911SC V Ferrari 308gts review

[Aussie]

I don't know how many people have seen this article, but I just happen to stumble across it and thought some of you might be interested.

Its a road test comparing the 911sc V's the mighty Ferrari 308gts.

911 v Ferrari

[Wayne 962]

When the targa-roofed
911SC was introduced
to the Porsche 911 range
in 1973 it was the factory’s first new
cabriolet for a decade. It was a
spartan machine and featured a normally
aspirated 2.7 litre engine.

Gosh, that statement isn't even close to being correct...

Regardless, I own both of these (well, I used to have an SC), and the main difference I have found is in the power bands of the engines. The Ferrari seems to have limitless power on the top end and achieves maximum power in the 7000+ range. The 911SC has a torquey motor with lots of off-the-line jump. However, the relatively mild cams of the CIS motor cause it to loose the power on the top end. It's important to note, I'm comparing a carbureted '79 308 to a CIS 911SC. When Ferrari went to CIS in 1980, then power was down quite a bit.

-Wayne

[jluetjen]

How about comparing a carb'd 308 to a carb'd or MFI'd 911 rather then apples to oranges?

[livi]

Wayne,

Before deciding on the Carrera 85 I was contemplating the 308. I never got around to drive one but I am curious to the "feeling" compared to a Carrera/SC.

Could You give me some indication of the difference, subjectively, driving them.

I mean like -"When I am going for a drive I generally pick the Porsche/Ferrari because.......

Thanks,

Markus
Carrera 85

[Elombard]

I have the road and track comparo from the early 80s somewhere. I believe the 911 beat the 308 in every category except price :-)) I still love the 308 and someday I will have one.

[SC-targa]

Wayne, How's your 308 doing? Are you happy with it?

I don't remember hearing what happened after your little carb fire. I take it nothing untoward happened to the motor? I sort of remember that you were worried that it had ingessted some small carb parts.

Regards,

Jerry Kroeger

[kach22i]

Great, I just printed it out to share with a buddy of mine who owns a 1981 (mechanically fuel injected) 308GTS.

His car is worth three times what mine is, but they are both fun cars (when working right ).

[anthony]

This is not a well written article. I was confused at first but later figured out that when he mentions dollars he means Australian dollars. Now the values and maintenance figures make some sense.

The biggest downside to the 308 is maintenance costs. I know someone who bought one for $25K and then over 4-5 years had to put $15K into it to keep it running. You can buy three really nice SCs for that kind of money.

A friend had a 308 Dino when it was just brand new. The smog pump seized and fried the engine. The cam timing belt happens to turn the smog pump. Nice design! Fortunately the car was still under warranty at the time because the repair bill was astronomical.

[Yellowbird RS]

ok I 'm agree with the labor costs

[CarreraS2]

Didn't read the article, but I owned both a 308QV and an SC at the same time. Both CIS cars, although the 308 was a 4 valve.

I thought the SC was a better car in all regards. Faster, way, way, way better steering feel, better handling (being what, 800 lbs lighter gives the SC a big advantage), and just plain more fun to drive. Build quality and materials, too, were huge differences. The 911 is a top of the line car, and is built that way. The 308 is a bottom of the line car, built to a price, and it is built that way. The differences were pretty obvious. To anyone who enjoys working on the cars, that makes a big difference. The way things are put together, the way they come apart, the way they are built, etc. A very high quality car like a 911 is a joy to work on.

All in all, the 308 failed to live up to my childhood dreams. 911s, on the other hand, have never disappointed, and continue to inspire me.

(I'd not even begin to compare an SC or any 911 to a 2 valve CIS 308 - those things are absolute dogs).

[barlowdo]

When the targa-roofed
911SC was introduced
to the Porsche 911 range
in 1973 it was the factory’s first new
cabriolet for a decade. It was a
spartan machine and featured a normally
aspirated 2.7 litre engine.

Wayne, I hear you.

-Don B

[kach22i]

Originally posted by anthony
308 ............. $25K and then over 4-5 years had to put $15K into it to keep it running.

