By on August 13, 2015

IMG_0174

They were sitting right next to each other at the auction preview — probably happenstance, a mere coincidence that they were adjacent, but seeing a Porsche 356B and a BMW 2002 just a few feet apart I couldn’t help but wonder if most of the people who buy Porsches and BMWs today would be happy with those cars.

IMG_0148

The analogy isn’t perfect but both of those cars hold similar places in their manufacturers’ histories. They both put their makers on the map as far as car enthusiasts were concerned and established them as serious players in the North American automobile market.

As essential to Porsche’s image as the 911 is today, it must be remembered that the 911 was introduced in the mid 1960s, a decade and a half after Ferry Porsche cobbled together some VW Beetle parts to make the first Porsche branded car in 1948. It gave Porsche their first class victory at LeMans and established them as an automaker. Legendary importer Max Hoffman started bringing them into the United States. The first car was designated the 356, to be followed by A, B and finally C versions of the design, each iteration being less Volkswagen and more Porsche, and with more performance, too. Had it not been for the 356, there would be no Cayenne, Panamera, or Macan, and the 919 hybrid would not have won at LeMans this year.

IMG_0162a

Likewise, the BMW 2002 is arguably the seminal car in modern BMW history. It was the ultimate derivative of the 1500 “New Class” BMW, which, in time, became the 1600 and then the 2000. It was BMW’s first postwar car that was a real sedan and not a microcar, and the New Class cars saved the company financially. The 2000 introduced a 2-liter version of the M10 four-cylinder engine. The lighter, stiffer two door version — the 2002 — became popular with enthusiasts and was the basis of Bob Lutz’s fabulously successful “Ultimate Driving Machine” marketing campaign that still resonates. The 2002 was the car that established BMW’s reputation as a maker of sporting sedans, particularly in North America and it is seen by many as the spiritual ancestor of the 3-Series, a major part of BMW’s brand identity.

The 2002’s success, both in the marketplace and in terms of its embrace by enthusiasts (and enthusiast publications, no small factor in the 2002’s success) laid the groundwork for BMW to become the full line luxury car maker they are today.

IMG_0154

Today, though, BMW sells a lot more different types of vehicles than 2 door sport sedans and Porsche’s lineup today includes two trucklets and a four door sedan, in addition to their 911 and Boxster sports car variants. Can you see someone contemplating the purchase of a BMW X6 with an audiophile sound system and heated and cooled ventilated leather seats being happy with that 2002 as a daily driver? It doesn’t even have a radio, let alone air conditioning.

BMW 2002 interior

BMW 2002 interior

The 356B is even more spartan that the 2002, and I’m betting that your average Cayenne driver would find it lacking in creature comforts and performance as well. Someone used to a modern turbocharged Cayenne or one of the Macans is not likely to be happy with just 80 horsepower. Actually, someone driving a four-cylinder econobox is not likely to be happy with the 356B’s performance. They were slow by mid-1960s standards. Why do you think they came out with the six cylinder 911? Also, by the time the 356B came out, most of the components were Porsche specific, not VW Type I parts. Meanwhile, it’s impossible to hide the plebeian origins of the 356, something today’s Veblen consumers of Porsches might find a bit déclassé.

Porsche 356B interior

Porsche 356B interior

It’s possible that these vintage cars aren’t even on the radar screen of modern day BMW and Porsche owners. E30 3-series cars are what plenty of people today consider an old BMW. In the Porsche community, the demarcation line between vintage and late model is probably between the air-cooled 993s and the water-cooled 996s of the late 1990s, not between the 356 and the first 911/912 in the early 1960s. Come to think of it, today’s 911 buyers might not be happy with an early 911, let alone a 356.

Opening up the engine hatch on the 356B reveals its VW Beetle origins, though by 1963 VW and Porsche engines shared few parts.

Opening up the engine hatch on the 356B reveals its VW Beetle origins, though by 1963 VW and Porsche engines shared few parts.

Oh, I’m sure that quite of few of the true believing purists that today make up a minority of the folks who drive German performance cars would still treasure a chance to drive either one of these cars. The sort of person who is willing to pay more to Porsche for a lighter, less-luxuriously equipped, more track focused GT3 or the like, probably has some knowledge of the brand’s history and can likely appreciate that 356, but then I’m willing to guess that they’re also not daily driving that GT3. Commuting in the 356 might get old much faster than it would in a modern Porsche track car.

