1970 vs 1981

[ed bates]

How much faster is a 1981 SC 3.0 vs. 1970 911 T 2.4.....Is the drive day and night. Is the performace close?????

[jtkkz]

Hello
A stock 1970 911T comes with a 2.2 , much slower than a stock '81 SC with 3.0 motor.

A 1981 SC 3.0 will drive much nicer since it is newer and also faster than a stock 1970 with a 2.2 , unless of course the 1970 is modified with a bigger motor.

The transmission is different as well, the 911's before 1972 uses a 901 trans. 1st gear is down to the left.

In 1972 till 1986 (correct me If I am worng?) uses a 915 with a standard "H" pattern shifter. I think the 915 is a much nicer trans.

In 1987 on uses a G50 even better transmission, not sure when they stop using the G50, or do they still use it.

Some people like the 901 trans.

Hope this helps

[addictionMS]

the 911t will drive lighter and more tossable, the SC will feel more solid to the road.

Jim

[Shuie]

There is only one rational thing to do in this situation. Put the SC motor in the '70T

[chuckw951]

Originally posted by Shuie
There is only one rational thing to do in this situation. Put the SC motor in the '70T

Here, here!

[jluetjen]

Try and take a test drive in each and then make up your own mind. To me, 911's all tend to drive the same -- it's the nuances which are different. The earlier cars are lighter and livelier. The later cars have more features and better bumpers and side intrusion protection -- which means weight.

I doubt that you'll feel that the T is much slower without a side-by-side comparison. If you want more of a rush, try to get a test drive in an early E or S. The feeling when they come "on cam" at 4000 and above makes the latter SC's and Carrera's seem positively pedistrian by comparison.

To me weight is evil!

[ubiquity0]

I have to disagree with this I've driven several T's & they've all felt waaaaay slower than my SC. They're still a ton of fun. But they are not fast. They do sound faster though.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
I have to disagree with this I've driven several T's & they've all felt waaaaay slower than my SC. They're still a ton of fun. But they are not fast. They do sound faster though.

Care to compare your SC with a 2.4 S?

[jgporsche]

I have a 73 911S with MSD & Weber’s & 88 911 with a chip and modified exhaust. The 3.2 is faster off the line, stronger in the mid and a lot more on the top end. I barely even drive my 911S. Just not as much fun.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by jgporsche
I have a 73 911S with MSD & Weber’s & 88 911 with a chip and modified exhaust. The 3.2 is faster off the line, stronger in the mid and a lot more on the top end. I barely even drive my 911S. Just not as much fun.

Give that old beater to me

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by pwd72s
Care to compare your SC with a 2.4 S?

I'd take a 2.4S over my SC any day. How about a long term swap?

[Westy]

Ed, you're starting the $hit again!! Buy the SC and go cruise. Remember the rust!!

[vash]

hey, any of you guys ever notice that you never really see fenderguy and ed bates together in the same room???.....hmmm....coincidence?

happy shopping ed!

[72doug2,2S]

Transplant to the early car or, buy the SC and back date it to the early style. Best of looks, rust resistence, and longer lasting engine.

I personally had both the 72T 2,2S and an 80SC on my mind before I bought one. I test drove both and felt the SC was heavy and unresponsive. The 2,2S with MFI is a rocket.

But, in the end it was actual driving experience over the numbers and reliability that moved me to the earlier 911 with S engine.

[Victor]

Originally posted by unfixed
hey, any of you guys ever notice that you never really see fenderguy and ed bates together in the same room???.....hmmm....coincidence?

happy shopping ed!

Same deal with nocash or needcash or whatever his name is/was.

[ed bates]

Unfixed thats jacked........

I am not the Fenderguy, I don't like P-cars with V8 conversions.......

[zotman72]

Well I am blessed to own one of both types. I enjoy either car but they are worlds apart in character IMHO. My 72T with its 2.4S MFI power plant is hoot to drive but is a gas pig. My SC pimpmobile is a great daily driver for which I even bought a CD stereo for it. Guess which one I drive daily unless the weather is bad. Unfortunately it is the SC. However the T goes to the track where it rocks compared to the SC. No question, my modded T is a faster car.
HTH.

[Alan.UK]

Sometimes I think its not about the actual speed but the how that speed feels, and for me when the S comes on cam, you can not help but smile.

BUT, I also love what can be done with the SC motor. I will soon by fitting a short stroke 3.2 in 71 shell soon, based on a 78/79 SC motor with S grind cams and webers.... that should also raise a smile or two.

Alan.UK

[Early_S_Man]

Actually, Paul, an SC would have trouble staying ahead of a 2.4 911T ... if the numbers in the '72 test I posted in the following thread are any indication ... 0 - 60 mph in 6.9 sec, and top speed of 125 mph for the 'T' ... an SC only has an advantage of 10 mph at the top end ...

Advice on Sports Car to buy

[Superman]

I was just recently noticing that the 0-60 time listed in my owner's manual says 6.7 seconds. I suspect that an SC can keep ahead of a 2.4T. With the broader power band of the 20/21 cams I am using, I'm fairly confident that my car can hold its own compared to the 2.4T.

But I am just as confident that, on a reoad course, the lighter weight of the early cars would clobber my 2600-lb car. And as for comparing the performance of an early-S car versus an SC, well, let's just say I'd better bring my sense of humor and sportsmanship. I'd be proud to gracefully accept a butt-kicking from one of those cars. I am told that, without a doubt, the sound of an early S car screaming up past 7000 rpm will raise the hair on the back of your neck.