Middle-age weight gain

Someone explain this to me. The 1973 911 had a factory weight of 2310 pounds. My specific 911 seems to have been ordered by a guy who tended toward the 'all hat and no cowboy' camp. He got the economy T edition, but with every option you could think of. My car is weighted down with power windows, power sunroof, factory air conditioning (with both front and rear condensers), front and rear sway bars, and even a pretty heavy stereo system. It tips the scales, now, with a full tank of gas, tools and the spare, at 2470 pounds.

But here's what I don't get. A 1997 Carrera 2 weighs in at a whopping 3014 pounds. Now, I know that the bigger engine in the C2 is about 100 pounds heavier than mine. But in this age of plastics, space-age alloys and carbon fiber, why does a power-everything, air conditioned C2 weigh 550 pounds more than my car? Mine comes from an era when computer design was unheard of and steel was cheap and brittle -- so you cast everything on the generous side and held it all together with sturdy steel fasteners.

It's like the modern, plastics-and-miracle-alloys car is having to pull itself, plus the extra hundred pounds for its bigger engine -- and also the weight of an entire 2.4 liter engine behind it in a wagon wherever it goes. And wait, there's more: even the wagon it's pulling has to be equipped with a set of lead-lined, 50-pound wheels!

That's a lot of fat for a product that a team of engineers are allegedly trying to make better, faster, and -- you would think -- lighter each year.

I'm grateful that my loaded-to-the-gills car is so light, by comparison, but what's all that weight on the later cars coming from?

------------------
---------------
Jack Olsen
1973 911 T sunroof coupe
http://members.rennlist.com/jackolsen/Jalopy.html


[This message has been edited by JackOlsen (edited 08-21-2000).]

My thoughts on what is heavy...

Impact protection and air bags, other safety stuff etc
Heavier engine and much heavier transmission (I think)
More exhaust components
Electric seats (I bet they are heavy!)
Bigger fuel tank?
Heavier wheels and tires (because they are wider)?

I bet generally there is more by way of chassis stiffening etc to handle the extra power too.

I dunno really, just guessing. I couldn's agree more about the lightness aspect though. Apart from the fact that they are pretty fragile I think it is very cool the way Lotus' are so light. The Elan and Europa are about 1600lbs - sweet!

Cam

------------------
Cameron Baudinet
1975 911S

The original '60's Lotus Elan that Mrs. Peale drove in The Avengers was only around 1350 lbs, so its' 96 hp was quite effective ... Miata's can only dream of being so agile!!!

Can't explain all of the weight gain on the 964's, but share your sentiments and concern, Jack! Was quite unimpressed by the similar mass of the 959, with all of the carbon fiber, etc. ... would have been much more impressed if it had been 1800-2000 lbs!!!

------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa

The newer cars are much quieter inside. Sound deadening can really add some weight. Also all the extra wiring puts on more lbs. Like you say the big motor,to push the extra weight,needs even bigger brakes and tires connected to a bigger suspension, at a substantial weight penalty. A pound here or there over the years ads up. I would still love to have one, I just can't afford it. Though for my invest in my spartan 72'T with its classic look and its capable performance has me smiling.

Yeah, I was referring to the later, more powerful S4 Elan and Europa Special. Also overestimated as it is closer to 1500lb (1540 for the Elan S4 Sprint, I just checked). Makes the P-car seem heavy, doesn't it?

Cam

------------------
Cameron Baudinet
1975 911S

it seems to me some things on the older car
could have been lighter also, my 70e hood
seems like it weighs a ton, for safety? the
horn ring on this car, and vent grills also.
mw window cranks are solid alum jobs with
what look like catapillar brodie knobs on end
these cant be stock.. hmmmm maybe time to put
my car on a diet.. anyone know what can realistically be ghosted, substituted,
lightened and still have a decent driver?

------------------
Bruce 1970 911E

All right, I did some quick research, and learned that most performance cars are on the chubby side these days. I made a list of them, and then added their horsepower to their foot-pounds of torque, and divided that sum by their weight, to generate my ad hoc Power to-Weight rating. I'll list the cars I thought of (including a few 911s) in descending order of maximum muscle and minimal mass:

.200 and Above: The Cars I Will Not Challenge on the Pacific Coast Highway[list=1][*] Dodge Viper GT2: 3450 pounds (460/500) P/W rating: .278[*] 996 Porsche 911 Turbo: 3400 pounds (415 /413) P/W rating: .244[*] Chevrolet Corvette Hardtop: 3153 pounds (345/345) P/W rating: .219 [*] Ferrari 456M GTA: 3900 pounds (436/406 ) P/W rating: .216[*] 996 Porsche 911 Carrera S: 2910 pounds (296/285) P/W rating: .200[/list=a]
.200 and Below: The Cars I Will Look Over at With a Mild Sneer on the P.C.H.[list=1][*] Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS: 3360 pounds (320/345) P/W rating: .198[*] My 1973/93 911 Transplant: 2600 pounds (270/230) P/W rating: .192[*] Ford Mustang Cobra SVT: 3413 pounds (320/317) P/W rating: .187[*] Porsche 1988 911 Turbo: 3055 pounds (282/289) P/W rating: .187[*] Porsche 1973 Carrera 2.7 RS : 2145 pounds (210/187) P/W rating: .185[*] Toyota Supra Turbo: 3505 pounds (320/315) P/W rating: .181[*] Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4: 3737 pounds (320 /315) P/W rating: .170[*] Acura NSX-T: 3066 pounds (290/224) P/W rating: .168[*] Porsche Boxster S: 2850 pounds (249/225) P/W rating: .166[*] BMW M3 Coupe: 3230 pounds (240/236) P/W rating: .147[*] Honda S2000: 2756 pounds (240/153) P/W rating: .143[*] Porsche 1983 911 SC 3.0: 2760 pounds (180/180) P/W rating: .130[*] Mazda Miata 1.8: 2299 pounds (140/119) P/W rating: .113[*] Audi TT Coupe Quattro: 3181 pounds (180/173) P/W rating: .110[/list=a]

Looking at this list makes me think there are factors that I must be missing. I know that an M3 is a difficult car to beat on a track, but it rates pretty low on this scale. It might be that weight should be privileged more in the equation.

------------------
---------------
Jack Olsen
1973 911 T sunroof coupe
http://members.rennlist.com/jackolsen/Jalopy.html



[This message has been edited by JackOlsen (edited 08-22-2000).]

Don't forget gearing and the torque curve.............The C5 'Vettes have extremely tall gears (can't use 6th). Put a 4:11 or 4:88 in the rear and instantly drop a second off the quarter mile with a usable 6th gear top speed above 150.

Weight should definitely be priveleged in the equation. Notwithstanding RarlyL8's excellent observation that gearing impacts acceleration, simple power to weight calculations are just indexes of the car's ability to accelerate (subject to gearing.

for a more complete performance index, weight alone MUST be given the greatest of respect. Regardless of torque and horsepower, a 3300 lb car will NEVER be able to get around a given corner as quickly as a 2300 lb car. Horsepower is nice in racing, but lightness is simply better.

A nicely set-up 1300 lb race car could probably go around an autocross track quicker with a lawnmower engine, than a Viper can. Certainly quicker than that Ferrari 456M. Wow, 2900 lbs! You might as well try to race the beloved 1956 Buick Roadmaster.

------------------
'83 SC

Superman is on to something with the lower-weight cars having quite an advantage at an autocross! I have seen old Formula Fords and Formula SuperVees with under 140 hp and mufflers than were never part of their design rules take top time of day on race tires, not squealing much, and not making much exhaust noise ... boring looking and sounding, just dusting-off all of the smoke and fury from full-race GT-350 Mustangs and ASR-Corvettes!!!

------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa

[This message has been edited by Early_S_Man (edited 08-22-2000).]

An auto-x is a low speed event with tight corners, almost too small for a conventional sized car. The one at our local airport is always dominated by a Formula 3000 powered with a 217ci aluminum V8. A 911 is about the largest "car" that can compete. When the Formula doesn't show up the day is taken by a 3.6L Weber powered '71 911 (this will be you, Jack). When the 914s show up the 'Vettes and Firebirds go home.

Concerning the weight of late 911's - this problem came to a head with the 964 and newer models. These cars suffer the same malady as the extinct 928 - too much luxury crap. Heated barco lounger electric 20 way seats, 400 lb wiring harnesses, steering wheel activated global positioning /CD/Phone/Officemates..........
Where is the "sport" in these sportscars?

Don't forget about your lil' cousin, the aircooled VW Beetle! Talk about potential for a SICK power to weight ratio - there's probably not a better example of the advantages of low weight in a production car. One of my favorite events is the Bug Nationals here in Seattle, where you get to watch old turbo Beetles get into the low 10's in the 1/4 mile, and just absolutely smoke all the newer heavier cars.

I agree with pretty much everything said above, but would add the following:

Crash protection - I can't prove it, but I'm almost sure that older 911s (although stiff and sturdy) are not as protective in a crash.

Electric ANYTHING is bad news - electric motors are always heavy, also the weight of the loom, battery, relays etc. No one component is at fault, but together you get a surprising incremental increase.

Believe it or not, Speakers are very heavy, as is anything air-conditioning related.

Fuel tanks have got bigger.

Someone already mentioned sound deadening...

Q = "What's the easiest way to lighten a 911 for AutoX or track events?"

A = Remove the rear seats! Or (more work) remove the passenger seat. Or (more work) remove both front seats and fit one "lightweight "racing" type seat...

If you can easily LIFT a standard 911 front seat by yourself, you're a far stronger man than I...

- roGER

PS: Racing 911s as delivered by the factory in the 1970s had NO UNDERSEAL (not recommended for more than 12 hours in New England) and had no coathooks on the "B" pillars, thus saving a precious 10 grams at most!

