This kind of elitism is what is wrong with automotive journalism at the traditional car mags

This R&T article on the 996 and why it will "never be collectible"

I read R&T, MotorTrend, Car&Driver mags back in the day. No more. Not since we get this drivel. An article about how the 996 sucks and will nevar be worth this mag's time ever, ever again.

Let's not even consider how back in the day of when this car was new they couldn't drool over it enough. There wasn't enough talk about how the engineers were able to wring out suprisingly new performance all while walking on water and curing the blind.

Now that the common man can afford this car, relatively, it's a pariah. So lowly as to be compared to the craptacular, according to the article, 914. One of the first mass produced mid-engine cars ever made. Arguably the inspiration for the wildly successful Boxster and subsequently the Cayman.

I guess R&T ran out of $50k+ cars to mastuarbate over for 5 or 6 pages and so decided to crap on what some readers might actually like, be able to afford, and use in a enthusiast sense.

Granted the 996 has flaws, just like any other Porsche model. People more familiar with the brand can list those. Did the 996 deserve the lambasting it got in this article? I don't think so.

I shouldn't complain as this is the kind of opportunity people like Doug DeMuro and our own GRM are exploiting to their advantage. While the entrenched car mags peddle the idea that the only car worth considering is brand new and/or requires payments in the realm of a house mortgage we can read magazines like GRM that give each car, costly or not, a fair shake at being appreciated.

Their article worked.

Let them go.

I did it almost 20 years ago, and in spite of meeting some of the writers (the offices are about a mile from me, and they would attend local car events)- I never looked back.

My tipping point was when they did an econo car comparison- where one car was the second fastest car, the second best fuel economy, the second fastest in the maneuvering exercise they did but it finished last because of some impressions they had of that car. Not reality, but impressions. Give me a break.

But when I've even glanced at some articles- cars like the Mustang and Corvette are some of the fastest cars they do on that one lap exercise- generally faster than most of the higher classes. Yet they still got dumped on for no good reason, except for "reasons". Blast the Mustang for having a very well behaved live axle, that made it faster than BMWs that were significantly more expensive, but find no fault in the very compromised McPherson strut design that BMW chooses (and apparently does not make it any faster).

When AW went to Watches Every Other Week, I dropped them, too.

Ya know... read that article and couldn't find anything to disagree with.

The 914 was a terrible car made cool by time and nostalgia. I liked 'em fine when they were $2k but would never pay real money for one. The basic 996 was produced in larger numbers than any predecessor and isn't rare. They have some big problems that take deep pockets to fix. Buy one to enjoy but don't assume it will appreciate. If it does... bonus you.

With what did you take umbridge?

FWIW, I no longer have any car mag subs except GRM and, being honest, I wouldn't have that if I didn't consider it a way to pay them for my usage here.

The 996 absolutely deserves the lambasting it got.

That being said I like the 996, and like that the boxster and 996 of these eras will likely remain affordable (for the diyer) for quite sometime.

Most 911s prices are insane and out of reach now and do not drive anywhere as nice as the 996. Someday they will increase in value(after depreciating further), but not likely to get more than they are now beyond the wanted models(including the GT2 he didn't mention)

Frankly I don't really follow magazines like R&T and Car & Driver because the focus is weighed to heavily on new cars and stuff that I will never be able to afford short of winning the lotto.

Yes it's somewhat interesting to read about the newest over the top Bugatti but it also costs effectively 20 or so years of my annual salary and I'll never get to drive it. Give me an article about a car I can reasonably attain like you can find in GRM or Hotrod instead.

I am a self proclaimed Porsche fanboy but I really did not take exception to the overall premise of the artical. Was there more drama and exaggeration than needed? Sure but that is driven but the over load of internet based drivel put forth by anyone with a keyboard and as such this style of writing is one way to get noticed. Porsche has had many car models go up in value. But they also have the entire 924/944 line that will never reach the same colectability of a early 911. The 996 suffers from many of the same things that the other water cooled Porsche cars do. They made a boatload of them. And like the 944 was praised when it first came out but quickly found its real place in the Porsche history books as they age.

