SWB versus LWB

[cjameson]

Hi guys, I posted this message in the 912 forum, but I'm reposting it here because I think it will see more traffic.

I've read in some previous posts that the SWB cars can be "dangerous" at high speeds, is this true? If so, can anything be done to make them "safer"? example: wider tires, stiffer suspension, spoiler? Thanks

Charles

[RWebb]

They are much more likely to spin. That makes them great for AutoX but not so much for most drivers on the track or street ESPECIALLY in the rain or if you hit a water puddle.

The factory tamed the cars by changes to the F suspension and by making them into LWB cars. You could do the same... if suitably motivated.

You could also change the tire widths, pressures, sway-bars, etc -- all the things one does to alter under- vs. over-steer.

[livi]

But then that is part of the charm. Driven with care they generate a drivers quality that is hard to replicate with the newer, more stable and 'safe' models. A lot of fun even at very modest speed, where many younger cars just feel boring and frustrating.

[304065]

Charles, are you a plaintiffs lawyer? "Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove design defects in products liability cases."

Humor aside, much has been written in the intervening 40 or so years about the handling characteristics of the Short Wheelbase cars.

ALL 911s will exhibit terminal oversteer in some form or other. This is an inescapable reality of having the mass of the engine aft of the rear axle. But remember two very important facts about the "oversteer" scare-- first, the car was riding on 165/15 tires, which made the limit of lateral adhesion very low indeed. Second, Ralph Nader published Unsafe at Any Speed in 1965, the year of the 911's volume introduction. It was natural that Porsche would seek to make remedial changes, which consisted of, in no particular order:

Cast iron weights in the front bumpers to increase polar moment
Wider track
Wider wheels, fist to 5.5 and then six inches
Larger front antiroll bar (the stock one from a '66 is a 13mm pencil)
TWO batteries at far corners of engine compartment
Flared fenders
Longer wheelbase
Still wider track and wider rear tires (Carrera RS)
Aerodynamic modifications to reduce rear lift (Ducktail)
Safety bumpers and huge battery in front corner of trunk lid
Carrera tail, which evolved into the Whale Tail and matching chin spoiler
964 compliant bushings for toe correction
993 rear suspension
996 Multilink.

Every item in that list is an attempt to tame the handling characteristics of the fundamental design. It was truly said that the "911 is a triumph of development over engineering."

Dangerous? Rusty cars that are 41 years old with worn-out ball joints, suspension bushings, chassis rot above the mounting points for the front control arms, rotten torsion bar tubes, years of well-meaning but not-original "updates" and neglect in the Big 80's when so many SWB cars got 959 pimpmobile fiberglass body kits-- well, that's dangerous. That also describes the majority of the unrestored SWB cars.

All that said, I really enjoy the handling of my '66, albeit with modern 205-series tires on 6" Fuchs. When the restoration is complete it will include invisible but helpful updates like a larger front ARB and slightly wider steelies for the street. Among SWB owners, the consensus was that the switch from 165 skinnies had a great impact on the handling.

That said, it's a 911: it's never leaving the road pointing forward. One has to learn its idiosyncrasies and respect the envelope, which is true of any car, but particularly important in a car that will spin if you lift off. It requires a trained suspension of the self-preservation instinct to feel the car get loose on the race track and push your right foot down. But that has been at the core of the 911's success on road and track for the four decades since its introduction.

[cjameson]

John, you hit the nail on the head, I just can't seem to shake that idea, as you put it so eloquently:

"Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove design defects in products liability cases."

Is that a bad frame of mind?

I guess that deep down, at the root, my question could be summarized like this:

Putting on hold purchasing influences such as looks, price, collectability, autocross/racing usage, and just considering plain old everyday use, rain or shine, do you think there are owners, and you may be one, that given the choice would opt for a SWB car over a LWB car?

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by cjameson

John, you hit the nail on the head, I just can't seem to shake that idea, as you put it so eloquently:

"Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove design defects in products liability cases."

Is that a bad frame of mind?

I guess that deep down, at the root, my question could be summarized like this:

Putting on hold purchasing influences such as looks, price, collectability, autocross/racing usage, and just considering plain old everyday use, rain or shine, do you think there are owners, and you may be one, that given the choice would opt for a SWB car over a LWB car?

I faced this choice about 5 years ago. I started with a '67 912 that was creamed by a school bus 6 weeks after I got it. I moved to a '73 LWB due to parts availablilty.

I have not looked back.

[304065]

Charles, it's an aesthetic and historic decision. The SWB design is Butzi's original creation, slab sides, lots of chrome, skinny tires set way in from the fender lips, wooden dash (64-66), low back seats with chrome recliners, green gauges with chrome bezels, etc. The reason they are so cool is they represent the purity of the original shape before it started getting flared and becoming a German hot rod.

