'09 E92 M3 or MINT 5K Mile '03 911 Turbo?

[Seth_Horwitz]

I am currently on a string of BMWs that has included both M cars and regular, and couldn't be happier. I was about to order an E92 M3 for European Delivery this summer, and my friend just called me with a deal that I'm not sure I can refuse. He can put me into a 2003 911 Turbo, with an original sticker of about $150,000, with 5,000 miles on it for about $55,000. This car is optioned out the ass, as is evidenced by the sticker. My other friend is a Porsche dealer that will put the Certified Warranty (2-Year Unlimited Mileage) on the car for $3,000. What do you guys think?

I love the M3, really love it, and love the smell of a new car, but we're talking about a 911 Turbo with a 2 year warranty for about $10,000 less. Someone talk me out of the Porsche.

[Year's_End]

997TT>E92 M3>996TT imo

[Seth_Horwitz]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

997TT>E92 M3>996TT imo

'03 was still a 996, right?

[spearfisher]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

997TT>E92 M3>996TT imo

that sums it up

[niqui]

too be honest, i call me old fashioned, but you should only own something that you can afford to buy new. i contemplating buying used, but just couldnt, there is something about having something that is and was always yours, i think that has great value.

[maaicher]

Originally Posted by Seth_Horwitz

'03 was still a 996, right?

yup

[Seth_Horwitz]

Originally Posted by niqui

i think that has great value.

Greater than $90,000? I'm going to check the car out, but he told me it's basically brand new. We'll see. Thanks guys.

[FStop7]

Tough call, though the Porsche certainly a better performer

[michaeldorian]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

997TT>E92 M3>996TT imo

Agreed.

[niqui]

Originally Posted by Seth_Horwitz

Greater than $90,000? I'm going to check the car out, but he told me it's basically brand new. We'll see. Thanks guys.

i dont think it is far to compare sticker price of a car, especially a used and old one, despite being a classic, with its actual market price or value.
For instance, I bought a an s500 designo brand new in 1999 for 150k, the car has a 150k sticker; a brand new c350 has a 50k sticker...
when i would compare the 2, subconsciously i would think, hands down i should take the s class, its a 150k car normally, and the c is a third of that...but i think that is the wrong though process.and could pick it up for 15k, a savings of 135k, based on your thinking...but is it really a saving?
i was gonna buy a modified cayman s or a 911 4 s, instead of an m3, but i would be buying an 07 or something, and i was thinking like you, i would save 60k off the car if i bought it used, so id be getting a more expensive car for less...but thats not really the way it works; your not comparing apples with apples; which i am sure you know, but i wanted to say it anyways.

i fully understand your point of view, but when you asked "worth 90k", thats in comparing a brand new tt vs an m3...youre not saving 90k off this car, your saving 90 k off the price of this car i dunno 6 years ago... it is used, its value is 55k, so if you are saving anything, you are saving the difference in price between the m3 and the tt...i dunno 15k max i guess and the depreciation of the m3, if you want to be fussy.
in the end its all upto you, but i think the idea of comparing the sticker price of a used 6-7 yr old vehicle, regardless of condition, will only skew your perception.

[Seth_Horwitz]

I wasn't implying that I was saving $90K on the car. I was saying that the peace of mind of knowing that I was the "only owner" of a car wasn't worth $90K, or 60% of the value of that turbo. If that car performs like it did 5 years ago, the car seems like a steal. As far as the rule about only owning a car that you can afford new, I don't really get it. I can afford that car, but I think it would be psychotic for me to spend $150,000 on a car that lives in New York City. It's brutal here. If my parking lot guy dings a car that I paid $150,000 for, I may commit murder. If he did it on a $55,000 car, or $65,000 with the M, I would be pissed but I could move on. You do bring up a valid point in that you should be able to afford any work that the car may need. Fiscally speaking, though, that Porsche will be worth the same money as, if not more than, a 2009 M3 within three years.

Back on point, the car has the X50 package. Does that change anyone's mind?

