Why is my SC more fun to drive?

[YermanCars]

Now, I have driven quite a few SC's and im not exactly agreeing here, yes the SC is more of a brut machine, but get some heavy stuff out of that carrera, throw a turbo on it, and we'll see which one is more fun to drive

[Sonic dB]

My stock 86 Carrera looks cooler than a stock SC, is more modern and reliable, no issues with broken head studs, Motronic controlled, and I sit lower in it than I would in an SC...

[juanbenae]

chris, the wife's carrera sure is pretty.

[speeder]

Originally posted by Sonic dB
My stock 86 Carrera looks cooler than a stock SC, is more modern and reliable, no issues with broken head studs, Motronic controlled, and I sit lower in it than I would in an SC...

3.2 Carreras most definitely break head studs. They are the same studs as on the SC, as the cars age we will see the same rate of failure I would think.

That said, I find the comments and perceptions here interesting; in reality a 3.2 motor has more torque than any SC, (unless something is wrong w/ it), every evolution of the 911 had more bottom-end torque than the one before it. If you doubt this, drive both cars next to each other in 2nd gear @ 2000 rpm and stand on them. The SC will not move much and the 3.2 will bolt. Doesn't make it a more fun sports car necessarily, but certainly more *drivability*.

My personal favorite of any of those cars would be a ROW 1984 Carrera w/ 231 factory HP, that is much, much closer to a 3.6 than it is to any SC, and the only extra weight over a 1983 SC would be the oil and tranny coolers and thicker front rotors. The '85 model started to gain weight w/ power seats, etc., and of course the G-50 cars are pigs.

I have spoken to Tyson about the performance and "feel" of these various cars, he says that of all of the cars that he drives on a semi-daily basis there is nothing slower than an out of sorts/out of tune 3.2. These motors are prone to bad sensors that affect mixture(?) and many owners are driving old Carreras that are slower than pig***** and don't even know it. (Lack of reference/comparison). When the 1984 Carrera came out it was almost a full second quicker from zero to 60 than the SC!! That my friends is an absolute slaughter in accelleration, but some how 20 years later many of them don't measure up. Get those Carreras in for their check-ups, guys. You might be driving a pig and not even know it.

[450knotOffice]

I agree with speeder.

I will also reiterate that weight, or lack thereof, in the front end seems to contribute greatly to the feel of the car. As an example, I recently drove three Carreras within 15 minutes - my '84, a friends '84, and another '88. Actually, we all swapped out cars.

My '84, which has been lightened considerably, had much lighter steering than the other two. It was surprising, really. I didn't expect that. The other guys commented on the same thing.

I suspect that SC's are a bit lighter in the nose area than stock Carreras which gives them a sportier feel.

[ubiquity0]

Alignment settings can affect steering feel alot. Are the SC & Carrera both aligned at factory specs?

[ckissick]

You want fun, try my 2100 lb 911E with a modified 3.0 that makes about 240 hp, and a 901 tranny. A newer car? Nah, I'm good.

[Sonic dB]

actually...the Carrera 3.2s only used the Dilavar studs on the exhaust side which makes them less prone to breaking. SCs used them all the way around which makes the probability more susceptible. Of course Carreras break the lower ones too...just not mine

I was watching this show on the Fine Living network...the segment was on "affordable Porsche ownership"...they took an SC out for a test drive with the shows host and a mechanic...the mechanic goes "uh oh..I hear something back there". He gets it up on the lift and a stud falls out... the good news is that a rebuild fixed the issue and the guy bought the car.

[speeder]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
Alignment settings can affect steering feel alot. Are the SC & Carrera both aligned at factory specs?

Good point. Worn suspension parts and alignment settings can have a huge negative effect on the way a car drives, (not just w/ 911s), all of these cars drove like a dream when they were new but some of them are a nightmare now.

[RickM]

Originally posted by telone2
I told my friend that my SC was not only more "fun" to drive , but quicker as well. I guess hauling all those"luxury" items around slows it down a bit. I love my Targa!!

"Perception" of fun and "Quickness" aside, if both are stock and in tune the SC is not faster in 0-60, 1/4 mile, 0-100 or 0-100-0.

...and hauling the extra reinforcement for your Targa doesn't exactly put it in the Lightweight class.

But believe what you'd like.

[Noel]

Originally posted by Sonic dB
actually...the Carrera 3.2s only used the Dilavar studs on the exhaust side which makes them less prone to breaking. SCs used them all the way around which makes the probability more susceptible. Of course Carreras break the lower ones too...just not mine

Actually, SC's also just used the Dilivar on the exhaust side. The intake side are steel. Only the Turbo's used Dilivar on the intake AND exhaust sides.