So what sayest thou? Do you think today’s Porsche and BMW owners could be happy with 40 or 50 year old examples of their favorite marque? If you own a car from either of those two brands, whether modern or vintage, I’m particularly interested in hearing your opinions.

Photos by the author. Full photo galleries can be found here (BMW) and here (Porsche).

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can get a parallax view at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

62 Comments on “Would Today’s Porsche & BMW Buyers Drive a 356B or 2002?...”


  • avatar
    Domestic Hearse

    Yes and no.

    Yes for the enthusiasts of either/both brands. The owners who like to drive, who can go on for considerable length about the history of the brand, who belong to BMW and Porsche Clubs. These people would certainly love to add a nice early example to drive on the weekends, take to meets and driving events, etc.

    No for the brand snobs. The ones for whom the brand is nothing but the proper logo for the country club, neighborhood, and soccer field parking lot. There’s no way these owners would appreciate the history, or suffer the lack of amenities either early example would offer. What? No cupholders? No automatic transmission? No A/C, Bluetooth, navigation, or power windows, brakes, steering? Why, these cars are terrible!

  • avatar
    Pahaska

    I had an original BMW 2000 that I bought new in Boulder, CO. Smooth engine, the best manual that I have ever driven, and great seats. It was a car ahead of its time. I finally traded it for a Datsun 260Z, but I would often see it on the road afterward. My wife wanted an orange 2002 in the worst way, but I prevailed by getting the 260.

    In the late 50s, I came near trading my Austin Healey 100 for a used Porsche soft top in Franklin, TN. I finally decided that the Porsche was just too slow for me and it was like sitting in a bathtub compared to the Healey.

    • 0 avatar
      Rick T.

      As a current resident of said town, I cannot imagine the words “late 50s,” “Porsche,” and “Franklin TN” ever in human history used together in the same sentence!

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    “Do you think today’s Porsche and BMW owners could be happy with 40 or 50 year old examples of their favorite marque?”

    Maybe not *today’s* owners. But that same demographic, when the cars originally came out? Sure, the 356 and the 2002 both had contemporaries that were faster in a straight line. But it must be remembered that those contemporaries weren’t nearly as competitive in *other* areas. You know how there aren’t any bad cars now? Well, there were plenty of them back then. Almost all of them, actually. So if you’re a ’50s or ’60s yuppie-equivalent in search of a ride as much like a modern 5-series or Boxter as you could manage, sure, the 356 and 2002 don’t tick a lot of the boxes that their modern descendants do. But they were still a hell of a lot closer than pretty much anything else on the road; certainly closer than anything in their respective price ranges, IIRC. Maybe ’50s and ’60s Jags were a bit closer to modern BMWs, but I don’t know how they stacked up pricewise. And what else was there?

    Let’s put it another way: As a modern PC gamer, would a 486/33 with 4mb of RAM set my heart aflame now? Surely not. But give me a choice between that and an A500 or a C64, and the decision is a lot easier. I think that’s the comparison that needs to be made.

  • avatar
    VW16v

    I don’t see todays Porsche driver ever thinking of the older Porsche back in the 70’s. The Porsche driver today would have been looking at Cadillac and maybe MB back in those days. Porsche has become so mainstream and the brand now is in most socioeconomic sightlines.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      The same goes for BMW drivers. The current crop would have been driving Cadillacs, Lincoln MKIIIs and Monte Carlos. If there’s anyone that daily drives a Cayenne or Boxster, they’d have been good candidates for a 356, but there’s no relationship between an M235i and a 2002tii beyond having numbers and letters on the tail. The new one has more in common with a Duster 340 than it does with the ultimate driving machine.

  • avatar
    Syke

    I’ll put my bet that the average Porsche owner has more appreciation of a “real” Porsche than a BMW owner has for “the ultimate driving machine”. If anything, on average, BMW owners are nothing more than Lexus owners with a more heightened sense of badge appreciation than someone who buys a car for its sporting credentials.

    BMW. The adequate driving machine . . . . with good lease rates so you can show off.

  • avatar
    Drew8MR

    As someone who grew up on cars equipped like these, I actually have no use for most modern appointments. Of course I love the improved HVAC/defrost and weather sealing (I’m not altogether an idiot)but other than that I don’t care for most features offered these days and would delete them given a choice. I’ve never even turned on the stereo in my current dd and I’ve had it for almost 3 years.

  • avatar
    Austin Greene

    Seriously nice colour on that 2002. Is it factory? GM has a similar, but rare, fleet colour called simply “yellow” that has that green chartreuse look about.

