2.0, .2.2 or 2.4?

I guess the question is pretty self-explanatory... I am partial to the 2.2 myself, I don't know what it is about the 70 and 71 911. As a side note, thanks to all of you for putting up with the "newbie" and potential buyers like myself. It really is good to know that if one wants to jump into the realm of 911's the people are a real class act.

------------------
--Jason Liso

Thanks appreciate it...

I'm sorry no-one answered your question, but I for one am not sure what your question IS. Could you clarify? If you are wondering about which year, then I'd say the 72 or 73 would be best. There really isn't anything better about a 70-71 over a 73-73 except if you like the 901 transaxle with the odd shift pattern. Beyond that, visually they are pretty much identical. The 73 had blach horn grills and lens surrounds which I prefer but I like the oil tank location of the 72. It's behind the pass. door in front of the wheel well like the 67 911R, 959, and 993. The latter of which doesn't have the external filler. A lot of people prefer the shifting smoothness of the 901 over the 915 as it had first and second gear synchros that were the same size as 3rd-5th. The 915 had larger 1st and 2nd gear synchros that are stronger but a little more balky at slow speeds. The 72-73 had a few other improvements as well that are too numerous to mention here but a notable one is the addition of side impact door beams as of the 73 model year. Just my dos pesetas.

------------------
Tyson Schmidt
72 911 Cabriolet

I had a 2.2 in my 73 (the result of a P.O.'s transplant), and it was a nice engine to drive. But it seems like a stretch to imagine tbat there'd be a really appreciable difference between the 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4, other than that the power steadily increased and the characteristics of the fuel delivery systems changed. A more meaningful difference could probably be found between the T, E (or L) and S versions of these engines, with the cam, compression, and other changes.

Still, I've only ever driven the one example of the one engine. Some guys here have driven all three, I'm sure.

------------------
Jack Olsen
1973 911 T (3.6) sunroof coupe

Sorry guys I didn't mean to sound like a smart a**. I didn't think anyone would respond anyway. I'm sorry, my question is, which years are the best between 70 and 73? I have read "The Used 911 Story" and the author swears by the 70-71, claiming they are a 9 out of a scale of 10. He also claims that the 72T is one of the worst years you can get. I know this is only one book, but I have read several and am struggling to find the right Porsche for me. I am really doing my homework, however I haven't read a book except for the above-mentioned that really critiques the different models. Most other books are just history only claiming to stay away from the 2.7 Also, pre-72 the "gear pattern" was different right?, i.e, to get into first gear you need to move the stick down to the right as opposed to up and to the right. I have driven many different cars from a 75, to a 73, to a 78 SC which drove like a piece of junk (because it was). Any info would be greatly appreciated.

------------------
--Jason Liso

[This message has been edited by Liso (edited 12-31-2000).]

Umm, Jason, first gear... that would be to the left....

As to early 911, they are fine if kept up or rebuilt. Hard to find an original kept up one that is not big bucks. For the same amount of money (vs a restored 70s 911) you can get a nice SC...I have an 83 and love it. The 3.0 is a great improvement over the earlier 2.7s....

Just my $.02.

I think anyone who's trying to find important differences between the 1970 and 1973 models is -- apart from issues relating to the 901 transaxle -- splitting hairs. The cars generally continued to improve incrementally, until American legislation threw Porsche a major curveball in 1974.

I love the 73s, but the only overriding reasons I can see for buying one are the nimble handling, light weight and the more classic looks of the chrome trim and early-style bumpers. In the same price range, an SC probably gives you more practical bang for your 911 buck. The 3.0 is a great engine, and the cars were a little wider in the hips (which I think looks better), and -- perhaps most importantly -- the bodies of the later cars were galvanized, which in most parts of this great land means that you're not going to be spending your time welding in new body parts as the old ones continue to rot away.

That said, I think that there were two defining and all-around best-in-class 911s. Those would be the 911 Carrera RS from 1973 and then the (Varioram) 993 Coupe, especially in its widebody incarnations (2S, 4S and Turbo). For me, Porsche hit a home run with both of these designs, both in performance and looks. Each has a different set of virtues, but both -- I resolve (since it's New Year's) -- will one day find a place in this driver's garage.