I found the writing style annoying and the over the top "because I said so" statements of the writer to be less than factual. But the actual topic at hand of if the 996 is an investment grade Porsche is a valid question and reality is he is probibly right in his assessment that it is not. Furthermore was his assessment of the cars short comings incorrect? From what I know he hit all the known issues.

Something he neglected to note is to the average person the 996 looks so similar to the Boxster that it has hurt the 996 resale value while at the same time probibly helping the Boxster hold a bit more value. They both have been relegated to "its a Porsche" status that the rest of the water cooled cars that came before it suffer from.

I do find it amusing that the author uses his own incorrect assumptions about the value of the 914 to somehow bolster his argument on the 996. Not sure how that works, but mmmmmkay.

The fact that I agreed with him then and I agree with him now on the values is beside the point.

That said, the rest of his examples and tone exhibit a casual snobbery and take a pretty one-sided view of what those cars are good for, because it sure isn't showing up to my high school reunion.

Every Porsche owner that has an aircooled car will agree with the author and the 914 and 996 owners will get lathered up and send letters to the editor. Everyone that doesn't own a Porsche will agree. It's pulp journalism. Haters gonna hate. To be fair, the 996 and 914 are easy targets for an article like that.

I would have enjoyed the article if it were co-written with a counterpoint outlining the virtues of the 996 with objective information on values, issues, and solutions. Luckily we have GRM for that.

I think the ability to comment real time has changed writing. Getting people excited, either positively or negativity is what draws comments, views, and ad revenue. For a lot of web content (I'm looking at you Jalopnik) writing doesn't have to be good, it just needs to draw eyeballs.

I guess I'll add my voice to those who don't have a problem with the article. He's not necessarily saying that the 996 is a bad car for the money, he's saying it's not a car to invest in if you want it to appreciate. Which, that's fine, honestly. I like the 996, not because it's a perfect car, but because it's the only 911 I'll probably ever be able to afford. So it's fine with me if the values stay stagnant.

Quite frankly, having driven a couple of air-cooled 80s 911s, you can keep that "character", I'm not a fan. I'll take the much faster and more modern 996 any day.

By the way, that line about a 5.0 Mustang being able to tow a 914 through the quarter mile faster than it could do it itself made me chuckle.

He did seem a bit snobbish, but I agree with his main point: The 996 makes sense if your goal is to get into 911 ownership on the cheap, but is a bad pick if you want to buy it as an investment for future resale value. It's kind of the C4 Corvette of the Porsche world: caught between an older generation that stuck more closely to a "classic" formula and carries a higher nostalgia factor, and a later generation that took the new formula and made massive improvements to it.

R & T article that's attempting to get folks wound up-- gee, sounds like something by Jack Baruth.

Check link, yep.

Only problem is, the 996 isn't as cheap as it was 2 years ago. You used to be able to get a good one for 15-17k sometimes as low as 13k, not anymore. From what I'm looking at they're going for 22-26k and near 30k for c4s. And I think the 996 turbos will be collectable in the future. I wonder if the 996 prices will come beck down.

Also, early 997.1's are getting to the low 30s. I'm not sure that'll happen with the 997.2 though which is my favorite 911.

What junkyard in Ohio can I get 77 Monte Carlo parts for pennies on the dollar? Colonnade cars have mostly rusted into nothing around here, and are seriously underserved by the restoration aftermarket.

How did I know this was a Jack Baruth article before even clicking the link?

When I was a kid, not much younger than him, 55-57 Chevys were a collectors' item, and the 58-60 models were the cheap, ugly stepsisters. They aren't cheap anymore. 996 prices will go up, because there will be people who can't afford earlier or later models, but have to have a 911. They may not skyrocket tomorrow, but they are going to hit a price that will have people making comments similar to the fox mustang/914 comparison he made.

As a 996 owner I don't really mind that articles like this exist. There is definitely elitism and snobbery present, but the car world in general seems to attract a higher proportion of those sorts than other spheres of interest, and i'm used to it.

