911T vs big bore 912?
 

I would really like a longhood car, and missed the chance to grab an-always-garaged, 2 owner, black 72T nonsunroof coupe with all S options including early sport seats, freshly rebuilt MFI, needing a tuneup and detailing but overall really nice for $7500. Yes, this was here in RI and was real. And I missed it by a day or two. Grrr!

-ANYWAY-

Just out of curiousity, how does a big bore/hot cam 5 spd 912 compare to the 2.0 or 2.2 liter 911T?

Anyone owned or driven both?

Your thoughts are welcome.

I would PM the moderator and have this moved to 911 technical.

Both of the cars you are asking about would be really slow, I can tell you that. Unless you are used to a stock early VW. They could both be made to handle, but are on the "momentum car" end of the performance spectrum.

You could always put a hot Type IV engine in there instead of the 912...

Edit - one of the 912 posters on that other forums (rennlist) recently had his 912 engine redone - 125hp.

The problem with that, at least as I've read, is the SC/912 crank is weak. I would agree with going Type VI. A beefier engine all around, with 2.0 heads if you can find them.

My 911T was slow, but never felt slow. Weird, but true. It was a blast to drive, and always put a smile on my face. If you just want something for fun, ignore the numbers. I've had far faster cars that were much less involving or entertaining, ie much less fun to drive.

the late (912E?) was a type iv motor wasn't it? I've been wanting to see a dyno chart between a 2.0 or 2056 compared to a 2.0 or 2.2 911 engine throughout the RPM range, not just peak HP.

The '72 2.4L T you were looking at is a far different animal than the earlier 2.0L or 2.2L T's you are comparing with the 912. The earlier ones ran on Zenith carbs, had non-counterbalanced cranks, smaller ports and valves than the standard 911, the E, or the S. They really are dogs.

The '72 picks up the MFI from the E and the S, the counterbalanced crank, and the same valve sizes. The ports are smaller and it runs less compression as well as cam timing. It has less top end than an E, way less than an S, but in lower rev ranges it pretty much equals them. "Lower" is up to about 5500-6000 rpm.

Matt is spot on with his assesment. Mine is "slow", but just a real hoot to drive. It gets ever more so as it gets lighter, which to a point is easy and cheap to do. The numbers are deceiving; as Matt says, don't get hung up on them. "Slow" is a relative thing. At this stage of development (suspension and brakes where I want them, stock motor, about 2200 lbs) there is not an SC that will hang with it at our local DE's (that still has the 3.0) regardless of brake/suspension improvements. Stock 3.2 Carreras are pretty easy pickin's. Unless these cars have had something done about their weight, they are even slower than my poor little "slow" T.

Now that early car bubble is finally showing signs of deflating, if not bursting, you might be able to find another decent deal on a '72 T. The '73's are different only in the induction; CIS vs. the earlier MFI. The prices are lower as a rule so you might look there. I've driven both, and while the CIS admittedly does not have the immediate "snap" of the MFI's famous throttle response, it was rated at (and feels like it has) every bit the same power. Or lack thereof, depending on your perspective.

Clean 912's seem to be climbing in price. I would not be surprised to see good ones overlapping the '72 and '73 T's. I think they already do. Given the choice of a very clean 912 or a not-so-clean later T, assuming both are rust-free and running, I would opt for the T. Just my opinion. One I have already exercised and I have never regretted my choice.

When you say slow, look at pg 5 of the July '06 Panorama.

The hot FOUR powered 912 takes TTOD or gets close at every A/X.
Sometimes I beat him, though...


KT