But if I was being kept on a reasonable budget, and was looking for a reliable, moderatley-priced 911, right now -- then an SC would be the safest choice.

------------------
Jack Olsen
1973 911 T (3.6) sunroof coupe

Jason -

What are you going to use the car for? A weekend fun machine, a race car, a daily driver?

The 2.0 and 2.2 engines (E and S at least) are screamers -- there's nothing else quite like them. They sing to you at high revs. But they have very little torque below 4K rpm's or so. And they do have that 901 tranny which I an a lot of other folks happen to like but some don't. They are OLD, fussy, smelly, and loud machines. I love 'em

For a daily driver I'd have to say a nice non-rusty 2.4T (maybe even the 73 1/2 CIS car) is a good choice. Not as high-strung and more grunt down low for street driving. This is assuming you are really stuck on an early car -- otherwise a 3.0 SC or 3.2 Carrera is a much more 'modern' car and definately a more practical choice for commuting. The price diff for a clean car is not much as MikeZ pointed out. The SC's are becoming very affordable.

For an all-out screamer go for the 72 or 73 2.4S. But keep in mind that a nice example of one of these will probably be $20K+

Jason-

"The Used 911 Story" is very subjective in regards to its ratings. Not recommending the 1972 model because the mainshaft seal is not replaceable from the outside is a bit harsh. This seal will be replaced when you rebuild the transmission, and if the mainshaft is straight the seal will last until the next time a rebuild is necessary.
Also, this seal placement did not change until after March 1973 production, so the first 2/3 of 1973s have the same transmission seal placement as the 1972s. As to downgrading the US 1972 T because it changed from carbs to MFI, well - thats like saying you'd rather have less power and a less sophisticated fuel delivery system, because carbs are easier to adjust. An early 911 with properly functioning MFI is a thrill to drive. Reportedly, the 2.2 S cars have the best sound, but like the 2.4 S need to be kept on cam. If I were looking for a early 911 daily driver that was easy to work on I'd opt for a late 1973 T with CIS, but if I wanted a daily driver which would also scream. I go for a 72 or 73 E with MFI.

Randy

Randy (and everyone else), thanks for the response. I haven't really looked at the book objectively. You make some very good points. I love the look of the pre-74 911's. My next question is how can one tell if a 73 is a CIS or not? I drove one in Fullerton, CA where I live (about 23mi, southwest of LA) and it drove like a dream, except it needed a little interior work. Are there any tell-tale signs that a 73 has CIS? If I can't find a nice early example I think the SC's are good fit for me both with budget and performance, etc.

------------------
--Jason Liso

Your welcome...The 1973 1/2 911T with CIS has an airbox arrangement on top of the engine with rubber straps holding the top lid on - similar to US 74 - 78 models and the 911SC. You can consult the excellent book "Original Porsche 911" by Peter Morgan for photos.

Randy

I have a 78SC I love. Runs great. But I am in California. If I was going to get my first P car, I would look for a 70 to 73 with an upgraded 3.0 or 3.2, or even 3.6 and a 915 tranny. This way you get the lighter car, more stock horsepower and you do not have to worry about smog. (I believe you stated in a previous thread you were in California.) Unless you are planning on keeping the car stock with matching numbers all around, of course. But then again I am not familar with factory set ups on pre-78 P cars and my opinion is based merely on engine performance and avoiding smog. My 78 will have to be smogged until 2008 until I can really get into cam changes and similar modifications.
-------------------------
Paul
78SC Targa

There's an interesting sounding 73T for sale on the rennlist board. I think it was just posted so it will be on the first page.

Jeff C
81 SC

In the early seventies I had a 69 911S that I dearly loved until someone talked me out of for way over market. At that time, many said that the 69 911S was the pinnacle of performance. I think that was because it was smoother and quicker responding at higher rpms than the 2.2 or 2.4. I was never able to compare. Anybody out there know why the 2.0 held favor for those few years?

