930 Turbo Carrera

This one on ebay
Porsche 930 Turbo Early 75 to 77 Rear Sway Bar 18mm 93033370100 | eBay
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Great,Thx!

 

1977 Turbo Carrera for only $19,500!......4 years ago. Cool car, I wonder where it is. Chrome trim and turbo script really bring the silver exterior to life. Not a very accurate article but it's entertaining.

For $19,500, quoth the raven, never lift
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Magnus Walker's Ice Green Metallic '75 Turbo.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Porsche press release on the 2004 gr3 Rs, homologation vehicle importance explained by Porsche them self, this explains why the 75-(76) 930/50 will always be a very significant car.

Enjoy
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I don't see the correlation between this statement and a 930/50.
Reading this random statement about RS cars purely specifys the significant attribute associate to a homoligation model, NO mention of a particular number in a model build series.

Here are some interesting performance graphs between a 1975/50 vs 1977/52

 

What's the source for the performance graphs? I've seen almost nothing on the 930/50 except for the Porsche factory graphs and the very few road tests from the period ('75 Auto Motor Sport, AutoCar and Motor magazine).

 

Just verified that the HP and torque were the same for the 1975/1976 930/50 and the 1976/1977 930/52. Why would the performance graphs change for the 1977 model year's 930/52? The 930/52 gained an emissions air pump in 1976 but that should not have changed performance?

 

Yes the overall HP 75 930/50 vs 77 930/52 is the same.
The performance graphs clearly show this.
The torque band is where it all changes.

The additional performance is gained by a change in low spread gear ratio which I believe occurred some time in 76. Also contributing to the performance gains for the 77 year vs 75 year was a modification to boost control, fuel system, air box and larger diameter wheels which essentially gives the car longer legs.
There were many performance enhancements made to the 77 930/52.

 

Definitely worthy of resurrecting!

 

+1 - beautiful color - worth saving...

 

I still don’t see a performance difference among the RoW ’75-77 3-liter Turbo models since they had the same torque and HP. The significate HP and torque gain occurred for the 1978 3.3 liter Turbo albeit with additional weight from the 3-liter Turbos. There was also a 55kg (120 lb) weight difference between the ’75 and ‘76/77 model years and its unclear how is this factored into the graphs you posted that show improvements for RoW 1977 Turbos for boost control, fuel system, and redesigned air box.

The gearbox’s did not change from the RoW 1975 to 1976 model year and the 1976 U.S. Turbo Carrera’s fitted the same ratios as the 930/30. In 1977, third gear ratio changed but this may have been due to the 16 inch Fuchs with lower profile tires. The 16 inch Fuchs were also heavier than the 15 inch Fuchs with the 7x16’s weighing 13.88 lbs (vs. 12 lbs for 15’s) and 8x16’s at 15.21 lbs (vs. 14 lbs for the 15’s) –ref. FIA Nr. 3076.

 

Hmmmm
WRT wheels, it's the rolling diameter of the tyre which is of more relevance. I suspect that while the 16" rim is heavier than the 15", what do the tyres weigh, prob about the same, I suspect. trying to calculate the theoretical diff would be futile for a car of 1100ish kg, yes?

From Brian Long's book:
930/50 1975-76, 260bhp 253lbft. Note, only the start of the 1976, production of the type 50 ended Nov 1975.

930/51 1976 245bhp 253 lbft USA/jap

Starting nov 1975 build for ROW
930/52 260/253

930/53 1977 USA
245bhp/253lbft

930/54 JAP 1977
245bhp/253lbft

I've looked, but can't find a reference for a 930/52 with the US/JAP air injector.

Grateful for any references

Bob



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The graphs shown in my post are a accurate representation of how the 3.0 Ltr evolved with its production development life cycle.
I've owned nice original examples of each years 75-77, some from almost new.
In my opinion, hands down the 77 is a more refined and better overall performing car over a 75. This includes better functionality and reliability. Jump onto Porsche classic web site and take a look at the vast differences between year 75 and 77 when looking at the parts catalogue. I don't see why this is such a surprise given that most vehicles of this era performed better as the model production developed. As for the questionable actual weight difference, the additional torque clearly counters it as seen in the acceleration graph.
Once again, do I think a 77 is any more special than a 75 - not really.
See performance graph link now including a 3.3 Ltr 1980 930/60 for comparison

 

Good point – I’ve never seen detailed analysis for the tire weight differences between 15” and 16” wheels but the 16” tires may also be lighter. Fuchs evolved with tire technology but to Kkk930’s point, I don’t see why 16s would give the 930’s longer legs and it has nothing to do with the 930/50 engine vs. 930/52.

