Drove an '84 with 3.2 today for comparison

[bigchillcar]

Out at the airport today, I got a chance to drive a former flight student's stock '84 targa...I'd actually never driven anything from the 80's, so I was curious to see the differences from my stock '74 2.7 with 7:31 ratio.

The car felt like a slightly more civilized version of my own...not as throaty of an exhaust...funny to start a 911 without a hand throttle! The guy says he doesn't know anything about his car (bought on e-Bay out of Nashville last year), just always wanted one...not an afficiando yet...he doesn't have the disease in other words, if you catch my drift. Anyway, I took him for a backroads drive and the car lost it's cherry. When I was done throttling it through the twisties, we noticed that the idle was going up and down...I'm guessing either an oxygen sensor, although I know less of this model's fuel injection...or it just needed it's throat cleared...seemed to settle down after a while.

This car's power band is in a different place than mine. I suspect that mine is actually quicker of the line to 60, but would find itself being overtaken from there...the power was building in the hogher ranges where mine starts running out of breath.

The stock brakes on his car were also head and shoulders above mine. Also, it was funny to feel the same tranny issues associated with the 915 in a newer car...needs the same slow, deliberate shifting hand as mine. Anyway, just thought that I'd share...I liked the car, but I'm not ready to swap...
Ryan

[Kurt B]

I think that's a problem w/ the cars in general. A little bit of hot rodding, or just a long drive, and the idle may bounce for 10 minutes, but it settles. A lot of DME dudes have reported this.

[MOMO3.2]

bigchillcar:

No flame intended, but all the data I have read shows a 3.2 Carrera is over 2 seconds quicker 0-60 and widens that margin more over a 1/4 mile when compared to a stock 1974 2.7.

That represents a significant difference in performance.

Mike

[bigchillcar]

Mike,
I'd certainly agree with the quarter mile...it pulled very strong in the mid to high rpm ranges, but there's no way this particular car was 2 seconds faster to 60. Maybe his car needs some tuning up, as I said he's not really into it yet. My own car is babied by me and always maintained at the top of it's game. It's very quick off the line.
Ryan

[dd74]

Big Chill - 7.31 + lighter overall car, yes, you should be just as quick - maybe quicker since (stock) 3.2s don't have that much torque.

[IROC]

Having just swapped a nice 3.2 into my '76 (to replace a basically stock 2.7), I would say that your interpretations of the power and driveability are spot on with what I sensed. The 2.7 is a bit torquier and has - dare I say for a CIS car - better throttle response than the 3.2 below about 4k rpms. The 3.2's power seems more seamless and smooth. Above 4k rpms or so, the 3.2 launches the car forward in a manner I never experienced with the 2.7...

Mike

[MOMO3.2]

The GREAT thing is that the seat of the pants dyno and "G-force" meter concludes unequivocally that ALL 911's are thrilling performers. Whether its a 67 911, 76 911S, 79 911SC, 87 Carrera 3.2, 964, or 993 a capable driver will be able to make it FLY!

This is one fact about Porsche 911's I KNOW to be true!

Mike

[bigchillcar]

good! i didn't think i was just losing my mind! i've seen strange values listed for my year car's 0-60, but the best i've read was 6.1 seconds...can't remember if it's in my '74 road & track or car & driver...i'll have to look.
ryan

[RickM]

Hold on...

[masraum]

The 3.2L cars are reported in the magazines as doing the 0-60 sprint in anything between 5.2 and 6.1 secs. I think you really have to launch hard to get the low end. I understand that you think the 2.7L car feels torquier, but it's not. A stock 3.2 will have more torque than a 2.7 (probably even the RS), but that rear end will make a huge difference.
7:31 is a 4.42 ratio while the 3.2L cars run a 3.55 I believe. That'll be a big difference in feel. When I get home I should be able to find power curves for both.

Also, the "feels like" dyno can be very off. Between the different gearing, and the differently shaped torque curve it will be next to impossible to judge the objective performance by feel.

[RickM]

Need to fill in the gaps....

Actually these numbers appear on the high side (Highest I've seen)

[TerryBPP]

I feel the same way big. My buddy has a stock 84 cab and I overtake him at about 65mph - 70mph. Of course my car has been on a few diets and his is a cab.

[caliber60]

The PO is going to have a lot of comments on the statement like this. Its like saying "my 911 3.2 feels torquer and overtake a 993 from 65-70mph." The newer ones should always be better and faster.

[Eugene at Pelican Parts]

For reference, the data that RickM presented is here.

It hasn't been updated in a while, but I believe all the data was taken from magazine tests.

[dd74]

Funny how that graph has SCs and Carreras as their representation of mid-year Porsches. I guess the '74 through '77 were just too slow...

[MAS]

My 2 cents:

(and I know that the torquey 2.7 issue has been brought up before )

... I know what you mean about the torquey feel of the 2.7's. Before I ended up buying my 77 911S Targa, I previously had driven two SC's. One was a 78 that felt peppy maybe... but that was about it (tired engine?). And the other was an 82 SC coupe with relatively low miles and in great shape. The 82 was definitely faster than the 78, but it didn't have that much off the line, but the power came on very nicely in the higher rev range... from about 3500 and up.

However, the 77 I ended up buying (it was cheaper too) felt much much torquier in the low rev ranges. For example, it pushes you firmly back in the seat from under 2,000 rpm in 3rd gear. And it's very strong off the line in 1st and 2nd gear. Unfortunately the 915 transmission at times often knocks a full second off the 0-60 sprint. I dunno... maybe that's a blessing in disguise, since it forces me to enjoy the car on the twisties rather than eating up the clutch, drivetrain and tranny at the stoplight.

The only drawback is that it doesn't pull any harder above about 5,000 rpm. It's a reasonable trade-off for me, since 90% of my driving is done below 5,000 rpm.


-MAS

[JeremyD]

Let's see - I just finished reading a 1984 Car and Driver Article that described the then new Carrera "the 911SC was fast, but the Carrera is a Bullet" Firing from 0-60 in 5.3 seconds, an improvement of over a full second. "Shot out of a gun" covers it.

That being said - in my quest for a new car, I drove a couple of SC's and even a rebuilt "middle year" car. Compared to the few Carreras that I drove - they seemed to have a faster throttle response, immediate response vs the Carrera which tended to build the revs, then go. Probably something to do with the peaky HP and torque curve.



Get and keep the revs up (or get a Steve W chip) and the Carrera will scream to 60.

[304065]

Which one of you shouted "V1?"

[Carrera Sled]

Originally posted by Jeremy964
Let's see - I just finished reading a 1984 Car and Driver Article that described the then new Carrera "the 911SC was fast, but the Carrera is a Bullet" Firing from 0-60 in 5.3 seconds, an improvement of over a full second. "Shot out of a gun" covers it.

Get and keep the revs up (or get a Steve W chip) and the Carrera will scream to 60.

Agreed. The 3.2 lives to be revved. Notice the torque peaks at 5,000-5,500 rpm, almost at the HP peak rpm. It really comes "on the pipe" like a 2-stroke at these higher revs.

[Silveresrty911S]

All that above and throw in one of Steve's chip and you'll have much better, ideling, throttle response and seat of the pants GOOOO!!