Car and Driver Feb 74, Bobby Allison tests new 911s (images) - Page 3

speeder · 05-16-2003, 11:35 AM

Good question, Jon, and other than European exotics like Maseratti and Lambos, can't think of anything that would beat them on a road course w/ a good 911 driver.

I really enjoyed reading the article, much more interesting than a typical road test by non-pro drivers who are trying to suck-up to editors or car companies. Even if he didn't love the car, none of his observations were "wrong", just subjective. And some were dead right, like the shifter complaints, in particular when the chassis is being stressed by cornering.

Another observation was remembering that '74 models really had more in common w/ '73s, (performance and weight-wise), than say, an SC. A clean "S" model or U.S. Carrera could be a great driver/occasional track car, IMO.

I'm going to put on my Nomex flame suit now, and say that the contingent on this board that thinks that 911s are w/o serious fault are the decidedly 'non-track' crowd, as long as their car feels fast at low speeds and will pull to 100mph and above, sounds and looks cool, and corners great below its limits, (what car doesn't?), hey, it's Supercar, right??

The truth is that 911s are great sportscars, but with major faults, (we like to call these "character"),

, especially in stock form. The reason that they have won so many races is a combination of great drivers adapting to the cars, (usually in extremely modified form, but not always), incredible engineering that trumps an f'ed-up design, and amazing reliability! From Lemans to the OTC, these are the reasons!

Porsche is, (or should I say was ), a racing company, but in order to sell cars to the public, they had to make them comfy and luxurious. And this was as true in 1969 as in 2003, sorry to burst any bubbles. They knew that people were buying a "mystique", the sound of the flat-six, smell of leather, and the beauty of the 911 shape, and of course "the name", and all that came with it. As for performance, they knew how much it would take to impress their average customer, and mostly have always tried to engineer as much safety as possible into a small, powerful car w/ its engine behind the rear axle. Thus, the "understeering pig" lament of competent drivers pushing stock 911s on a track.

If Bobby Allison was FOS, then so would be some of the fastest hot-shoes on this board, basically anyone who really knows how to drive. That said, yeah, he doesn't love Porsches. And in the "Hogan's Heroes" era, "Kraut" was considered a gentle ribbing of Germans/German Americans, not so P.C. or sensitive then.

bigchillcar · bigchillcar's Garage

Quote:

The truth is that 911s are great sportscars, but with major faults, (we like to call these "character"), , especially in stock form. The reason that they have won so many races is a combination of great drivers adapting to the cars, (usually in extremely modified form, but not always), incredible engineering that trumps an f'ed-up design, and amazing reliability! From Lemans to the OTC, these are the reasons!

Quote:

Porsche is, (or should I say was ), a racing company, but in order to sell cars to the public, they had to make them comfy and luxurious. And this was as true in 1969 as in 2003, sorry to burst any bubbles. They knew that people were buying a "mystique", the sound of the flat-six, smell of leather, and the beauty of the 911 shape, and of course "the name", and all that came with it. As for performance, they knew how much it would take to impress their average customer, and mostly have always tried to engineer as much safety as possible into a small, powerful car w/ its engine behind the rear axle. Thus, the "understeering pig" lament of competent drivers pushing stock 911s on a track.

Ha ha! Just kidding, Denis! Actually, very well said. I'd agree with your remarks. I love my stock '74, but I harbor no illusions that it's performance or safety margin on a track would compare with the many race-rigged variants on this board.
Ryan

ttweed · ttweed's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
BTW: Zanardi qualified for an Indy race last week - w/o legs. That is a god in my book.

Actually, while Zanardi ran fast enough to qualify well up in the field, that was only a "demonstration" drive he made in Germany during qualifying at the same CART race where he had his horrible accident a couple years ago.

His car was specially equipped with hand controls (although he worked the brakes with his prosthesis) and he ran average laps around 194mph, while the pole position qualified at over 197, IIRC. However, there were many qualifiers running less than 190 mph! It was quite an emotional moment for many people watching, and a triumph of spirit and determination for a man who has suffered greatly and nearly died pursuing his passion.

