I know squat about Porsche's but have always wanted one for
fun weekend driving, in particular a cab. This pretty much
mandates not spending a whole lot of money. I've come across
a '79 Targa that's been converted to a cabriolet... which I thought
pretty strange - body flex and such - but maybe it's not that
crazy, depending exactly on what the function of that 'rollbar'
is that's on the Targa... is it 'really' there to stiffen the
body as in the VW Golf? Or is the Targa's body indeed essentially
that of the convertible? Any thoughts appreciated
I'd be very careful about a converted cab. That era Targa wasn't the
stiffest chassis to begin with (don't get me wrong, I had a 74 Targa and
loved it). The Targa bar does indeed contribute considerable stiffness to
the chassis. Unless the conversion was done by *experts* it's probably an
iffy deal. At the very least check the door fit. It should be 'perfect' in
all respects. If the gap isn't exactly the same all the way around, or if
it doesn't close and open just the way it should, run away. Then again, if
you can get it cheap (you should, conversions of any type are generally
undesireable) and just want a fun toy, it may serve you well.
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:35:39 +0000 (UTC), firstname.lastname@example.org
The targa body is the same as the convertible AFTER the convertible
came into existence in 1983. An 83 or later targa changed to cabriolet
would be the same as factory in terms of stiffness; an 82 or older
wouldn't have the same reinforcements and would be (in my opinion)
.....many, many thanks to both of you for the excellent information about
the difference between these and advice. Seems a '79 SC Targa to Cabriolet
is something that I might stay away from, especially at the 18 to 22K asking
price.... I'm going to concentrate on a 964 Targa, something I really
had wanted all along in any case.... a little more opportunity there for
DIY given better fuel injection and, I'm guessing here, OBD2 compliant ECU.
cheers and many thanks again
In article ,
.... Ohh, thanks for that. Well, at least it well tell me if the voltage
was low at some point or another or if the A/C is working ... :-) By the
way, am I correct to assume that the 993 represents the pinnacle of the 911
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:47:29 +0000 (UTC), email@example.com
To some. It was the last air-cooled rear-engine sports car from
Porsche, and it's a great one. I'm more inclined to lump the 993 in
with the 996 and 997, myself; I don't see engine-cooling as the
dividing line for the range.
As far as looks go, sure! I do think it's the best looking 911 by far,
though the 997 seems quite nice. I've not had enough face time with one
to decide yet. I am too enamored with the Cayman right now.
As far as power, the newer 911s beat the 993 without a doubt and water
cooling is certainly much more efficient than air. As Emmanuel has
stated, some folks hold on to the air-cooled engine thinking it is some
sort of last bastion of original Porsche, but this reasoning is really
only nostalgic and holds little or no engineering value. As Porsche
found out, you can simply make more power with water with no appreciable
gain in weight.
Unlike Emmanuel, I cannot lump the 993 in with the 996. In addition to
the difference in cooling, the 996 seems more like a GT car than a
sports car. Too much civility and insulation from the road make it more
of a gentleman's car in my mind. I would admit that the 911 has been
heading in that sort of direction for years, but I hope the 997 is more
of a return to its sports car roots. I also do not find the 996 nearly
as attractive, but perhaps that is beside the point.
Perceived as real or not, I think the 993 seems to hold its value for
many of these reasons. That's fine by me.