    I think this is more attractive than Jack’s Audi.

  • avatar
    turf3

    Today’s yuppies and medallion/chest hair crowd certainly would not be interested in the 356 or the 2002. But those cars also were not so absurdly expensive in their day.

    Today, either a BMW or a Porsche is so costly for what you get, that the auto enthusiasts of moderate means who were the customers for Porsche 356 and BMW 2002 probably cannot afford them.

    I think the world (at least the part of it that encompasses my garage) needs a fairly small, simple, responsive sport sedan built with few gewgaws but with very high quality components, like the 2002. But I don’t see anyone making one. I would love to see an “electronic entertainment delete” option; how about a “plastic bumpers delete” option and a “mouse fur insta-fall-down-headliner delete” option as well?

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      356s, with the possible exception of base Speedsters, were absurdly expensive in their day. The 2002 wasn’t expensive until we went off the gold standard and the dollar plummeted relative to the Deutsche Mark.

    • 0 avatar
      baconator

      Yup. A Porsche 356 was about $3000 in 1959, plus or minus depending on options and models. That’s about $24,000 today. So really, it was the Miata of its day.

      http://derwhites356literature.com/356PorschePriceLists.html

      Similarly, a 1974 BMW 2002 tii was about $5000, or again roughly $25k in 2015. That would make it the WRX of its time, especially because it had the straight-line speed associated with muscle cars back then.

      http://www.bmw2002faq.com/topic/108145-original-sticker-price-for-a-2002/

      In 1974 the 911 Carrera RS 2.7, the best of the best 911, was ~$14k, or a bit over $70k in today’s dollars. That kind of money won’t buy a base 911 now, much less a GT3 RS.

  • avatar
    tedward

    Yeah, definitely not. I own one of the last e30’s…a 318is. Even in that case what I have is essentially a early miata on paper. 130-ish hp, 2300-ish lbs, similar overall dimensions, and a five speed manual. Every current bmw owner (non enthusiast) that I talk about it with considers the e46 to be the first worth it bmw generation. There’s a ton of love for that car but not from their typical new car customer.

    • 0 avatar
      qfrog

      I consider the E46 to be about the last worth it BMW and by worth it I mean likely and willing to be able to take an engine swap and for conversion to a track toy.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Interesting… abandoned car dealerships

    http://www.gleems.com/655611/amazing-pictures-of-abandoned-ghost-car-dealerships/1/

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Excellent, though the captions are very poorly written and organized. There’s more to that BMW dealership than they’re letting on. I had actually heard about the Cyprus dealer before, through some unrelated non-car article.

      I love abandoned things. The long slideshow with abandoned hotels in the Borscht Belt and other places is awesome.

      http://www.weather.com/travel/news/abandoned-hotels-and-resorts-photos-20140219

      I love seeing the decay, and how nature quickly restores itself when humans go away. Pushing her fingers through concrete and broken glass. Memories scattered here and there.

      There’s also an excellent site chronicling that more common sort of urban decay – malls. Cincinnati has a few which have gone by the wayside, and two which are presently folding. Cincinnati Mall (nee Cincinnati Mills, nee Forest Fair Mall) would be gone already if not for a massive Bass Pro Outdoor World. And Tower Place Mall, right in the Carew Tower downtown is about 90% empty, and only accessible certain times? It used to be a vibrant, upscale shopping center in the mid 90’s, as I recall having a few field trips there after visits to Union Terminal for an Omnimax showing or the Children’s Museum. Then we’d go over there for lunch.

      http://deadmalls.com/stories.html

  • avatar

    >>>The 356B is even more spartan that the 2002, and I’m betting that your average Cayenne driver would find it lacking in creature comforts and performance as well.

    Of course the average Cayenne driver wouldn’t want a 2002 or a 356B. Not comparable! Would the average M or Boxster/Cayman driver want the 356B or the 2002? My friend, Marc Feinstein, who owns German Performance Service in Brighton, MA (Boston), and who races BMWs, has a 356B.

    That first photo is really nice.

  • avatar
    319583076

    Betteridge’s Law of Headlines

    OF course they wouldn’t – but BMW and Porsche have never made more money – which is the only thing other than death that people really care about.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Back when BMW made good cars, there was always a faction in the company that wanted to abandon its identity and make a model lineup that was car for car structured to compete with Mercedes-Benz at Mercedes’ own game. At some point that faction won, unfortunately at a time when Mercedes was making cars unworthy of its own past.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Of course not, just as today’s Fusion driver wouldn’t want an old Falcon, except as a collector’s item.