I've seen a few non-turbo SC's for @25K, lets call the average 17K for argument's sake, low being 12K.

At $2,500 being poured into the average old Porsche a year per five (5) years = $12,500 maintenance.

Porsche: 17K + 12.5K = 29.5K

Ferrari: 25K + 15K = 40.0K

Depending on luck, purchasing wisdom, doing the work yourself, or bending over for a shop to empty your wallet.........................it's the price of entry that seems to be the larger of the differences.

Then there is resale so is a Ferrari really an investment?

I'm also guessing that the second largest difference is that the Porsche over time will see at least double the miles put on it over the (poser?) Ferrari.

Should this cost comparison be based on miles and not time?

[Jgordon]

They do make some interesting assumptions - namely in terms of the suspension, where they say "how much suspension technology has improved over the last 20 years" without noting when the shocks and systems of the two cars were last refreshed/replaced.

[anthony]

Originally posted by kach22i
I've seen a few non-turbo SC's for @25K, lets call the average 17K for argument's sake, low being 12K.

At $2,500 being poured into the average old Porsche a year per five (5) years = $12,500 maintenance.

Porsche: 17K + 12.5K = 29.5K

Ferrari: 25K + 15K = 40.0K

$12K is no longer low for an SC. $8K is the low end now. I got my super clean 84K mile SC for that much and it only needed a couple thousand in deferred maintenance (shocks, tires, full service). $17K should buy one a low mileage, super clean, no problem, documented, service up-to-date SC. With a car like that most likely being a garage queen maintenance will likely cost maybe $500/year on average (excluding "upgrades").

[KobaltBlau]

Too bad SCs are like a saloon through the curves. hmm.

[porschenut]

Notice the cost of a 308 engine rebuild is nearly 3 times the cost of a 911 rebuild.

[jluetjen]

Here's a similar article from a few years down the road. It's amazing how not a whole lot changed.

[smestas]

This thread reminds me of a recent outing with a friend.

[KobaltBlau]

nice article john, thank you for posting that. The dynamics comparison is the most interesting part for me.

[jluetjen]

Reading between the lines (or maybe it's just reading!), it seems like the comparison goes like this...

Ferrari 3X8:
* Looks
* Top-end HP (or to put it different, it get's bigger HP numbers by spinning the engine faster)
* Handling Balance
* Exclusivity
* Did I say looks?

Porsche 911:
* Ease of living with
* Reliability and build quality
* Space and practicality
* Lighter weight (so the 911 performs comparably or better with less HP, tire, fuel, etc)
* Price
* (A feature never mentioned, 911's have won Daytona (Twice outright no less!), Le Mans, and just about everything else in sight. 308's and their derivatives on the other hand.... mere trackday toys! )

Looking at a carb'd 308, I wonder how it would hold up to a 911RS or maybe a European Mid-Year Carrera 2.7 (ie - with MFI). I know that Brooklands has a reprint available of a February 1974 Road and Track Article which was another Open Car Comparision with a 911 Targa, a Ferrari Dino 246 Spider as well as a Jag, Merc 450 SLP and a 'Vette. To make a long story short, "As sports cars, the Dino rates best and the Porsche slightly lower; both promise better-then-average reliability". The 911 was also just a fraction of a second behind the Dino until 90 above which the Dino started to stretch it's legs. The 911 on the other hand easily outstopped the Dino.

The catch? The 911 was a non-S model. Oh -- and it had a Sportomatic.

To this day, their positions vis-a-vis each other have remained. I'm sure that just about everyone has seen the Top Gear piece comparing the GT3 to a 360 CS (or whatever they call it). After a lap each with "Stig" ....

Wait for it!!!!

....their lap times were exactly the same. And the GT3 cost a lot less then the 360.

Just wait until the Ferrari board hears about this thread. They may be infultraiting us even as we speak...

PS: BTW, I always thought that 3X8's were cool, and the Dino 2x6's even better. But the numbers speak for themselves.