1997 911 (993) Turbo (archive)

Just my opinion, but I've always been a huge fan of the 1996 or 1997 Porsche 911 (993) Turbos. Much better reliability record than Ferrari or Lotus, 0-60 in 4 seconds, better looking than new 996s, a proven legend, and can be had for $85-$95k. I personally think it's the best combination of performance, reliability, and looks.

Every supercar seems to have some kind of negative. Aston Martins are British, and there may be reliability and small-but-pain-in-the-ass electrical problems. Ferraris have that glorious exhaust note, and from what I've heard, are an absolute hoot to drive. But maintenance is very expensive, and you don't see too many Ferraris packing on 60, 75, 100k miles. I love the Lotus look and the price is pretty decent; however, their track record is not the best in the world when it comes to reliability. But what about the Porsche? Does anyone truly have anything bad to say about a Turbo?

360 Modenas....kinda pricey, still around $160k-$175k here (Bay Area). Yes, a Ferrari is a Ferrari, but Ferraris can give their owners a reliability and maintenance headache (I know someone who has a '94 348 and I think a '91 F40, and he has both in the shop more than he has them on the road). Of course, the newer Modenas may have a better track record, but who knows?

But man, if you have that kind of money to spend on a car, you probably have more than enough money to pay the big bucks for maintenance and repairs. Like Steve said, a Ferrari is a ferrari. If you want to be the baddest cat on your block, go get a Ferrari. Just don't drive to Los Gatos (Bay Area), because 360s grow on trees here.

Follow Ups:

[ Follow Ups ] [ E36 M3 Message Board ] [ Msg. Board FAQ ]

Questions, comments, or problems, please visit the Roadfly help desk.