    Edmunds currently has a 66 Corvette as long-term tester (daily driver, if you can imagine). It is constantly breaking down. They put it up against a Camry on the track, and the Camry dusted it in every way. Objectively, the Vette is a dog. Nostalgically, it’s a winner.

    This is how we are about old cars, houses, girlfriends/wives, jobs, and clothes; we left those things behind for a reason.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Would a modern CR-V buyer have wanted to fold into a ’73 Civic 1200? Probably not. I suspect they’d have been driving something else practical, comfortable, and bulletproof. A Valiant or a Skylark might have suited.

    • 0 avatar
      2drsedanman

      “This is how we are about old cars, houses, girlfriends/wives, jobs, and clothes; we left those things behind for a reason”.

      Possibly the best comment I have ever read on this site. The more distance and time we apply to one of the above variables, the more we overlook the flaws and emphasize the positives. Nostalgia has a way of glossing over undesirable traits.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        These days no CUV = no sale. At least the Porsche is in the right color (generic German silver). Nobody is touching that BMW today.

        “Nostalgia has a way of glossing over undesirable traits.” so true! Have you ever visited the house you grew up in? It always seems too small now and you remember it being so much bigger. Part of that was you were smaller (as a kid) but its one of those weird thing nostalgia does.

        I loved my ’84 Civic S1500 but driving it today would be a laughable… it had 90HP. Granted it was only 2,000lbs but a Prius is faster 0-60.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      “Of course not, just as today’s Fusion driver wouldn’t want an old Falcon, except as a collector’s item.

      Edmunds currently has a 66 Corvette as long-term tester (daily driver, if you can imagine). It is constantly breaking down. They put it up against a Camry on the track, and the Camry dusted it in every way. Objectively, the Vette is a dog. Nostalgically, it’s a winner.

      This is how we are about old cars, houses, girlfriends/wives, jobs, and clothes; we left those things behind for a reason.”

      Well, yes. Because that exact 66 Corvette is literally 49 years old. But what if you could own a brand-new example of that car today? True, it would still be way down on refinement and technology. But it would be a fresh car with a new engine, unfatigued chassis and body, and reasonable reliability. What then? I’m just thinking aloud here.

      • 0 avatar
        Chris FOM

        What then is you have a car down on power, refinement, handling prowess, technology, safety, and plenty of other important measures.

        And it still wouldn’t be very reliable. The idea that old cars were reliable is a myth. Today’s cars are far more reliable as well. Old cars were simpler, which made them easy to repair, but those repairs were coming fast and frequent.

        • 0 avatar
          TR4

          “And it still wouldn’t be very reliable.”

          Having maintained vehicles ranging from 1950 to 2009, I can’t quite agree. What is unquestionably true is that older vehicles required more maintenance (which was often not done). Replacing points every 10,000 miles was imperative. Plugs on leaded gas were worn at 12,000 miles. Radiator hoses seemed to be made of inferior materials and required replacement every 4 years. Mild steel exhausts would seldom last more than four years. Bias ply tires lasted 20,000 miles. The introduction of gasahol required replacement of fuel hoses, fuel pumps, and carburetor parts. However if you kept up with all this they were quite reliable.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      A guy at my office has a 2002 just like that, in the same color. It makes summer appearances.

  • avatar
    elimgarak

    I will easily bet that more porsche drivers would take the 356 over bmw drivers taking the 2002.

  • avatar
    Frankie the Hollywood Scum

    I have owned a 2002 for 22 years and used to participate in BMW Car Club of America events. Even back in the 90s you could see cliques forming around works on their car and pays someone to work on their car groups. There was always respect for the folks with the older cars but both groups didn’t relate to each other well. Fortunately, we could always come together on racing, driving tours, and German beer even carnauba sounded like a delicious Mexican sausage to some of us.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    I’d love to daily drive a BMW 2002. But then again, I must be a Luddite as I prefer my Blackberry over my wife’s iPhone.

  • avatar
    Fred

    Seems today people like the looks of old cars, but are not willing to put up with ergonomics, safety and idiosyncrasies. We are all getting soft.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    BMW’s first real post-war sedan was the 501 that reached production in 1952. It was a relatively large luxury sedan with torsion bar springing on all four wheels and a 6-cylinder engine that was a development of a pre-war unit. In 1954 the 502 was released, powered by an all-new aluminum V8 that owed much to the Oldsmobile Rocket V8, but with half the displacement. These cars were very expensive to produce and only about 25,000 of all variants were sold over a decade. The well-known 507 was a development of the 501/502, although it was an even bigger flop in its day.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      Correct … the 501 was the first. But the company nearly went bankrupt building (and not selling) those. They almost sold to Daimler-Benz, but Herbert Quandt took control, the company launched the Sonderklasse (new class) and the rest is history.

