69S vs. 73S

[rmfent]

Just read Prescott Kelly's analysis of 69S vs. 73S in June's SCM. He states that the '69 is more valuable than a '73. Talks about the 3/13 auction at Amelia Island of both cars. I know that '69 was a 1 year only 2 liter and 72/73 were both 2.4. So there are fewer 2.0 liter MFI S's than 2.4's. So if you look at production numbers only '69 would have the edge. However I am sure the experts have a lot to say about this. His review of the '69S sold at Amelia is quite interesting as he clearly slams the car in my opinion. The car still sold for $143K. The 73S sold for I think 198K. But he had issues with it also. Did he make a sound argument for his opinion of '69 over '73? I don't know but I am curious what the gurus here have to say. Let the fun begin.

[Peanut]

Subscribed. Interested to see what some will say, even if it's the "why should one care about the value of his/her car?". I've been led to believe the later cars are worth more, and the very early cars following, then the middle years (69-71), being in the third spot. I recall reading a few articles from 10+ years ago that said SWB cars were not that desirable, which I realize has changed. Maybe tastes have changed again. Good money (at $150k - $200k!) for either car IMHO.

[RSTarga]

We are starting to sound like stamp collectors. You want torque go 73 , you want performance above 4500rpm only go 69.
Investment advice consult the WSJ

[kentf14]

Two very different cars IMO (and most everyone else's opinion). It all depends on what you want to get out of your ownership experience. Personally I rank the investment quality last, with driving character, drivability, performance & looks well in front.
I love all years and would own one of each if possible.
That said, both cars have several "one year only" attributes (some good, some bad). The '69 has what I've always considered as several "transitional" parts where porsche was trying to sort things out. '73 has concessions/compromises to the DOT like lower compression and a few other things a bit away from the previous MY "race" heritage.

Let's pull the '70-'71 2.2L 'S' cars into the conversation. Now there's a great car!

I'll have to go read the article referenced above. I saw it in the magazine, but honestly flipped right past.

[rmfent]

The article did touch on performance. And I know that's important to most of us. I totally agree that most of the guys here are enthusiasts not stamp collectors. But as a casual observer of the threads on cars for sale/sold I get a sense that there is an element out there that does keep a close eye to the market place. I just thought the article was interesting and think there are many here who agree and/or disagree with P. Kelly. I do remember seeing a lot of discussion on both of those cars in the last month or so. Thought the article was coincidentally timely.

[beh911]

This thread will eventually turn into a religious discussion.

In the meantime, here is the link to the article by Prescott Kelly

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/car-r...-911s-porsches

[RSTarga]

Two very different cars IMO (and most everyone else's opinion). It all depends on what you want to get out of your ownership experience. Personally I rank the investment quality last, with driving character, drivability, performance & looks well in front.
I love all years and would own one of each if possible.
That said, both cars have several "one year only" attributes (some good, some bad). The '69 has what I've always considered as several "transitional" parts where porsche was trying to sort things out. '73 has compromises to the DOT like lower compression and a few other things a bit away from the previous MY "race" heritage.



Let's pull the '70-'71 2.2L 'S' cars into the conversation. Now there's a great car!

I'll have to go read the article referenced above. I saw it in the magazine, but honestly flipped right past.

I agree the 2.2 was a screamer, pretty much the last on cam off cam car, I loved mine. From 2.4 on Porsche discovered that the torque improved drivability in the real world and made it easier to drive for more people.

I too was disappointed that the 2.4 and the Carrera RS dropped to 8.5 compression. IMHO it had more to do with the Oil crisis of the time than DOT standards as this was a US and ROW specification.

[LongRanger]

. . . Just read Prescott Kelly's analysis of 69S vs. 73S in June's SCM. He states that the '69 is more valuable than a '73 . . . His review of the '69S sold at Amelia is quite interesting as he clearly slams the car in my opinion. The car still sold for $143K . . . Did he make a sound argument for his opinion of '69 over '73? . . .

Both cars have been discussed, here

'69 'S' = 119301416 --- see post #13 . . .
http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...amelia%2C+2013

'73 'S' = 9113300219
http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...60-000-180-000


Don't have my copy of SCM in front of me, right now, but, as I recall, the article wasn't strictly about '69s vs '73s. As I read them, Mr Kelly's comments were more concerned with the relative qualities of the two cars --- with any critical remarks having to do with Mr Kelly's expressed opinion concerning some of the metal work done to the '69 to get it into the condition it was sold in --- I believe he'd mentioned nose/panel replacement?

I've seen neither vehicle, but both presented + sounded spectacular . . . + sold well

As for any opinions about these two particular cars? . . .

. . . I'd defer to Mr Kelly's

[LongRanger]

Regarding the original topic . . .

I purchased a car, just over 4 years ago . . .

When I went looking, I initially wanted a '69 --- a very special car, actually . . . there's even a whole thread devoted to its unique features, here . . .
http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...s+%2769+unique

The '69 is the first year for the long wheel-base + the first year for MFI . . . but also the last for the Porsche's original 2-liter. '69s also have the original dog-leg 901 gear-box --- something that I consider an absolutely signal feature of these cars. Allegedly very light, too. But it was that uniqueness --- especially the engine bits . . . that made this version a bit problematic for the way I use cars

I passed

The '73s are End-of-the-Line models, sure-fire classics --- totems, even --- and Porsche's ultimate expression of their Longhood/MFI concept . . . w/ more power, torque + driveability, to boot . . . but also low-compression. W/ the standard-pattern 915. Potent, special, but . . .

Passed, again


I bought a '70 --- a 2.2 . . . for high compression, MFI, dog-leg 901, mag engine + trans, alu panels

Not as exotic as a '69

And not as powerful/usable as a '73 . . .

. . . but Good Enough for me

[rmfent]

Sounds like you made a great choice of that '70. I read that the 0-60 and 1/4 on the 2.2 were the best of the 3. Seems as though Prescott might be an authority of some sort on the subject.
I personally think all 3 are worth owning and it might just be a matter of finding the right one. Seems like the market at this time per Prescott might be leaning toward the 2.4.