View Single Post
petri petri is offline
Registered User
 
petri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 256
Garage
I love the difference and variating characteristics of strong cars from different species: I don't see too much of point in discussion either... or. I think rather both...and option is better. That is why Im collecting cars I like.
What comes to rally-oriented cars: I think the cars which has changed the history makes the point. WRX and Evo has their point as being the most used N-group cars of the last decade. But they are not even near in comparison to Ur-quattro.
3 years ago EVO-magazine tested original 220hp street Ur-Quattro Evo 7 WRX of that year: this more than 20 year old Ur-Q was capable of competing equally both in gravel, snow and ice. Only difference came on tarmac, mostly because of the power difference. But yes, the concept of Evo and WRX are excellent in my opinion.

A honest question: how many of participants in this topic has driven both 3,6/911 earlier switch and 930 either stock or non-stock and bases his/her opinion to their own expereience?

Just now I'm in the process to try to buy 3,6L -77 conversion as an addition to our car family. Compared to highly tuned RSR-style IROC-replica of my friend I was comparing in this topic earlier to my own highly modded 930, the one very fine - more stock - example I've been now investigating and testing is very nice and comfortable ride. It will be an excellent track day ride for my wife (who is quite capable in track as well), but still I'm struggling with the thought that it is way slower than our everyday ride 951 now. It is well done with a proper brake and suspension upgrade and turbo-wide body and proper tyres.

I love really a lot fast cars and I don't mean 3,6 911 would be slow, but it is not anything enormous, what comes to performance if it is not build to the latest performance spec.
Still I must admit I don't know how stock 930 feels. I drove one very fine -76 otherwise original condition 930, except the engine (with 400hp in it), the major concern for me in that particular car was very questionable brakes (as they were well maintained stock brakes). If you have a 3,6L / 911 earlier conversion, its usability and feel of performance absolutely needs a well chosen brake upgrade. Like earlier 930s as I see.
Lately I've been looking for my 930 now rather 380mm carbon brakes (to update my 350mm Big Reds, which has their limitations on track when pushing very hard).
I've also understood that if you have a 3,6 conversion, you have to have changed also torsion bars minimum up to 930 bars as well as swaybars, because of the heavier and stronger engine.
What I'm trying to point out here, that if you have a correct way build 3,6 conversion or stock 930, both must have relatively similar brakes and suspension. And as far as the body (maybe also chassis) would be near the same to suit tires with same width to optimize mechanic grip, there is really a difference in 0,3-0,6L engine size. I can't see how come that would be more as an advantage compared to turbo?
I don't see earlier 911 as it is just if you mount a 3,6 into it as a working car without other modifications just mentioned here. It would be a real **** to drive and therefore you can't say its faster than the other.
Am I wrong?
__________________
Garage: Strosek 911 RUF Turbo|Strosek 911 3.6|Strosek 928|928 S4R|...and more... Altogether 10 Germans - 3 Italians - 2 British
Old 08-28-2007, 11:25 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #51 (permalink)