      At the time, Daimler-Benz already owned Auto Union, which they dumped a few years later. The irony is that 60+ years later, that company is now struggling to match the sales of the two cast-offs (BMW and Audi).

  • avatar
    See 7 up

    2 comments:
    1. In order to justify their price, sports cars by and large had to become luxury cars. Sans a lotus or mazda, nobody can make a high performance car that isn’t also swathed in luxury amenities. Porsche, thankfully, carries on with spyders and gt variants, but most people want the luxury. A major complaint at my porsche dealer us people buying 911’s then coming back and complaining it rides harder than their mercedes but costs more!
    2. When non car people get in my old 911 (’87) I can almost see their disappointment at what is largely a crude car inside. Small, noisy, not to luxurious (mine doesn’t even have a/c). Then they realize their camry is faster…

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      When I was growing up, I had a friend who’s mom had a 911 Targa (40 years later, she still has it). I remember the first time I rode in it, I was shocked to find the interior was nearly identical to my dad’s old Beetle.

  • avatar
    TR4

    The way I remember it, 1975 was a turning point for many German brands. Before then Porsche, BMW and Audi were reasonably priced and appealed to enthusiasts or even economy in the case of Audi. Buick dealers sold Opels as their small car line up. After 1975 the price of German cars rose sharply and they transitioned into status symbols. Buick dealers started selling Izuzu-built “Japels” instead. Mercedes and VW were the exceptions and did not change their market positions.

  • avatar
    CliffG

    I’ll skip all the happy stereotypes that are so much fun, I will just say if I had a three car garage I would gleefully park a 2002 next to my M3. The 2002 was a very nice driver, that 4 cyl. was a pretty motor, and I do love the low beltline. And they are reasonably cheap these days, as compared to the sublime 3.0CS which has just gone out of sight over the last few years. None of these are as fast as the M3, but who cares?

  • avatar
    carguy

    No – because both these old cars are slow, deathtraps which only offer nostalgia value for collectors. By any real world measure of comfort, speed, emissions, safety and features, they are just (very appealing) relics.

  • avatar

    The answer to your question is simple – look at the price of classic 356s, 911s, 2002s, and E30 M3s.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Talk about the Z8, talk about the Z8!

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Saw a 2002 the other day in traffic, and quickly tried to explain the importance of the model to my family. How it was their mass production performance genesis, etc. and how they are worthy collector items today. Here were their responses.

    “It’s just a square, it’s not pretty!” -Sister
    “Why is it so small?” -Mom
    “That looks boring, I don’t like it!” -Sister
    “It’s kind of little.” -Dad
    “Oh, that looks older than a 2002! (sarcastically)” -Sister

    *Sigh.* Philistines!

    EDIT: I even think the one we saw… was a CSL.
    http://maydaygarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/bmw_2002_turbo_bmw_ag.jpg

  • avatar
    threeer

    My love for automobiles in general, and BMW specifically, began in Germany with the 2002’s older brother. Our landlord had a white, four-door 1600 and he would often take me out for rides. I loved both that man and his car, and it set me on a lifelong love of the marque. The one and only car I ever truly regretted selling was my 1974 Baikal Blue 2002. Sure, I had a few *newer* BMWs, to include a rather nice 1993 325is, but nothing pulled at the heartstrings like that 2002. Sadly, today’s BMW driver would likely want nothing to do with a 2002 (or even a new BMW optioned/built in the same vain as a 2002). Given you have to special order even a *base* 320i if you want it manual and it comes loaded, a low-optioned Bimmer just wouldn’t sell to the majority of new BMW buyers (who, from what I’ve seen are driving them do so primarily for the badge on the hood and trunk and care little about “driving dynamics”).

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I’d also really like to read some stuff about Saab’s history, but since DDM wrote it I wont be. :(

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    In the mid 1970s, I had a ’73 2002 for three years. It had a 4-speed manual (4,000 rpm at 75 mph) and no air conditioning. I enjoyed driving it after several years in VW beetles and a Corvair. It both looked and felt more refined than most early ’70s cars. Its biggest fault was locking a rear wheel under heavy braking. (This was a common problem with disc/drum configurations.) The 2002’s replacement was a Datsun 810. Technically, the 810 was a better car in every way but it didn’t feel as good as the 2002.