Dan,

I guess reviewing Paul Frere's Porsche 911 Story would give some clues to those not familiar with the evolution of the 911S model from '67 thru '73. Simply put, the '69 911S was the epitome of the high-compression, high-revving 'S' engine in the lightest body! The 2.2S engine added a bit of quickness because of torque, but no more top end, just managing to keep up with more weight for electric windows, air conditioning, and electric sunroof options that tended to be added on by dealers that were ordering the cars rather than customers. The 2.4S was meerly the factory's way of keeping the status quo because of smog and safety laws. If there was/is any lack of 'quickness' or responsiveness of the 2.4S engine, it isn't reflected by the test numbers from Frere or any other source I know of, but the lower compression, retarded spark at idle, and pre-heated air filter inlet had to have some effect! Certainly on the 'potential' that the 2.4S engine would have been without them, to say the least!

Ultimately, specification-wise, the '73 RS 2.7 was nothing more than the end-of-the-line for the 'S' model, even though most journalists have treated it as a one-off aberration! The end of the 'S-cammed' engines in the limited-production RS 3.0 was truly the last, death-knell for 'S' model, even though the factory hung the label on mid-level models with no specific engine uniqueness, through the '77 models! That few people and average first-time customers had ever seen or driven 'original 911S' examples, and certainly none of the RS models, meant that the watered-down, overheated 2.7's had nothing for comparison to.

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

Warren:

So does that mean if you jettison the smog stuff and luxury junk, retime the 2.2 or 2.4. you get a faster S? What if I do the same to my 80 Euro SC and change the induction system and put in S cams? Would I get back the flavor of the early S in a faster package?

Speaking as a 1973.5 "T" present owner and prior owner of a 1979 SC, and 1974 911, the SC's are better Hands Down! Although the 73.5 has all the refinements of that earlier body style, interior and some engine management(CIS)it's by no means a rocket going down the road. I often wonder during the era of muscle cars (GTO, 442, 396 Chevelle, Nova Super Sport, etc. how the 1973 faired against these gas eating monsters. I know with my SC I took on a new Vette and did a good job staying ahead.
Unfortunately, the 2.4 just does not have the punch nor the top end to stay well ahead of the Japanese production cars or even a GTI for that matter. Its nice cruising down the boulevard being admired but on the open road does not cut the mustard. I am not knocking Porsches here guys, rather I have been a Porsche driveer for two decades, but I have to admit as neat as this restored classic is I am feeling more compelled each day to swap it out for an SC and gain back that "punch" again. I always felt the SC was the best of the breed. Trades always welcome.

BR
'73T

I drive a 1970 911T everyday. I don't think the lack of torque at low rpms is an issue. On my way to work I am usually not trying to post new 0-60 records or race any other cars. And when i need to move in a hurry a good shove of the gas petal gives me enough acceleration. Things really start to get interesting above 4500 rpm. I love the cleaner early styling and the lighter weight. The car has been incredibly reliable on my 40 mile per day round trip over the dumbarton from the east bay to palo alto. I lucked out and found a totally original car which was given good care by its one lady owner.

karl

Dan,

There isn't much to be done to a 2.2S engine ... they have no smog controls, and already have 9.8:1 forged slipper-skirt Mahles, ported heads, a GE-60 or GE-80 set of cams, or sport exhaust is about all that is left to do!

The 2.4S could benefit from JE 9.5:1 pistons, elimination of the vacuum retard, sport exhaust, porting heads, and some of Jerry Woods' cams, but most folks just opt for the 2.7 option! The Andial 2.9 and 3.0 piston/cylinder upgrade sets are good for quite a few ponies, but cubic $$$ are required for that route!

Your SC would definitely 'wake up' if you put 'S' or Jerry Woods' cams, Webers or TMW injection, and SSI exhaust on it! Those engine changes and transaxle changes to a 7:31 ring & pinion would get you to 155 mph pretty quickly!!! Nothing magical about thAt number, but that is what Paul Frere got out of an RS 3.0 in July 1974!
------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa

[This message has been edited by Early_S_Man (edited 01-02-2001).]

Warren:

I've got to admit that to achieve those numbers its not much of an outlay buckwise. That would be pretty cheap hp and performance in a very respectable range. Probably a lot smarter than the 3.3 Turbo I'm refreshing to put in the SC. Perhaps, I might even be happier with the more linear thrust and the peakiness of the S cams. Hmmm. a 79SC with the characteristics of the old S that I loved.