I'm just so far off most people's spectrum that nearly everyone seems as far removed from my viewpoint as that author does. I haven't sold a single K-car out of my fleet since buying my 911 and the car that makes me smile the most when i get into it is not my 911 but a 1987 Montero i originally bought for $800. The 911 is something I very much like but it shares that 'privilege' with at least 10 other cars i own that are enough to make almost ANYONE in the car world turn their nose up. In fact, i think the fact that i like and own a 911 while also liking and owning some of this other stuff would sully the good name of the 911 in guilt by association to a lot of people. If anything, the fact that i own a 911 gives me an air of normality and inclusion into the mainstream car world that is soon to be shattered as soon as anyone learns anything else about me.

So, from the fringes I will say to you that the snobbery/elitism in this article is swinging at people so much more normal and acceptable than me that it doesn't even come close to landing a hit.

Question?: How does a 914 stack up to a 912 from a strictly mechanical/handling/performance standpoint?

I know I wanted to buy that subie powered 914 that was sale here a few years ago.

In reply to Vigo:

That is awesome in my opinion! I know the Porsches I will own will always have to share time with my oddball Chrysler Conquest! Bring your k cars to pca events lol

Those monteros are slower than anything other then a non turbo old Mercedes diesel lol. Is it the two door with the 4g54?

I feel like we'll get along very well!

eastsidemav wrote: What junkyard in Ohio can I get 77 Monte Carlo parts for pennies on the dollar? Colonnade cars have mostly rusted into nothing around here, and are seriously underserved by the restoration aftermarket. How did I know this was a Jack Baruth article before even clicking the link? When I was a kid, not much younger than him, 55-57 Chevys were a collectors' item, and the 58-60 models were the cheap, ugly stepsisters. They aren't cheap anymore. 996 prices will go up, because there will be people who can't afford earlier or later models, but have to have a 911. They may not skyrocket tomorrow, but they are going to hit a price that will have people making comments similar to the fox mustang/914 comparison he made.

This. The 73-87 chevy trucks are suffering that same fate. the 67-72 market is out of reach for most people now and the supply is drying up. So they move on... Before long the 88-98 will be desirable because hte 73-87 is too expensive. It's a cycle.

And in the salt belt, anything over 10 years old is collectable!

The author is Jack Baruth.

That should tell you everything you need to know about its veracity and worth.

Counterpoint by an internet troll almost as insufferable and entertaining as Jack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr2dzAZEhk4 Here's Why the Best Porsche 911 is the Hated "996" Model

alfadriver wrote: My tipping point was when they did an econo car comparison- where one car was the second fastest car, the second best fuel economy, the second fastest in the maneuvering exercise they did but it finished last because of some impressions they had of that car. Not reality, but impressions. Give me a break.

So you'd rather that mag-writers were nothing more than mag-racers?

Meh. His main point is that the 996 isn't going to go up in value, but who actually buys a car for that anyhow? I was looking at 996's pretty seriously not that long ago and decided to take a pass. If articles (and attitudes) like this bring the prices down to the $9-12k range I might be convinced to pull the trigger.

Huckleberry wrote: Ya know... read that article and couldn't find anything to disagree with. The 914 was a terrible car made cool by time and nostalgia. I liked 'em fine when they were $2k but would never pay real money for one. The basic 996 was produced in larger numbers than any predecessor and isn't rare. They have some big problems that take deep pockets to fix. Buy one to enjoy but don't assume it will appreciate. If it does... bonus you. With what did you take umbridge? FWIW, I no longer have any car mag subs except GRM and, being honest, I wouldn't have that if I didn't consider it a way to pay them for my usage here.

I once drove a 914. Shifter was sloppy, rest of the car drove well, but felt more like a VW.

Which it was. It was supposed to be sold at VW dealers, but as I recall the story, US dealers pitched a be-otch, and it was sold as an outright Porsche.

Not a terrible car. I've ridden in an 80s 911, incredibly solid car as I recall.

914 might be a "terrible Porsche", given my recollection of two cars in that era, but I don't think it's a terrible car.