastrophic failure? This cant be right?

[mollytherocker]

Either of these could quite easily empty your wallet or provide cheap motoring, it depends on their condition.

Whilst 968's are made from granite, they still have a few foibles and are now rusting.

Choose which model you prefer and buy the best you can.

[clarkey979]

Agree buy on condition. I have a 996 with over 100k miles and I can't fault it. It's been very well looked after and I would argue is in much better condition than some cars with less than half the miles. Got review on a case by case basis.

[DKL]

I wouldn't consider a 124k 968 a high mileage car. Average at best. A newer car on similar mileage has obviously done more per year but isn't necessarily a worse buy.
You can only consider the car in front of you.
I have 2 high mileage cars and neither cause me any more issues than a car with half their miles. But they are both old (94 and 90) so its rather irrelevant by now. Everything has needed changing (but it would at half the mileage) so it doesn't really matter whether its on its second or third clutch.
The only problem with them is getting rid of them when the time comes.
Everyone says "buy on condition etc etc" right up to the point when its their money and then they don't buy the high mileage car.
I'd think twice if buying again but equally I'm falling for my own argument!

[Crimp a Length!]

High mile cars are not an issue.
To be honest they are sometimes better drives/engines than the low mile garage queens.

[drpep]

I'd probably trust a 996/997 carrera engine that's done 70k+ miles, more than a 30k miler on the (possibly flawed) logic that it's lasted this far, so is probably reasonably solid.

[Rockster]

dry664 said:

A purely hypothetical question.....from the perspective of RELIABILITY AND RUNNING COSTS ONLY which would you choose:

987 Boxster 2.7
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

968
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

For the sake of comparison assume both cars have similar qualities of service history.

And the reason I ask? I'm looking for some cheap Porsche thrills to tide me over for a couple of years. After lots of research I find it strange that so many are willing to recommend a 120K+ mile mid 1990's 924/944/968, yet it seems a much newer 120K+ mile 986/987/996/997 is due an imminent, catastrophic failure? This cant be right?

Either one. (A purely hypothetical answer.)

Seriously I don't think you have any insight into the future so I don't think you can or anyone can recommend what to buy or buy based on having to guess at what the future holds.

Besides they are two rather different cars.

I would first make up my mind what kind of car experience I was looking for (coupe or roadster) and then pick the best example I could find/afford from the choices.

Oh, BTW, my 02 Boxster now has over 261K miles on it so I don't consider 120K miles high miles. Break in miles? Maybe not quite. Garage queen miles? Could be. But high miles? Not on your nelly.

[Rockster]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Doesn't the 968 engine require periodic timing belt changes? How often do these fail even if changed under the mileage/time limit?

[stuckmojo]

my 3.4 996 is on 108,000 miles now. I had the IMS bearing replaced with one without seal and the car itself is in good nick. I absolutely adore it and it feels absolutely solid despite age-mileage.

[monthefish]

Crimp a Length! said:

High mile cars are not an issue.
To be honest they are sometimes better drives/engines than the low mile garage queens.

This.

[STiG911]

monthefish said:

Crimp a Length! said:

High mile cars are not an issue.
To be honest they are sometimes better drives/engines than the low mile garage queens.

This.

What they said

[Shewie]

Crimp a Length! said:

High mile cars are not an issue.
To be honest they are sometimes better drives/engines than the low mile garage queens.

Agree... My 996 C4S has 85k on the clock. I looked at a few when buying and went with a +70k miles car in deference to one with less than 60k, as despite the mileage it seemed the better car (it was also cheaper!). Don't understand the fixation with mileage if the car has been treated properly. I've now had mine over 2 years now and its been great.

[bullettneil]

clarkey979 said:

Agree buy on condition. I have a 996 with over 100k miles and I can't fault it. It's been very well looked after and I would argue is in much better condition than some cars with less than half the miles. Got review on a case by case basis.

totally agree. my 996 is at 115k but has fpsh and has never wanted for mechanical bits.it was far better than alot of traders lower milage cars,both to drive and in terms of paintwork,

[mollytherocker]

Shewie said:

Agree... My 996 C4S has 85k on the clock. I looked at a few when buying and went with a +70k miles car in deference to one with less than 60k, as despite the mileage it seemed the better car (it was also cheaper!). Don't understand the fixation with mileage if the car has been treated properly. I've now had mine over 2 years now and its been great.

There is some crap talked about 'low mileage' and there are loads of clocked cars out there. I here so many people say, 'oh it must have under 60k miles!'. Utter tosh.

Your car, with 85k miles on it IS low mileage in terms of the average.

So many people measure a car on its odo and its just not the best indicator.

MTR

[Chrisp5782]

drpep said:

I'd probably trust a 996/997 carrera engine that's done 70k+ miles, more than a 30k miler on the (possibly flawed) logic that it's lasted this far, so is probably reasonably solid.

I'd go with this too, although not in all cases, it seems IMS issues crop up more frequently with lower mileage cars, that being said I'd avoid a 2005 Boxster all together, they were the transition year for IMS bearing upgrades and, like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get!