There were more than a few tears shed in the stands and around the paddock, and quite a lot of amazement at the pace he ran in his "demonstration" laps. At least one driver further down the grid was heard to remark in fear: "They aren't going to let that guy drive in the race, are they?"

TT

barlowdo · 05-19-2003, 07:18 AM

Finally got a chance to read the article over the weekend.

It reminded me of most of the articles I have read in Mags that are not written specifically for Porsches.

Does anyone out there have a article that praises 911's written by a magazine not specifically written for Porsches ? If so I would like to read it.

I really felt using the word "heap" to represent the line up was pretty negative.

And than at the end of the article saying a 911 was a expensive Corvair was hard to take.

I was also confused about the duck tail test. Were the 74 Duck tail cars equipt with a front spoiler to conteract the forces of the duct tail at high speeds ? I had thought they were.

If so the test was confusing as they swap the duct tail from the Targa to the Coupe for the tests. Did the coupe have the front spoiler or not ? If it didn't this could have made the Coupe light in the front end.

Don

dd74 · 05-19-2003, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by barlowdo
Finally got a chance to read the article over the weekend.

I was also confused about the duck tail test. Were the 74 Duck tail cars equipt with a front spoiler to conteract the forces of the duct tail at high speeds ? I had thought they were.

If so the test was confusing as they swap the duct tail from the Targa to the Coupe for the tests. Did the coupe have the front spoiler or not ? If it didn't this could have made the Coupe light in the front end.

Don

There's been a lot of discussion as to whether or not G-series 911s needed a front spoiler when equipped with a duck tail. It's been said the front valence of the G-series was deeper than the previous model, thus negating a need for a front spoiler, though some (or most) were additionally equipped with a lip spoiler.

I put a lip spoiler on my '74, which also has a duck tail. There was a vast improvement in high speed handling and stability, than without the front lip spoiler.

JTO · 05-19-2003, 11:22 AM

Hi Gang,

You know, as the owner of a '75 S, I have come to believe that among the members of this board, that I almost need to apologize for the car. Comments have been made like "we all know mid-year 911 Ss aren't REAL 911 Ss". But now, I sense some respect for them in this thread. That's good because unfortunately, I do care what others think of my car because its and extension of me. I've put so much time and effort and money into this thing that I'm wrapped up in it. Its good to hear that others think these mid-year cars are worth owning.

By the way, a "friend" calls my car the "Hitler Hot Rod".

Troy

dd74 · 05-19-2003, 12:30 PM

JTO - I've personally never had someone say that to me. Maybe it's because of the glee they see in my eye when I look at my car, and if they are doomsayers of mid-year 911s, they best know NOT to say such a thing to me.

Mid-years are lighter than SCs, and SCs are lighter than Carreras. They're safer than earlier cars, and have in some cases, better suspensions. The caveat is the 2.7, but with thermal reactors. If the thermals are removed and replaced with heat exchangers or SSIs and have not suffered heat damage, the mid years are as good, if not better than many other models. The problem is finding a good 2.7.

Every model has its strength and weaknesses. For anyone to completely dismiss a middle year 911 is simply short sighted.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

I believe Zanardi's last lap (his fastest) would have qualified him 5th on the grid. I was bummed that Speed didn't replay the race Sunday night so I could watch that footage...

As for the slur, I believe "Krautwagon" was OK to use back then...the world wasn't as PC, especially around the oval boys world.

cowtown · 05-19-2003, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
JTO - I've personally never had someone say that to me.

I've also never heard the "not a real 911S" comment. It's not like it's a 924, Troy

I think the major knock on the 2.7 cars (besides reliability, which can be, and is, debated endlessly) is that they had lower specific output than the 2.4 cars. The move to CIS was kind of painful for the company, as far as I can tell. But it was necessary with emissions and noise laws coming into play.

About the article, I really don't have a problem with anything the god ol' boy racer said...the cars weren't his cup of tea (or Bud light), and he wasn't willing to invest a few years of his life into his 911 to find out if he would become a convert. Nothing wrong with that.

And we all KNOW that clenching feeling we get in a high-speed sweeper some times (on the DE tracks only, of course). The cars DO have some "interesting handling characteristics." Whether you call it a flaw or not is up to you.

