911 Turbo vs. Ferrari: Pros & Cons - Page 5

So are the Lamborghinis but they are still fine cars and Porsche is more reliable by all accounts.

An assembly line does not automatically lower build quality.

get a pagani zonda if you want hand made...it comes with a big price tag

+1. Porsche has a good track record for reliability. However, people with blown engines and RMS issues on 996's in particular would disagree.

+1

imho this is one of the nicest cars you can buy. better then a ferrari or a lambo any day. just an absolutley beautiful car.

Either a used pampered 2008 or new 2009 would be fine. The 2008 would still have lots of warranty remaining plus you can get additional years from the Porsche dealership. On the other hand, a new 2009 would be pretty nice.

OK, but I don't think anyone's claimed otherwise. My only point is that a 911 is not a limited-production car by any means. An Enzo Ferrari with only 400 ever built is a limited-production car.


The 09 911s have a minor facelift with LED headlights, and improved telematics package (the nav/stereo stack) that can't be retrofitted easily to earlier models. They finally have decent iPod integration along with other things. If that's important for you, you should check it out.

The non-turbos get direct fuel-injection for better mileage and more power, as well as an optional dual-clutch semiautomatic transmission. I'm not sure whether these things are carried over to the Turbo.


If I were to get a 911, it'd be the base model, stripped down to the essentials for sporty driving. Porsches have always represented practical minimalism to me. I want to drive to the racetrack in comfort, flog the car on the track, and drive back with good AC and an iPod interface.

--Andre

The 997's are beautiful regardless, but given the information Andre provided, it would be a tough choice. I would tend to go for the 2008, due to it being extremely low in miles, has everything you want, and is considerably less expensive (the money saved can be used on a new wardrobe or a trip). However, do what feels best, you only live once.

The couple next door bought one of those in the mid 80s in that exact color. It was returned in under 48 hours, and my father always suspected that the color was too 'swish' for the husband. I got to ride in the backseat for 10 minutes though.

So if money was no object, you would actually choose a base 911 for the track, over it's lighter more track oriented brethren the GT3? Last I checked they both have AC and the GT3 is more of the minimalist.

One of the two wealthiest guys I know loves cars, but has never ever bought a brand new car. He buys a used Ferrari, enjoys it, then sells it long before the major tune up is due.

Which is one major reason for the depreciation.

Not a bad idea, Ferrari's are so difficult to purchase new anyways, why stay on a year long waiting list, when you could buy slightly used.

If money were no object, but I had to choose a 911, then I'd test drive both (and probably an RS). I think any of the GT cars would be too hardcore for a daily driver. I wouldn't want to buy just a pure track toy, but that's just me. I also can't deal with the fact that you are forced to have a sunroof on the 997 GT3 in the US. --Andre

Aversion to paying over MSRP? For some people it's just a psychological thing - they can't pay more than the list price because in their minds, that's what it's worth.