![]() |
|
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 7
|
Which 911 to buy... 2.4 or 3.0/2?
Hi everyone. I'm in the market for an older 911 and was hoping to get some feedback from the front line. I really want a 72-73 2.4, but certain factors are leading me consider a 3.0 or possibly even a 3.2 (I'm avoiding the 2.7's for obvious mechanical issues). I really wanted an early car for several reasons, mainly style, simplicity of operation/parts, and modification w/o smog issues here in California, but the cons of rust and a general lack of availability of decent models in the 10-15K range have got me thinking a 3.0 or 3.2 might be a better choice to become a porsche owner again. I previously owned a stripped-down track/street '74 914 2.2 (bored from 2.0) with Weber 44's, re-geared, etc. Hell of a fun and fast car, but bled me dry on maintenance, smog certs, and so on.
Anyways, I see that a lot of you own or have owned several of these editions and just was wondering what you guys would say regarding the pros/cons between say a '73T and a '80ish SC (...or even 3.2) as far as required maintenence, daily driving, modifications, availability/cost of parts, DIY ability, etc. Thanks! Scott |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Carlos, CA US
Posts: 5,523
|
SC rule, what else?
__________________
Porsche 2005 GT3, 2006 997S with bore-scoring Exotic: Ferrari F360F1 TDF, Ferrari 328 GTS Disposable Car: BMW 530xiT, 2008 Mini Cooper S Two-wheel art: Ducati 907IE, Ducati 851 |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
this is a difficult decision your faced with my friend. alot of other members on this board are dealing with these same thoughts.
In a very short opinion, it really depends on your level of skill when it comes repairs and maintenance. If your more of a DIY'er then I would go with the early 911 that your heart desires. Some very nice examples of these cars can be had for a reasonable price, maybe even one with a 3.0 or a 3.2 installed. However a more reliable and available alternative would be to go for the SC or Carrera. Either way Im sure you won't loose money as these old cars are good investments and will never die. Good Luck and remember PPI, PPI, PPI. O ya, be VERY careful of E- Bay, lots and lots of crap sells for high money there.
__________________
_____________________________ Clint Smith www.RebelRacingProducts.com 1970 911T ----> RGruppe RS/R (mexico blue) 1995 993 becoming an RS (gran prix white) |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
![]()
What YelCab1 said! Seriously, the 3.0 engines in the SC series
cars have a lot of bottom and mid range torque which makes them more pleasant to drive on a daily basis. Also, the SC cars are less complicated than the Carreras which use the Bosch Motronic fuel/ignition controls. The SC cars are somewhat less expensive than the 84-89 Carreras and the saved $$$ can be put towards repairs, updates or special tools. Personally, I have never encountered a stock Carrera 3.2 that seemed any quicker than my SC. The only real advantage to going with the 3.2 cars would be that they are a few years newer and the 87-89 cars are equipped with the G50 tranny which some like better than the 915 gearbox. Both are good choices and you will probably be "happy as a clam" with either one. Happy Hunting! Fred Cook '80 911SC coupe |
||
![]() |
|
drag racing the short bus
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Location, Location...
Posts: 21,983
|
What's your time frame? You can wait for a nice SC to crop up, which is what I'd do. The SC is hands down a simpler and I believe much stronger car than a Carrera. But Carreras are nice too, especially if you lighten them up a bit.
I wouldn't mess around with a mid-seventies 911 unless you really know what you're getting yourself into. For instance, keep a replacement engine in mind in case the 2.7 goes south on you. As far as early cars go - yikes! Unless I knew it like a wife, I wouldn't touch one. They're far too iffy.
__________________
The Terror of Tiny Town |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Annapolis, Maryland
Posts: 1,360
|
Buy a 911SC, drive it around a couple of years and then buy an early 911. Everyone knows the "iffy" cars are the most fun.
![]() Why early 911? The SC vs. early car question came up on this one too, there must be a conspiracy afoot. 68S vs. 78SC I wouldn't rule out a properly updated 2.7 car. The bashing keeps the prices down. Chuck
__________________
1981 Porsche 931 w/S1 engine & g31 transmission. Water-cooled intercooler Last edited by chuckw951; 03-23-2004 at 04:06 PM.. |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
Registered
|
easy on the 2.7's. the price is right and with the correct updates, the car can last! it is a lighter ride too. and lighter is better.
oh, my seventyfive is friggen smogged exempt! my 2.7 went through hot arse texas summers without an external cooler, it didnt have the thermal reactors tho. and all the studs are still tight. burns almost no oil, and is a damn peppy ride.
__________________
poof! gone Last edited by vash; 03-23-2004 at 04:03 PM.. |
||
![]() |
|
Bandwidth AbUser
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 29,522
|
Early cars are great fun, but your price range is marginal. Mid-year cars aren't a lot heavier and you might even find one with a 3.0 or 3.2 stuffed in back.
![]()
__________________
Jim R. |
||
![]() |
|
Friend of Warren
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 16,496
|
Having owned a '72E and now an '86 Carrera, from a maintenance stand point the '86 is just as easy to work on. I really don't think things became overly complicated until after '89, and except for the C4, even the later models are not that complex.