Headstud breakage are not just an issue with SC and Carreras, but also with the 3.6L engines in the 964 and 993.

[livi]

I fully appreciate Speeders view on favorite models.

I own a 85 Carrera ROW - in my case Sweden. I do have power seats etc, but I am only about 62 kg myself so we are a pretty light weight team together anyway. With 231 HP on tap I feel the Carrera is a pretty agile car.

At least when this darn winter eventually ends...

Markus
Carrera 85

[island911]

Originally posted by Adrian Thompson
From a non Porsche owning wannabe, this first comment is kind of strange. Most vehicles I've driven with K jetronic injection have worse throttle response than those with L Jetronic, why is the 911 different?

Thanks

Adrian

I base my comments (SC with better Throttle response) on driving a G50 Euro Carrera and my SC, back to back . . .and then running them on the dyno.

It's a sublte thing, but the Euro Carrera (with way more HP) does NOT jump as quickly as the SC.

I credit this to a few factors. First, The G50 is geared taller. (torque to the wheels is lessened.) Second, the Carrera, with cmptr-controlled fuel managemnt, is going to have a higher level of control and "ramping of the throttle" for emmisions purposes (a "chipped" motor is another topic)
Third, and minimally, is the added weight. As Speeder says, there's the increased car weight, as well as the (rotating inertia) increase of those chunks of steel called brake-rotors.

Side note; I have yet to come across a factory Carrera that can beat my factory old SC to 60mph (or so ) They are always dead even, unless driver error. So this "a full second quicker from zero to 60 than the SC"=BS; IMO.

I imagine the Carreras would start pulling away from the SC's at around 100+ mph . ..though I've yet to experience that. . . and, at that point, the Carrera drive can then also relax about over-rev'ing the engine, and the subsequent grenading from the pasta-rod-bolts. MUHAHAhahahaha. . ....

[speeder]

Originally posted by island911


Side note; I have yet to come across a factory Carrera that can beat my factory old SC to 60mph (or so ) They are always dead even, unless driver error. So this "a full second quicker from zero to 60 than the SC"=BS; IMO.

Well, this was according to factory literature, (conservative figures), and every single auto magazine at the time. (Some wild-ass figures). You have to remember, in the year 2005 an SC w/ SSI/backdated exhaust, and in my case different cams was more than a match for most stock Carreras. Especially when most are not running *right*. Remember when we drove that Euro 3.2 down here? My SC would have beat that car 0-60. But that car was not doing sub-6 second 0-60 like it did when it was brand new, not by a long shot. Give me that car, (the Carrera), and a little tuning budget + some quality time w/ Tyson and Steve Wong and it would walk all over any 3.0 CIS car. End of story.

[Ed Bighi]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
BA's advice on buying a 911 is flat out wrong. Instead, he should've said determine the era of 911 that best matches your interests for 911 ownership, and then find the best example you can afford. I've driven all but the mid-year cars and my feeling is that the early cars are the most fun, followed by the SC's. Apologies to the mid-year car owners since I lack that experience.

I agree on what you said about BA. Now my belief is to buy the earliest car in the best condition that you can find since time isn't on your side when it comes to scarcity. After all, 911S's will never become more plentiful. As for my SC against my G50 Carrera, it's far from a fair fight being that the SC is on the light side with no interior and all. But my sister drives an 84 Carrera targa that feels way faster than my G50 coupe.

[island911]

So Denis, your say'n that the Carreras are tough to keep running right ? I suppose that you're right . . the 3.0 CIS motor IS one tough combo to beat.

oh, and, "factory (sales?) literature" Yeah, the mag's at the time had SC and Carrera, 0-60 times overlaping quite a bit.

[donstevens]

I have had an SC but not a Carrera. I can understand why people love the SC but from my perspective I think the Carerra is a much better track car. I was bummed that my SC would bog down at High RPMs. The Carerra motor is much better on the top of the rev band in any gear.

I have a buddy who had a 3.2 in a 72 race car. He had a chip, headers, and a k&N intake but the rest of the engine was box stock. We had a ball in that car and it was plenty fast (about 155 at Daytona)

Don

SC is easier to spell.

[island911]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
My SC is a lot more fun to drive than my Ford truck!

NoWAY man . . .that CAN'T be . . .your Ford has WAY more torque & HP than an SC.

[speeder]

They're both cool cars. When the SC first came out it gave me wood like only an 18 yr. old Porsche-lover can get when a new model comes out. When the Carrera was introduced, same thing. 24 yr. old wood. When the 997 was introduced? Oh, never mind.