/me cracks the knuckles...
You think you can scare me away with your wall of text? Not going to happen!
What makes me think none of them work is watching pretty much every single one of those owners post that their 944 had stopped working. And no posts of "Hey, I got my 944 back up." Plenty of "I had to move my dead 944," though.
Until I see proof - bullshit.
Let's look through your list.
1983 Porsche 944 - Twerp128 - One guy with lots of problems with his 944, sold now?
1986 Porsche 944 - MXM - had problems (self caused), sold
1986 Porsche 944 Turbo - jlee221 - no mentions of breakdowns
1986 Porsche 944 Turbo - janstett - no mentions of breakdowns
1986 Porsche 944 Turbo - normansan - no mentions of breakdowns
And you missed a guy called
Model 944, who seems to be happy with his.
"Pretty much every single one of those" my ass.
In fact, most posts about 944's poor reliability are yours, with sarcastic remarks on how no 944s are ever running. In
every bloody thread that mentions 944.
This would be a lot easier if fucking search in vb4 actually worked.
Can I now assume that none of your cars work unless you report daily with "Hey, my cars work now"?
Fine, then would you like to see a picture of my old 1985 Z31 Turbo? It was literally abandoned in a trucking yard for 5 years and left outside to rot. I bought it at auction and after swapping in a fuel pump and fitting new tires, it worked fine. Texas does not usually get quite as cold as Finland, but this poor Z got diesel residue caked on it, it got snowed under, it got baked by the sun, the rubber parts on the outside all rotted out... Same class car. About the same mileage. Same kind of abandonment and neglect. When last heard from, it was still happily running around the Dallas area with almost 300,000 miles on the clock.
Well, why did you post the Nissan then? And no, I don't need to see the Z31. I explained that my previous post, I'm sure you know what rhetorical means. One counter-example does not mean that similar performance can be required in every case.
That's not what I'm basing my opinions on. I'm basing my opinion on both my personal experiences and on my experiences with dozens of forums over the years, wherein 944 owners all complain about how unreliable they are.
Dozens? All complain? You exaggerate too much to be taken seriously.
Well, I'm basing my opinion on 6 years of ownership, membership in Porsche owner's club, and regular visits to Porsche forums that most people are quite happy with their cars, and drive them regularly. In fact, just about every car survey, opinion, review, etc site I can find has 4/5 points for owner's satisfaction and reliability.
Plus the 944 sold like hotcakes here in the US and almost all of them have disappeared. The 911s from the era all still seem to be around, but the 944s are more commonly seen in junkyards and code enforcement auctions than on the road. Seeing one on the highway is a rare sight; a huge change from the 80s and early 90s when the things seemed to be everywhere.
Can't say what cars are driving around you, but I see more 944s than classic 911s here, all year round. Doesn't mean that 911s are unreliable, mind you.
944s in general have far greater mileage than 911s, meaning that a lot more of them reached end of life. Those are sold cheaply and they are poorly maintained. This is NOT an indication of how reliable the car is. It's up to the buyer to find an example which is good. A 911 "of that era" can mean anything from 1974 to 1993. There were plenty of them made in that period.
There are a couple of guys in the local car club that have 944s. One of them has spent $8K per year for the last three years keeping that thing going. The other one hasn't spent too much less. Neither's been able to drive their cars more than 10K per year because they keep breaking down.
If he/they are spending 8k yearly on a car that costs 4-8k they are damn stupid. It makes no sense, and frankly I don't believe you're presenting the case fairly. I spent 1.5k yearly on mine, and it was far from the best example.
Who said anything about it being
all Porsches? I was just commenting that the 944 wasn't reliable at all. I said nothing about the 911.
I mentioned 911 because it's the only somewhat credible statistic that can be found, and because it was made at the same factory. I was making the case that Porsche makes good cars. And you seem to think that they've put the dumb people to work with 944s and the brightest ones to work with 911s.
But if you want to go there, how about we throw in the bucket of fail that was the 928? Looked great on paper, worked well when new, fell apart quickly as it aged and generally is stupid expensive to fix. Whereupon it will just break again.
I don't want to go there, but you did with more unsupported claims. 928 has controversial styling in many people's opinion, which is why it's an odd sight among used Porsches, that's about it. It is a lot more expensive, I agree, and it was stupidly expensive when new as well. This has nothing to do with 944, which has a huge market for new, refurbished, 3rd party and used parts, which can be had for far cheaper than the exotic stuff for 928.
If they were more reliable and less expensive to run, I'd have a 944 Turbo or a 928 in the fleet.
Considering the zeal with which you campaing against them for the last 3 years at least - I doubt it.
Heh, fine, I'm sure all your claims are true for these 3 examples.
I miss my quattro too 