Did someone say autocross? I saw on article on Beck's new 904. You remember, the 550 Spyder guy. He's working on a 904 kit you can get on a tube frame or put it on a VW pan. I've never seen one of his kits but I'm curious to see how it comes out. Wouldn't it be a blast to find an old 4 cam with roller crank and put it in this car. Bobby

Those '70's race cars Roger referred to saved 100 lbs or so by deleting the undercoating and all sound deadening materials!

Regarding the plethora of electric motors in the post-'89 models ... I was horrified to read of the existance of 48 motors in one model, not sure if it was 964 or 993, but it was one of the wonders with the electrically-elevated spoiler!!! What is even more bothersome than the weight gain ... is the reliability factor degraded by the presence of all of those switches, relays, connectors, etc. required to operate and control those 48 motors!!! Talk to any technician these days, and you will find that the majority of complaints and problems with new cars are electrical in nature!!!

I can only count four motors from memory in my '73, and two of those are A/C related, the other two being the wipers, and the fuel pump! Even if you add one for the right fender oil cooler, can anyone justify more than SIX motors, including the sunroof???

------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa

One other weight factor is simple size. A 996 is over a foot longer and six inches wider than my 1973. Calculating crude square footage, that's an extra 13 square feet of car to pull around.

The thing that got me thinking about power, weight, and handling (aside from my car being in the shop and having too much time on my hands) was an article in Car and Driver. Two articles, actually:

http://www.caranddriver.com/FrameSet/0,1350,_sl_NewArticle_sl_0_cm_1633_cm_631_1_16_cm_ 00,00.html

http://www.caranddriver.com/FrameSet/0,1350,_sl_NewArticle_sl_0_cm_1633_cm_562_1_16_cm_ 00,00.html

Obviously, there's no easy way to come up with a simple formaula for track performance. The better way to sort things out is to put all the cars on the track. I'm no huge fan of the M3, but it may be the 911's most consistent rival.

------------------
---------------
Jack Olsen
1973 911 T sunroof coupe
http://members.rennlist.com/jackolsen/Jalopy.html



[This message has been edited by JackOlsen (edited 08-22-2000).]

I can attest to the lack of crash protection in the early 911. The first time my wife drove my '71 she parked in the garage and forgot to set the parking brake. Also left it in neutral. I now know that the garage floor is sloped ever so slightly toward the door, and after about 15 minutes the car rolled out, down the steep driveway, and crashed into our '98 Dodge Caravan minivan. The van suffered only a bent up license plate and a very small scratch in the plastic bumper, while the 911's right rear bumper was destroyed, driven about 3 inches forward into the rear tire.
I don't think the impact protection of modern cars can be done with lightweight materials, and I think that extra steel must add a good bit of the weight.

Bobby,

The 904 was never intended to use the 4-cam motor by its' designers, that was just the expedient solution to delays in 901 engine availability!

An RS 2.7 engine would be the ultimate 904-kit engine compartment occupant, and the logical successor to the 906/906E engine that was, in fact, raced in some factory entries in '65-'66!!!

------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa

I tried to think up all the little motors and pumps and gizmo's on my 964. So by quantity, I count at least the following:

4: 2 motors per seat
1: fresh air/recirc mixer
2: temp control left/right mixers
1: air flow control feet
1: air flow control windshield
1: blower for fresh air
1: wiper motor
1: a/c condenser fan
1: cool retractible spoiler
1: hot air blower by engine
2: power door locks
2: power windows
2: power mirrors
1: windshield washer pump
1: sunroof
1: That neat-o compressor for the spare tire.

That's 23 little motors that aren't directly related to driving the car. (OK, the wiper motor and windshield washer pump is important.) Throw in other pumps and otherwise electrically actuated devices and this number will continue to climb quite fast. And I don't even have headlight washers, rear wiper, full power seats, retractable antenna, etc. (Maybe they switched to an embedded windshield antenna to save weight?) I do think though that some of the power stuff is nice - for a daily driver - but I wouldn't try to sell it as a true sports car in its most pure form. I've owned a 78 SC and now my 91 C2. To me, they are both better in different arenas. An auto-x'er: probably the SC. A straight away shooter: most likely the C2. A daily driver: for my preferences, the C2. A pure sports car: yeah, the SC. Overall, IMHO, it doesn't make one better than the other - just suits each to different tastes.

But isn't it cool when that little spoiler goes up at 50mph?

Brian

My car has a fuel pump. I think that is it. No headlight washer, no wiper washer, no A/C, no electric seats, windows, locks, or sunroof. You would not believe the pile of crap I thru out when building this car. The only noise you hear is that wonderful engine (I thru out all insulation as well). One mechanic friend of mine told me I have the best running SCs he has seen. There is nothing special about the motor (smog crap gone, SSIs, sport muffler). The car is just light. Makes everything so much more responsive.