JTO · 05-19-2003, 02:47 PM

Thanks Guys,

I like my car, especially since the motor rebuild. It makes good power and sounds awesome. I guess that's what matters. Oh, and it looks good too, even with the big bumpers!

I think its odd but cool that the Corvette was trounced by the little 2.7. I never knew those 'vettes were such dogs back then.

Troy

speeder · 05-19-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JTO

I think its odd but cool that the Corvette was trounced by the little 2.7. I never knew those 'vettes were such dogs back then.

Troy

Troy, You cannot imagine how slow a Corvette was in the mid '70s, those were dark days for performance cars. My uncle had a new '76 or '77 'Vette, let me borrow it once when I was a teenager, it was no quicker than your average station wagon. I remember it like it was yesterday, thinking, "Geezus what a pig".

Randy W · Randy W's Garage

Roger, thanks for the insight into Allison's IROC Carrera experience. Any 911 of that era had it's faults, but the "driving" ones were only faults until you learned to use them as advantages. It's an interesting article for sure, but I don't know that I learned anything new about 911s, although I suspect I learned something about Bobby.

Roamer · 05-21-2003, 11:22 AM

Interestingly, a recent comparo done by C&D between an RSR and the GT2 essentially said, that they did not know what all the fuss was about and that the reputation started by Bobby's comments were unfounded! Now they did not specifically relate the bad reputations to their own article, but pretty much laid it out there for anyone to read in between the lines.

I will see if I can locate that Article and get a link.

masraum · 05-21-2003, 11:48 AM

Barlowdo and dd74, yes, you are correct. I also found the info about the ducktail interesting and am assuming that the car they were testing with was not equipped with an S front spoiler.

I can tell you that while yes in Paul Frere's book he does list the with front S style spoiler and no rear ducktail the lift over the front axle is cut to .064 (70lb) from (w/no frt spoiler or air dam) .190 (183lb) and the rear increases to .290 (320lb)from .264 (255lb). You can see the delimna, with only a front spoiler the rear sees increased lift which means high speed oversteer which is generally the opposite of what you want at say 130mph.

RickC · 05-21-2003, 12:06 PM

Sure, some of his comments make sense - after all, no cars are perfect. But I think it's interesting that his comments - whatever their agreed validity - serve to both bolster the "gold chain" Porsche reputation and the "Only Expert Racers Need Apply" Porsche reputation at the same time. Kind of cool that they work both ways!

But the more personal, anti-Porsche & 911 phrases he uttered are rooted in the reality of the early 1970's:

Nationally, America was rocked by Watergate and Vietnam.
In the American auto industry everything was collapsing. The muscle car era had ended. U.S. auto companies were suddenly caught off guard by an incoming wave of small imports after the Arab Oil Embargo. Detroit couldn't seem to shrink their cars and meet emissions standards, while at the same time keeping up their quality - hence the horrible cars of the mid to late 1970's.
On racetracks Porsche 917's had recently been crushing all comers.

By kicking Porsche, he was giving voice to a whole generation. It was a hard time for many Americans - people who remembered the Corvettes of just 6 or 7 years before, and couldn't conceive of why their car (and country) had fallen so far.

Porsche and other foreign companies were successfully adapting to bumper laws and smog laws and changing times. He was just the vanguard of a whole disappointed/disillusioned 1950's/1960's generation - the same generation who took up cigars and steaks and huge Detroit iron as soon as it became available again (in 4wd form) 10 years ago.

dd74 · 05-21-2003, 12:58 PM

Another explanation is a 911 isn't a big 'ol stock car. Completely different beast in every concept of what performance cars are, though again that's not to say Allison couldn't handle it.

Back then, you could ham-fist a Chevy, Ford, Buick or whatever, while 911s required touch. Remember, they were even more notorious for their "strange" behavior at that time than now, while the Winston Cup cars were like barges.

It was apples comparing oranges.

They should have included a road racer as another tester - not just a stock car driver.

The real funny thing was the big "print slap" Detroit got when (and if) they read this article.