Is an older Porsche 911 really "all that"?

No comment on the air cooled part, but give me RWD NA any day.

 

Well, that puts you in complete defiance of practically every automative journalist, every knowledgeable auto enthusiast, and the history of the past 50+ years of Porsche cars and their thousands of owners.

It may come as a shock to you, but a great deal of Porsche racing history came with NA engines - including the overall Lemans win, their early F1 win, the Monte Carlo, and the multitude of 911 class wins down through the years. It was NOT all turbo.

But that is OK - just leave the NA air 911 cars to the rest of us.

 

What I have always liked about Porsches is their balance, even all the way back to the 912.

If anything, the turbos, particularly before the traction control of the newer cars, upset that balance.

Remember, it is must more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow.

Dale

 

Exactly right you are, Dale...in my opinion, the very early T-E-S cars were sort of more fun to drive than the bigger tires of the later models simply because you could make them understeer or oversteer pretty easily, and as it happened at a lower G force (probably only about 0.8 or lower) it was much more controllable.

I think I have already posted that I had a 1972 911T and was going to order one of the first 930 Turbo cars. The owner of the dealership in Oklahoma City let me drive his personal 930 so I could see what it was like, and I ended up changing the order to a 911S.

Now, it is true that the later Turbo cars are much improved, but those first ones had an unbelievable turbo lag followed by a vicious bump up to about double power at 4000 RPM. There was not much of any way to control them if they got into a power oversteer situation, and this resulted in a lot of crashes. There were, in fact a number of lawsuits over the controlability of the early 930.

I think I may move up to a 993TT later, but for now I am quite happy to drive my NA 993 daily.

I can tell you for sure that it is every bit as much fun to drive (in its own Porsche way) as my Testarossa or my ZR1 or Z06 Vettes, or anything else that I have tried, including even a RUF super turbo. There is a lot more to it than just mashing down on the gas and holding on for dear life.

But heck, the 993 NA can pull off the quarter in the mid-13 second range, which is faster than the original 930 cars, and of course it has a perfect torque delivery curve, a 6 speed instead of a 4, and much much better handling. That is not indicative of a fun car?

PS - I really hate to see this theme come up again and again (almost always from the very young posters) that something like a Miata is "not a sports car" because it doesn't have 450 hp, or that "nothing is any fun without nitrous oxide or blowers", etc. etc. etc. The day may come when we will again be glad to have light low-power intensely sporty cars in the mold of an early MG or Porsche simply because of fuel and environmental issues being forced upon us.

 

Put 1 of each (NA and Turbo), same year, in front of all these people you mention and they get to drive only one of them.......the Turbo gets the nod every time.

Your own quote "I think I may move up to a 993TT later" indicates the Turbo superiority.....its just that much better.

And no, a Miata still isn't a sports car.....not in 2007

 

+1

Now that I don't drive fast on public roads anymore (well, not as fast as I used to), I really question the point of having so much horsepower. Case in point: (1) a 55O Maranello, or a (2) Street legal Spec Miata.

Is the 550 a hoot to drive? Duh!

But there is one problem, if you drive by ear, just moderately running through the gears until you get to 5th will put you over 100. This leads to another problem in that some revenue enhancers consider anybody doing over 100 to mean that you are street racing and take you to the pokey, while Bubba tows your car. (S h i i i t, I ain't never seen a car with that low of ground clearance before.)

Is the Miata a hoot to drive? Double Duh!

In fact, it is almost more fun than the law allows, but not quite.

Here is the reality of the situation, a lot of things can happen if you consistantly go fast on public roads and none of them are good.

If you really have the need for speed, take it to the track.

Otherwise, enjoy the drive.

Dale

 

Funny, I have one of each and the Miata still gets plenty of action. I don't know if it's a sports car or not but it is a lot of fun to drive.

 

Right, I'm not saying it isn't fun to drive......so is a Mini if it has a manual transmission. But a Mini isn't a sportscar either. A sportscar is more than a "sporty car" as the non-automotive media call cars like a Miata or Crossfire, or 6 cyl Mustang.

 

Try not to speak for all of us. Late model turbo = heavy, AWD, and non-linear, non-instantaneous power delivery. You can keep it. I turned mine in and am not sorry.

uh oh, here goes the "definition of sports car" discussion again. nothing personal, but who are you to define what a sport car is? you work for Websters? i think you will find plenty of people who differ significantly with you on the definition (including the dictionary). me, for one. a miata meets the criteria of a sports car FAR better than a bloated 911 (grand touring) turbo does in my book.

 

The turbo might be the first car they drive, but I'll bet it's the NA car that they take home.

As for "moving up" to a TT i think that's a crock of..... spending more does make it a better all round car.

I do agree on the Miata (MX-5 over here) though.

 

Crock of what...l.??? I didn't do it yet. (TT). The RUF people keep talking to me about it, but it seems that every time I drive one, I go back to the NA. I believe that I have already posted on the first attempt at a 930, and I ended up with a 911S. The second attempt was courtesy of the RUF turbo people, (a slant nose RUF Turbo cabriolet), and I ended up with a Testarossa.

As for Shark, and the Miata, I am glad to be of service in the interest of the discussion.

But, I guess Sharky would not think my Testarossa is a sports car either, what with less than 400hp...