    Before the 2002, I missed a chance to buy a 356 from a colleague. It was a Las Vegas car which meant no rust issues. Its simple interior wouldn’t have bothered me since I was used to VW beetles. In retrospect, its good that I didn’t buy the car. It would have become a daily driver through midwestern winters. The resulting rust damage would have destroyed its value.

    Eight years ago, with all my debts paid off, it was time for me to find the dream car that I would keep until I was too old to drive anything but a wheelchair. Possible candidates were a 4.2 liter Jaguar XKE, an air-cooled 911, even a Lotus Elan. Reading the road tests in old issues of R&T and C&D showed me that they performed no better than modern econoboxes. Therefore, I switched to looking at current Audis, BMWs and Porsches. What I finally bought was an Infiniti G37S.

    It doesn’t surprise me that a Camry can run away and hide from a ’66 Corvette. 1966 was almost 50 years ago. Consider how much cars improved over the preceding 50 years. In 1916, Ford was selling the Model T. The Model A didn’t arrive until 1927.

    The attractions of a classic or antique car are nostalgia, character and historical significance, not absolute performance. The ideal owner keeps it as a weekend toy, doesn’t drive it very hard or in bad weather, and has deep pockets to keep up with maintenance.

  • avatar
    stuki

    The market positions of both BMW and P is completely different today than back then. Back then, neither of these were aspirational products to the mass market. Hence, the cars were largely sold on their driving experience merits. Now, both P and (particularly) BMW have done a complete 180, and are the Cadillacs/Lincolns of yesteryear.

    Their buyers, guided by admen, like to flatter themselves by thinking their choices are more “sophisticated” than those of the supposed Chrome Floats they have replaced, but the reality is they are selling the same things: Ever larger sizes, ever more power, ever more isolation and ever more aspiration. To the extent “driving pleasure” figures into it, it is merely coincidental. Perhaps a necessity for obtaining good reviews in our ever more self conscious age.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    This is kind of a silly question. In their day, the same sorts of people bought these cars as buy 911s and 2/3 series today, for the most part. Some people bought them for how they drive, some people bought them for the image they convey, just like now. Very, very, very few people, myself included, would buy either one as a daily driver car today, even if you could get one brand new in 2015. Super fun toys, but time has moved on. Though if I could buy a 2002Tii with a 5spd and A/C with modern levels of rust protection, I just might daily drive the thing. Just not very FAR. I DID daily drive a pair of ’91 318is which was very much a halfway in-between step on the road from 2002Tii to M235i.

    I certainly see my M235i as a modern interpretation of what the 2002Tii was 40 years ago. A small, fun to drive car with a decent amount of performance. But this being 2015, the expectations for creature comforts are MUCH higher.

  • avatar
    bk_moto

    I would gladly drive or own either one of these cars over anything available on the Porsche or BMW dealer lot today.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    The 2002 from BMW is DoA today – it is missing two doors.

    The Porsche isn’t a lifted bad ass CUV – also dead on arrival.

  • avatar
    manbridge

    Oh hells no. Today, comfort and techie crap are king.

    These were primitive and no one is easily merging on I25 around here in one of these.

    The early 911 on the other hand, at least by 69, was a real car. Four wheel disc brakes, rack and pinion and decent power even if controls were somewhat primitive. Driving them around is sort of Camryish minus 900 lbs and decent AC.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      A 2002Tii is not really any slower than an early base 911. And it handles a WHOLE lot better. Not a slow car even by modern standards. A 356 is a rather slow car.

    • 0 avatar
      baconator

      Camryish, if you overlook the vague shifters, the uneven power delivery, the weird nonlinearity in handling, and the incredible amount of noise! The 964 (introed in 1989) is the first 911 that feels like a reasonable daily driver to me. Interestingly, I’ve driven a ’79 928 and owned an ’83 944 – both of those felt much more modern than the pre-964 911s.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: LOL
  • Lou_BC: @tomLU86 I’ve typically seen the term “5 link” suspension applied to solid axle setups. As...
  • Lou_BC: @Crosley “The left loves litigation” The last president mostly through his sycophants filed over...
  • Lou_BC: @chuckrs – On the subject of reading: “Given his reputation, one may ask whether Joseph Stalin...
  • bullnuke: I rest my case.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber