The driving characteristics of a 930 will depend entirely on any modifications that have been done,
A bone stock 930 has a late arriving on/off switch style boost onset with a low RPM redline. I've never driven a stock one on the track but these characteristics would make it a challenge.
Most modifications done to 930s improve driveability. Shorter gearing, cam swaps, turbo swaps, etc are all common. The result is a car that behaves like its N/A counterpart.
I can tell you that my Turbo with the 915 is as easy to drive in its power band as ANY normally aspirated 911. It will throttle steer and drift all day long. The only requirement is that you learn the boost threshold and then exploit it.

Funny how this thread quickly went from "why aren't turbos as popular as normals" to "this is why turbos are so much better than normals".

It may be that I'm doing the "low hp" 911 line, but I take 2 very tight, drifting out a bit towards the dunlop sign so I can angle in and hit the second apex, at which point I'm flat in 3rd. I also take a different line through 4 than most of the other cars I was behind...I don't go far up the hill and do a "V" turn, but rather stay kinda tight. do TTO to rotate the car, then go flat downhill tight on the 2nd apex, tracking out wide, then angling for an early entry into 5. Once I'm coming out of 5 I'm flat again until I feather a bit into 8 (yeah, I'm a wimp). At that point I was carrying about 110mph, sometimes pushing closer to 115. I still am trying to figure 9 out though...I'm not high enough in the rev range when I exit...I was at about 4800rpm in 4th, and I feel like I should be at least over 5K.

But that is a low hp line...it would be interesting to see how that changes with boost.

Funny how this thread quickly went from "why aren't turbos as popular as normals" to "this is why turbos are so much better than normals".
That is to bad is it not? I am sure it was a real question, I have not seen the answer , I am just as guilty because I am not really qualified to ans ewer the original question either. The only one who can would be the people who hot rod and race NA cars rather than turbo's. Turbo people are going to tell you why they like turbo's obviously. but we have not heard from the Jack Olsen's, who put the money and time into hot NA cars, and it was not to save money. There is a reason, what is it? :rolleyes:

From page 2

I think it is because many folks (including me) are scared off by the real or perceived additional maintenance/expense of the turbo. If cost was no object, I'd have a 993tt, maybe a 996tt, a Lambo Mucielago, etc. There is a similar situation between the BMW 750 (now 760) and the 740 (now 745). The turbo 911 and the BMW v12 are the ultimate of their respective models, but they don't sell fast as used cars and generally bring a lower percentage of their original PP on resale.

History.

Most Porsches - 911s - are normally aspirated cars.

The classics - the ones sought after and replicated now - are the 'backdated' 911s - the Turbos just aren't in favor right now.

Speaking of such, I wonder if 930s with their low production numbers and status as porsche's top performer of the 80s will create the kind of price appreciation a few years from now like that we have just seen for the RSes?

With less than 15K 930s made I could see that being the case.

I could see that. Trends come and go.....

Generally & simply put:

Ferraris etc were in in the 80s
Retro cars were in in the 90s
Muscle cars are in now

They go up....they go down. Sell high!:p

Actually, classic cars which are not victims of buying frenzies don't come down too much if at all. Witness the E-type, 300sl (which I still consider a bargain), Carrera RS, Autsin Healeys, or any vintage race Porsche. The Carrera RS never suffered majorly after the classic car crash or the early nineties that affected a lot of Italian cars. Neither did it affect the E-type or the other cars I mentioned. Sure, the sales slowed a bit and maybe they suffered a small correction, but nothing like the massive drops in sale prices of Italian cars. Of course, this will happen to whoever is buying a muscle car right now. Sad, but it will happen. At least those Ferraris were hand made, were much more limited in production, and were always exotic. That helps bring them back up. Most of the real serious Ferraris (Colombo V12, aluminum body, very low prodution, mille miglia eligibility) have already surpassed the high values of the late eighties.

Muscle cars could take a bigger hit and take much longer to bounce back after the day of reckoning. Simply because they don't have all the intrinsic values that Ferraris have. But as for those three I mentioned earlier, the Carrera has been rising slowly but surely. Same for the E-type, 300sl, Healeys, and most race Porsches from the eighties and earlier. Of course, if the world's economy goes into chaos, everything can be affected. But this is a far cry from the massive drops in values that happen when some item goes out of fashion or when buyers realize that pricing has gone insane. As for those first three cars I mentioned up top, I find them to be the Dow Jones of the classic car market. Why? They are limited, but not so much so which would affect the ability of a buyer finding one in a reasonable ammount of time. They are steady in price and follow the market as a whole instead of being part of trends. They are always present in some form or another in just about every major classic car auction. Any broker can find a good one for you. They have a worldwide market appeal instead of a national appeal. But most of all, no serious car collector has a collecton without at least one of those three. Follow their values and you will be following the sane end of the market as a whole.

So where does the 930 fit in. Well, it does not have an extremely high prodution number, but it does not have the low numbers or the RS either. It isn't just some old car. It is one extremely fast old car which can embarass any new exotic with only a couple of mods. Of course, mods affect value. But then again, there is no such thing as a stock 930. But it is an icon. An icon maybe more in line with the original Audi quattro in prodution numbers and other aspects. While I don't think it will ever keep up with the RS in appreciation, it should at least be a good value over the long term like every 911 is. And then maybe in a few years, start to keep up with inflation and then beat it. Also, I don't think that the 930 is overlooked at all. Just look at their values. They are still holding good like they have been for years. Only the basket cases have dipped in price. The thing about the 930 is that three out of four people who drive one, especially in modified form, must get one. The violent boost is like a drug. And the only dealer in town for a hit is the 930.

Well I think it is money!
To get the same reliability and instant throttle response Jack (or anybody else with a 3.6) has you need to invest a lot in a 930.
Right now 3.6 swaps are getting cheaper and you have a wonderful power plant that with a couple of tweaks (read cams, rods etc) can give you a lot of power, control and fun.

Now take a 930... To be far superior to a Vram 3.6 you need to change pistons, the intercooler, the turbo etc.
Look at Craig's 3.6 vs his new 930... The car are basically similar from a suspension/transmission point of view... then there is the power plant... The difference in price is $15k...

Is the new 930 superior to the old 3.6? Yes... But where? At the track of course... But not at any track... Take a short and slow track and the 3.6 will stay with the 930. Plus the 930 should be more of a handful to drive fast...

BTW Let's not forget that in 1975-76 the old 3.0 RSRs were still capable of spanking the new 934s in a couple of occasions.... :D

How about a C2 turbo swap into an earlier car? I never hear much about 965's; it's either 930's or 993TT's - was there problems inherent in the 965, or ????

Bingo! You got it.

I bought the 930 because:

They take a while to learn and are a challenge to drive quickly at a track day
They are damn quick, period.

930s aren't a member of the 'swap' family, so the enigne switch excitement isn't there. This does indeed take away some of the appeal -

If you are going to beef up the 3.6 (rods, pistons,cams and heads) to be competitive with a turbo and your argument is the cost savings....I don't see it. I have a 3.6 sitting in my garage now, and as I do the math, the added displacement is the only real advantage. A 3.6 N/A buildup is not necessarily a cheaper proposition.
Rick
'78 930

Craig 911 said:

"930s aren't a member of the 'swap' family, so the enigne switch excitement isn't there. This does indeed take away some of the appeal."

Craig! I disagree! You shouldn't start feeling any swap envy. You've got plenty. Your car has a swapped-in G-50 transmission (which is a big deal) and a later turbocharger. You've got swapped-in S4 brakes. Swapped-in 964 cams. Swapped-in RSR distributor What more do you want to swap?

I've had plenty of fun swapping stuff on my 930. I'm on my fourth turbocharger. Third clutch. Third intercooler. Third set of headers. Second transmission. Swapped-in 962 gears. I've got a Carrera manifold. 993 oil filter housing. The only original parts are the case, crank, rods and a few housings and cover plates. And they've been modified too. And I've only driven it 650 miles in the nearly four years of ownership! I feel no swap envy whatsoever. Addiction? Obsession? What's that? :-)

A stock 3.6 Vram will smoke a stock 930... I think there is no doubt here...

Any Vram will put beween 265-280 rwhp. The 3.3 turbo engine was rated at 287 HP at the crank.

I was just saying that it's expensive to modify a 930 to make a lot of reliable HP. So people that look into a 3.6 knowing that they can get 300-330hp at the crank quite easily.

I never said that a Vram is going to be competitive with a modified 930. In fact even to go up to 3.8 RS specs (a gain of probably 30-35hp) you'll end up paying a small fortune.

The question was why would anyone go the 3.6 route instead of 930. And for me it's because to a certain level a 3.6 is cheaper, more powerful and better on the track.

Can a 930 be better? Of course... just look at Randy Blaylocks (now Craig O'Brien's) 930... There is now way a 3.6 will be able to stay with that car... But performance comes with a price tag.

AHEM!!! SmileWavy :D
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1116296679.jpg

The only difference between a 911 and a 911 Turbo is that the Turbo owner is way may cool and can kick your a$$.

Even a stock turbo? You have to upgrade to the K27!

Mine was "stock" until I realized a bigger turbo, a bit more boost, and a better exhaust... :D

At the crank? And this is reasonable?

I gotta disagree that this is a reasonable expectation. My current 930 has modifications including GHL header & muffler, Andial fuel enrichment, K27 7200 and a Kokeln intercooler. And a 1 Bar spring. All for around $5K.

And that nets 389 HP at the rear wheel! With 425 ft-lbs of torque at 4400 rpm.

Now that's reasonable!

Amen brother.... you don't know what you are talking about (just do a search on this bbs to see what a 3.6 into a 911 will put out at the wheels) and I don't know what I am talking about.

I did not know that with 5k i could have had 100 extra ponies at the wheels and a huge amount of torque. To each his own.

Peace and have fun with your 930. They look great and kick ass.