James

 

I once owned and drove regularly a '66 911..converted to Webbers from Solex, rebuilt - tight - high revving motor. I loved driving that car for 9 years and nearly 35,000 miles (wasn't my only ride)...since then I have owned 4 930's (first a '76, then an '87, then a '79 and now an 86)...they are very different. The early 'bouncy' shortwheelbase 911's were loads of fun, I remember it handled so well with a full (front) tank of fuel with the rear weight bias being worst when the tank was nearing empty. Very sports car like experience..but a bit like a toy compared to the 930.

The 930! My favorite all around super car and I have owned and driven many. It feels solid as a rock and stable (different than early 911's), properly driven with control of the car in the above 3,000 rpm mark, you can drive these cars HARD - just like a race-car. Makes me laugh out loud when the turbo kicks in and catapults you forward in a sling-shot style..needless to say, makes passing on windy two lane roads like a ride at Disneyland! The thing that impresses me the most is when you factor in how dangerous it can be to pass on a two lane road, and cars of all types and speeds do attempt it at some time....you feel like you have an unfair ADVANTAGE in a 930! Gets the job done effortlessly, safely, and with some impressive feel in a safe couple of seconds.

 

Did they get you to drive the 3.8L X51 Cayman yet? N/A and oh so guuuud. I keep telling them to put LSD on those puppies.

 

I seriously doubt you have ever driven a well set up early 911S. My '69 911S weighs just under 2100lb and the hotrod 2.5L MFI engine gives 210hp. "only 210hp?" I hear you saying.... yup, thats all it needs. I have turned laps in the 1.43's at Road Atlanta in this car. VERY few late model turbos keep up if they are stock.

That said, its hardly a fair comparison. A late model turbo has power everything, leather everything, A/C, stereo and its rock solid quiet and comfortable. My car is a barely street legal race car. But is not a turbo and it is VERY quick.


I have posted extensively on fchat in the past about 911s, a search will turn it up. Suffice to say I have owned dozens, street and race (I have a 3.4L twin plug '74 bodied RSR with full 935 suspension for vintage racing) and I have rebuilt several 911s from the ground up. If you want a classic 911 that is quick, comfortable, fun and practical then I suggest a 993. If you want a truly classic 911 that will be the most engaging drivers car you are ever likely to drive, that will embarrass just about any modern car your likely to run into, makes jaw droppingly great sounds, looks great and has the best steering feel and feedback of any sportscar built EVER... buy a '69 - '73 911S or save yourself some bucks and buy the same year range 911T that an enthusiast has hotrodded.

The early lightweight hotrod 911's or 911S are incredibly fun and amazing cars but fair warning: they are in no way practical.



Terry

 

One of the best Porsche's ever produced and already a classic is the 993. Last of the air-cooled cars, perfect proportions, beautiful styling, bulletproof and strong market value. If your not interested in an early 911S, enthusiasts and most will agree, the 993 is the car to own.

 

I love the 993. For me the 993 and 997 are the best looking 911s, at least from the modern era.

 

Not yet, but the Cayman is my pick of all the late generation water-cooled Porsche line. They did introduce me to the Alfredo Stola guy who did the special styling exersize on the Cayman, but I can't afford that - unless I sell all five of my cars, which did not seem like a good option.

As a matter of interest, when the 2004 Z06 reaches the time to trade, the two cars we will be looking at would be a Cayman or the new Z06 427 (probably not the supercharged Zr1, though). That might seem like a wide spread, but I think my stepson (who usually drives the Z06) is probably about ready for something on a little different level than another Corvette.

Now then, back on thread subject...I totally agree with TSpringer and others who praise the 993 as the ultimate traditional Porsche. Those early cars are great fun, but you would be surprised just how much of the old feel is still there in the 993, not as light & raw & direct, but it is still there.

My personal plan is to hang onto the 993 Targa just as long as I possibly can - it has 95,000 miles now and is still going strong after a RUF engine rebuild. They tell me that RUF has a rebuild/restoration plan for aircooled Porsche cars, and I would be greatly tempted to spending the money on that for the Targa (for my own car) rather than going to a more modern water-cooled version.

So count me as one more vote for the great 993...but with plenty of respect for the 1969-1973 cars of old.

 

Of course ANY car can be made fast (ricer rigs). You put the same $$ and effort you did into a 930 and it smokes your car all day long. The point is that whatever a NA 911 does, a Turbo does it that much better so why not start with a better platform?

 

Thats an interesting saying, but I would rather drive a great sports car thats fast slow vs a slow car fast...eg, an F430 or CGT feel great and sound great vs a crappy , sloppy car at higher speeds...just my preference.......

 

The problem is that driving the fast car on the streets can get very expensive, if you know what I mean.

Thus, I have found it more fun to drive a GREAT slow car on the street than a GREAT fast car on the street.

Dale

 

I would probably advise something with a little less weight on the driven wheels for your drift car, though.

Would you be interested in a nice 240SX? I hear they have a good Turbo kit for it, and you don't see one every day.

 

You must have me confused with someone else........

 

Did I? Sorry. Must have been something about the H.P. tone -

Anyway, Referee says "play on"...

 

i agree...play on!!!!!

btw james...how r those 12 cyls firing?

my flat 6 and 12 are hitting hard!

 

thought i should attach a pic!
Image Unavailable, Please Login