__________________
Kurt V No more Porsches, but a revolving number of motorcycles. |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
Why is it that everybody who owns an SC thinks that the SC is best. Take it from someone who owns both (me) The 69-73 cars are the most fun without question ! My SC (1982) was aquired for days that my early cars should not be driven (rain and snow) . Also its an easier car for the wife to get comfortable in . If you want my opinion there is no choice for you but an early car if its purpose is to be limited to racing and weekend cruising. If you want a everyday car thats suitable for a woman (if needed) get an SC or Carrera. BTW have any of you SC guys ever owned an early car ? Just wondering since your responces are so one sided. Also the SC is no hot rod either . And most body mods normally make the cars look like the 1980`s rejects. The early cars respond much nicer to body mods (duck tail, S bumper, Flares, etc ).
Come on scwdp bring on the artillary ! You guys got nothin but an overweight , underpowered , poorly air conditioned , stud snapping sled built for a dentist to enjoy . Early cars are only for those who respect what a true sports car is all about. Kurt Williams
__________________
Never drive faster than your gaurdian angel can fly. 82 SC w/965S eng and G50 6:1 hp/w ratio 72 911t 2.6 twin plug and 72' 911t 57k orig 1 own miles 65/66 912 1 owner 76k orig 01' Aston Martin DB7 V12 Vantage Coupe 6spd Last edited by pjv911; 03-23-2004 at 05:14 PM.. |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,638
|
Scott:
I think you will be fine with any 911 that passes a thorough PPI. They are all great cars. Fred: It gets frustrating to read posts that misrepresent Porshce's own performace data: 1980 911 SC, 0-60=7.0 1984 911 Carrera 3.2 0-60=5.6 That IS a significant difference. All 911's are awsome cars. SC's are exceptional even among 911s. But, stop the B.S. According to ALL factory figures and ALL automotive journals, the Carrera 3.2 represented a significant leap in performance for the 911 over the SC in every performance catagory. Mike |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,638
|
Kurt:
You are probably right. I wish I had an early 911. I would love my Carrera 3.2 to be even more raw and nimble. As a daily driver, however, I am pretty thrilled with my "cushy" commuter. Mike |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Beach
Posts: 29
|
The way I look at SC's and Carrera's is if you were shopping for a boxster, would you want the boxster or the boxster S.
or would you want a 911E or a 911S. Its kinda like the SC is the base model to the carrera 3.2. Better brakes Better tranny (87-89) Better motor.
__________________
Heritages dont win races, race cars do. |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
I cant believe the SCWDP has not stuck up for there mark. I guess they just have no defense to the facts .
Kurt Williams
__________________
Never drive faster than your gaurdian angel can fly. 82 SC w/965S eng and G50 6:1 hp/w ratio 72 911t 2.6 twin plug and 72' 911t 57k orig 1 own miles 65/66 912 1 owner 76k orig 01' Aston Martin DB7 V12 Vantage Coupe 6spd |
||
![]() |
|
drag racing the short bus
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Location, Location...
Posts: 21,983
|
Snore. I know where this thread is going. Snore.
Yes: early cars are fun. Yes: 2.7s properly sorted are great engines. Yes: SCs are probably the highest regarded Porsches of the 911 line. Yes: Carreras are faster - some say. YES: any Porsche is a good Porsche. But given everything, the SC is almost as light as a mid-year car, which is not much heavier than an early car. The SC is galvanized. It has a 3.0 - one of the better engines. Parts are abundant, etc. And that comes from someone who doesn't OWN an SC. Would I though? If my mid-year went south, I might consider one, unless arguments like this don't kill my enthusiasm for Porsches altogether. ![]()
__________________
The Terror of Tiny Town |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,638
|
dd74:
Some say? PORSCHE SAYS! Carreras 3.2s are not the "best" 911 ever produced. I just get sick of seeing fallacious posts by the SCWDP members and a select few non-SCWDP posters that seem to suffer from 3.2 envy. How much lighter do you think an SC is compared to a Carrera 3.2? They are basically the same car. Repeat Carrera 3.2s are not "THE BEST" 911s ever produced. But please cut out the: "My basically stock SC is faster than any Carrera 3.2" B.S. Mike |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
IF I were to sell my Carrera....I'd either buy a 993 OR a really nice early 911. Sorry SC dudes...
![]()
__________________
64 356C Cabriolet 85 Carrera Coupe...Walker-maintained...Wong-chipped 02 Yukon XL 2500 82 Vespa P200E 186,000 MPS.....not just a good idea....its the Law! "Too much of everything is just enough" |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Long Beach CA, the sewer by the sea.
Posts: 37,789
|
Scott, I was looking at 74-75 mid year cars when I found my S. I had a '77 for many years but sold it in '96. If your were to find a properly rebuilt 2.7 (they probably all have had some work done by now) in a decent car, you might still get it for less than 10K. How much less will depend on what it needs. To me, the easiest thing to rectify is interior.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of the mid year bumpers, but there are so many really cool looking substitutes out there that you could have a lot of fun choosing a look from RSR to 964. This might be my next project. |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
![]()
Momo3.whatever,
Yes, the numbers that you posted were probably correct in 1980/84, HOWEVER, my SC will do considerably better than 0-60 in 7 seconds and I personally have never encountered a 3.2 that would do it in under 6. Like I said, both the SC AND the Carrera are great cars, but for similar performance I'll take the less complex version, thank you. Besides, there is just something "right" about a 3.0/6!! ![]() Fred Cook '80 911SC coupe |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 12,662
|
Quote:
Amen, brother! Early cars rule. Seriously, if you have limited budget, a careful search for a well sorted 2.7L may be your best value.
__________________
Harry 1970 VW Sunroof Bus - "The Magic Bus" 1971 Jaguar XKE 2+2 V12 Coupe - {insert name here} 1973.5 911T Targa - "Smokey" 2020 MB E350 4Matic |
||
![]() |
|