As I have said a few times here and on Early S, people who buy SWB cars don't do it for the big tires and huge horsepower-- they do it because the car is a rolling time machine, a throwback to the early days of the world's greatest sports car, developed because the pushrod four-cylinder was just too slow to dominate the autobahn, and the four-cam was just too expensive and complicated to allow the volume to ramp. The SWB car is the missing link between modern and ancient Porsches, and as such, occupies a special place in the Company's history.

All that said, many, many parts are No Longer Available (NLA) and CORRECT parts are specific to the 64-68 series. The fact that parts from a '97 993 will fit without modification on a '64 911 doesn't help the situation much, because it contributes to the loss of originality. Functionality, yes, allowing you to still enjoy the car, but originality lost forever. What I'm driving at is that to restore and enjoy an SWB car requires a commitment to originality that will be tested frequently because it's so tempting to use later parts-- but anything other than purist originality is DESTROYING VALUE. And I don't just mean value from an economic standpoint, although that's not insignificant considering the premium a correctly done SWB car can command. What I mean is aesthetic value-- flaring the fenders to accomodate wider tires is destroying the aesthetic value and sense of time warp I mentioned in the first paragraph.

You know how Bruce Anderson says, "Buy the newest Porsche you can afford- each model has been an improvement over the previous one?" I say, "Buy the OLDEST Porsche you can afford- each model has been an evolution away from the original."

But then I also measure to the thousandth of a milimeter and actually CARE whether my bolts are silver cad or gold zinc, so take it with a grain of salt (just not on the roads).

[loke]

hey charles,

there's heaps of 911s out there and no matter which you elect to take on, you will likely be thrilled and satisfied with your choice. i have a swb and no, i don't take it on the track or drive it like a madman. as a result, i'm not accustomed to careening around town backwards, wishing my car was longer. regarding the oft-overemphasized wheel base modification in 1969; my hunch is that 90% of the drivers out there would be very hardpressed indeed to pinpoint the handling differences that those 2 odd inches made. i can feel tempers flaring, but that's my hunch.

for me, the experience of the car is not something i look for in redlined driving. i am moved by the car, before its even running. the low seat, spartan interior and looming fenders are thrilling to me. the tucked in lines, sweeping haunches and tapered aspect of the car, breathes speed even at rest. the pre-69 cars are like minimalist art and most people are maximalist. sometimes knowing what you don't want helps to see what you do. i agree with the retrospective approach suggested earlier: when it comes to the aesthetics of the 911, the further you go back, the less fat is hanging on. the early cars are super lean and almost austere. to my eye, they are the purest form the car has ever taken.

[RWebb]

opt for a SWB car over a LWB car?

I'll make this short and simple. Yes, of course! Spinning in circles is FUN!

[Richard Burns]

It does not matter if you have a SWB or LWB if you cock up the way you drive it you will be in the s**t.

[rgrimm]

I've had my '68 for 14 years...most of those with the original 5.5x15 chromed steelies and 165-R15s.

A "ton" of fun. The only time I was really spooked was driving at about 75 with a crosswind and hitting a sudden downpour Other than that, wonderfully tossable (and no, it's never left the road--just pays to have a healthy respect for what it "could" do).

That said, my set of 5.5x14 Fuchs with 185-70s changed the car considerably, and most of the SWB owners I know--even those with cars they "show" with original chromed steelies--have another set of wheels shod with 185 or 195 rubber. I personally find the look a little odd, but you can't beat it for serious driving.

If you have a chance at a SWB car, go for it!

[cjameson]

I love the responses guys, it really helps to hear all this, keep it coming....

[JCF]

Originally Posted by john_cramer

Charles, it's an aesthetic and historic decision.

But then I also measure to the thousandth of a milimeter and actually CARE whether my bolts are silver cad or gold zinc, so take it with a grain of salt (just not on the roads).

You know John, you are really quite mad.
In a good sort of way.

I agree with the aesthetic and historic parameters.

Let's face it, if what you are after is performance no matter what it is you do to these early cars (outside of intensive driver training and a big engine swap) you will find later models going by you.
And it would have cost them less money to get them there.

That said, a stock early 911 is probably more fun to drive, esp on the street than any later model due to the more naked connection between the driver and the car and the road. Speed is not a big issue on a winding road (shared with other traffic).
And the SWB, being the rawest is prob the most fun.
You can never get bored with one on narrow tires - and if you are give it a bit more gas and you soon won't be.
When I think I am starting to master my car I switch from 195's on 6 1/2 minilites to 180's on 6's.
Surprisingly big difference for such a small change.

And SWB cars have such a timeless style.
Sorry, a whale tail may be cool (and even functional) , but it ain't classy.

[70SWT]

>>it's a 911: it's never leaving the road pointing forward<<

Well said.

I imagine a well-restored (or -maintained) SWB car could be quite a delight. One of the few Porsche types I haven't had a chance to drive yet.

From what I read, there are a few guys having tremendous success racing such a thing. I think they are all probably quite competent if in competent hands...