 

Porsche constantly improved the 930 Turbo from 1975-1989. Isn’t a 1978 930 Turbo also more refined and have better overall performance than a 3-liter Turbo?

Porsche classic does not have many of the parts for the 930/50 engine. Try finding a first generation 1975 Garrett wastegate for the 930/50. I would not expect them to carry some of the parts for the 930/50 since demand is not exactly high for a 400 production run engine and probably less than 100 ’75 Turbo survivors worldwide.

There are differences (I would not call them vast) between 1975 and 1977 Turbos but the fact is that Porsche factory specifications showed the same HP and torque. There were minor changes to the engine (including a 930/52 emissions air pump) and a 3rd gear ratio change but a 50 kg weight difference between ’75 and ‘76/77 must be accounted for somewhere and is not accounted in your graphs. In addition, very few 3-liter Turbos remain factory stock today so I don’t see how the 930/52 minor engine changes you mention would effect the driving experience among the 3-liter Turbos on the road today.

To my knowledge, my 1975 Turbo 930/50 still has all of the original engine parts with the exception of the wastegate so the original parts have been very reliable. With 3-liter Turbos, reliability is probably more related to car ownership (excessively modified, never driven, etc.) than it is to minor changes to the engine.

 

Any opinion or test about the new Pirelli pzero trofeo R available on 205/225 50 Y15 ?
Would also be interested about expérience with TB15 on a 930.

 

I would definitely agree that a 78 has more overall performance.
We all have our reservations as to the driving experience between a 3.3 vs 3.0.
If you jump onto Porsches web site and down load the Porsche Genuine parts catalogue it clearly displays 90% of engine parts along with part number, description and remark. (75,76,77). The changes made to the 77 and to some degree 76 are significant enough to result in performance gains. Any 930 owner knows enough on how well these cars respond to modifications, enhancements, tweaks etc. The factory enhancement over the development life cycle are no different and would definitely result in more engine performance. There is no need to show representation of weight difference as the performance graph shown in my earlier post outlines "acceleration". It plots speed vs time.
If you look closely it's quite a close battle with the 77 taking lead in the very high speeds above 200km.

 

That’s because 90% of the parts are compatible among ’75-77 Turbo engines. Please post links from Porsche classic for the 930/50 air cleaner housing, fuel injection head, intake housing, Garrett wastegate, and turbocharger (not replacement parts with new #'s but originals).

Agree to disagree and recommend we move on. Graphs with no source data is why so many 930 myths exist today.

 

I don't think the aim of developpement are always better performance but Might be drivebility for customers and in 75 pollution interest.
Many first cars were more light and built for pure performance and then soften. Even if not, some cars are special because they are the first. A Giulietta 1955, a 365BB, . Also sometime, first car benefit costly parts ,then , stop after a while ( aluminium panels etc) for cost production reasons.
Now it'is not a rule for all cars. I don't think it's a good idea to oppose cars, 930 or not. We have the car we have.
Each personn of this forum will probably have his own opinion.

 

Three crammed into a San Francisco garage. All of them driven this week.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I agree it's not the aim, but with improvement comes efficiency and reliability all factors of performance too.
365bb owners don't go around plastering rubbish about how the first 100 are something more special than the other few hundred. I also agree we should not be opposing cars of the "same series". Someone on this forum posted up rubbish about how a 75 930/50 is the only real 930 and performed like no other. What a load of rot.
Again I say this entire first 400 rubbish is a fabrication to stimulate values.
I have owned and driven these cars from near new and I can personally tell they are all uniquely special in a different way for different reasons. The end result is a 3.0ltr turbo.

 

The source of data was taken from a well known German website that payed homage to these magnificent 1st generation turbo's long before this thread began. If the Germans are unclear then I believe nothing.
The parts catalogue on Porsche web site to my knowledge does specify original part numbers. It also specifys a engine replacement part no for all 3 variants of engines. If that we're new part no it would suggest new motors would be available - I highly doubt that.
By the way- is the 75 50kg lighter or 55kg lighter you post 2 conflicting statements?
Do we have modern day weight bridge data to support any of the conflicting weight difference?

 

SHWING!