[Sticky]

An old 911 is an old 911.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by Seth_Horwitz

I wasn't implying that I was saving $90K on the car. I was saying that the peace of mind of knowing that I was the "only owner" of a car wasn't worth $90K, or 60% of the value of that turbo. If that car performs like it did 5 years ago, the car seems like a steal. As far as the rule about only owning a car that you can afford new, I don't really get it. I can afford that car, but I think it would be psychotic for me to spend $150,000 on a car that lives in New York City. It's brutal here. If my parking lot guy dings a car that I paid $150,000 for, I may commit murder. If he did it on a $55,000 car, or $65,000 with the M, I would be pissed but I could move on. You do bring up a valid point in that you should be able to afford any work that the car may need. Fiscally speaking, though, that Porsche will be worth the same money as, if not more than, a 2009 M3 within three years.

Back on point, the car has the X50 package. Does that change anyone's mind?

No, X50 is nice, but the K24's have more lag. The X50 has the GT2 style intercoolers which is nice as well. Just depends on if you plan to keep the car stock or not.

[Adonislike]

Originally Posted by Sticky

An old 911 is an old 911.

Hahaha. Good point.

[JC919]

GOT THE SAME DEAL, READ THIS!!!!
Actually just went through with that same deal for the around the same price. Except this 996TT has the X50 package and has 3500 miles on the clock. Fully loaded, black on gray. Got it about a week ago and have been driving it on and off with the M3. A week into I have to say, with a bias that bends toward Porsche I must add, that despite having nearly 30 more horsepower the M3 is by far more fun to drive. The Turbo, while a great car is not as precise and focused as an M3, plus understeer is my mortal enemy. If I had the choice between the two I would definitely go with the M3. In fact, I'm going to drive the 996TT for a few thousand miles and then hopefully sell it for more than I paid. While the M3, I am keeping for a long time. In short GO WITH THE M3!!!!!

[JC919]

Originally Posted by Sticky

An old 911 is an old 911.

There are a lot of variants out there so that is a bold statement on your part.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by JC919

There are a lot of variants out there so that is a bold statement on your part.

I don't see how it is a bold statement, the 996 is old. The design hit the market over a decade ago. If the car in question was a 997 turbo it.... well.

[Seth_Horwitz]

Originally Posted by JC919

GOT THE SAME DEAL, READ THIS!!!!
Actually just went through with that same deal for the around the same price. Except this 996TT has the X50 package and has 3500 miles on the clock. Fully loaded, black on gray. Got it about a week ago and have been driving it on and off with the M3. A week into I have to say, with a bias that bends toward Porsche I must add, that despite having nearly 30 more horsepower the M3 is by far more fun to drive. The Turbo, while a great car is not as precise and focused as an M3, plus understeer is my mortal enemy. If I had the choice between the two I would definitely go with the M3. In fact, I'm going to drive the 996TT for a few thousand miles and then hopefully sell it for more than I paid. While the M3, I am keeping for a long time. In short GO WITH THE M3!!!!!

Great to hear from someone with both. By "precise" do you mean that the Porsche gets a little tail happy? That could be a selling point. I haven't decided yet. Or, do you mean that the AWD causes understeer?

[Seth_Horwitz]

Originally Posted by Sticky

I don't see how it is a bold statement, the 996 is old. The design hit the market over a decade ago. If the car in question was a 997 turbo it.... well.

Because the 997 turbo is so radically different in design than the 996? The 993 (love 'em) to the 996 was a much bigger change. By far.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by Seth_Horwitz

Because the 997 turbo is so radically different in design than the 996? The 993 (love 'em) to the 996 was a much bigger change. By far.

You could make the argument all porsches aren't radically different looking as there will always be a similar silhouette.

The average person can't tell the difference between the various models.

To the people who can, however, the 996 is dated, externally and internally and it IS old, the 997 is the modern car in production today.

[SlammedR8]

Originally Posted by Seth_Horwitz

Because the 997 turbo is so radically different in design than the 996? The 993 (love 'em) to the 996 was a much bigger change. By far.

umm...yess....its pretty different!
the 996 next to a 997 is UGLY IMO.

My buddy has a 997, and my buddys dad has a 996, both in silver. and the interior and exterior of the 996 looks rather old and outdated.

Originally Posted by Sticky

You could make the argument all porsches aren't radically different looking as there will always be a similar silhouette.

The average person can't tell the difference between the various models.

To the people who can, however, the 996 is dated, externally and internally and it IS old, the 997 is the modern car in production today.

VERY TRUE!!!
Porsches (especially 911) will always look alike.

[Pimp C]

Porsches are gay