All things being equal--1973.5 or 1972 911 non-sunroof Coupe?

[gtc]

I'd have the '72. Engines with MFI look a lot cooler than engines with CIS.

The '72 oil door is also nice.
I never understood how service station attendants could put gas in the oil filler, unless the driver pulled too in too far and on the wrong side of the pump.

[K. Roman]

Here is some info, courtesy of Porsche 911 Buyers Guide (Randy Leffingwell) I suggest picking one up.

1972 911T: Horsepower 157 SAE net @ 5600rpm
Torque 166ft-lb @ 4200rpm
weight factory: 2425 lbs coupe
0-60: 6.9 (Car&Driver)

1973.5 911T: Horsepower 134 SAE net @ 5600rpm
Torque 140 @ 4200rpm
weight factory: 2364 lbs coupe
0-62: 7.6 (Motor)

[911s55]

Horspower and torque ratings changed in 73' in the U.S. from gross to net.
The 72' T is actually 135 hp net and 152 ft-lb

[K. Roman]

Well, according to the guide, 1972 is in net.

Originally Posted by 911s55

Horspower and torque ratings changed in 73' in the U.S. from gross to net.
The 72' T is actually 135 hp net and 152 ft-lb

[RSBob]

I would go with the 69. You just can't go wrong.

[RWebb]

In all the advice, remember he does not have MFI on the '72 - it has carbs.

You should drive a CIS car and a carb'd car back to back - be sure they are both tuned well and have the same size motor.

Then consider practicality (Kia) vs. performance, great sounds and great feel (911 with carbs).

[911s55]

Originally Posted by K. Roman

Well, according to the guide, 1972 is in net.

I have that book as well, and those 72#s are stated as SAE. Check paragraph 2 on page 78.
Even so were would the 23 hp and 26 ft lb of torque disappeared to, both motors are 2.4 liter.

[911s55]

Another consideration is that a carbureted motor compartment is much more accessible for repairs, adustment, cleaning, and way more attractive, with a variety of air intake options.

And yes carbs have better throttle response, especially off idle.

[ianc]

Then consider practicality (Kia) vs. performance, great sounds and great feel (911 with carbs).

Well, Randy has pretty much had the run of the place so far, so I guess it's time for the voice of reason.

Carbs
-------

Pros: Sound cool. Look cool. Better throttle response.

Cons: primitive, abysmal fuel economy, very difficult to tune and synchronize, poor cold start and driveability. High maintenance. Extremely difficult to diagnose problems.

CIS
----

Pros: Better driveability and cold start. Better economy. Extremely reliable. Only one throat, so no synchronization or linkage problems. Good throttle response. Diagnosis can be accomplished with a CIS pressure tester and VOM (and some knowledge).

Cons: Not tolerant of performance cams. Not as instant throttle response as carbs.

Precis
-------

Carbs (when combined with the proper cam and exhaust) will net you more top end HP. Appropriate for a track car that spends a lot of its time at high RPM's. For a street car that must start easily and run well (and get decent fuel economy) under all conditions, CIS is a better choice.

There's a reason car manufacturers don't use carbs any more...

ianc

[lateapex911]

And, (not to be a wise a$$), there's a reason they don't use CIS anymore either.....

[Jim Sims]

"And, (not to be a wise a$$), there's a reason they don't use CIS anymore either....."

Yes, and it's the same reason why air cooled engines are no longer used. However very few here will be installing a liquid cooled engine in their 911. The CIS bashing here somewhat reminds me of the 915 bashing - many of the complainers only have experience with 25-year old worn out and/or poorly maintained systems.

[M491Cabriolet]

I agree with you, Jim. I think that many people (human nature) are not really objective and are likely basing opinions on cars that have problems and have had to replace their CIS systems because they were not working properly. Also, I don't think it's really fair (or nice) to bash CIS cars and comparing them to Kias. What the heck is that about? I find it insulting to my poor little car, which really like a lot and which I think is really fast. Performance through weight reduction, as the Lotus philosophy goes. The CIS car feels even quicker and more nimble than 3.2 cars, IMHO. OK, so it runs out of breath after 5000 RPMs, but that's no reason to trash it. All I was looking for was opinions on which car is more interesting, the 1972 or the 1973.5. They are both great cars.

[lateapex911]

Well. I'm not comparing CIS to a Kia....but when people are trying to split hairs, they tend to overstate things to get the point across.

There have been some very good and reasonable posts about the differences, but my point was that NEITHER solution is really ideal...each has it's merits, and flaws.

And yes, due to the difficulty in keeping a tight rein on emissions, air cooled cars have gone the way of the dinos.....

In the end, I think most people, drive their now 35 year old cars not as daily drivers, but as machines in which to revel in the joys of the machine, and if thats teh case, the '72...is more "911", due to the reasons discussed above.

Now, if the car is a daily driver (great!!!!!) CIS certainly has it's merits.

(This coming from a guy who has used nasty words when he's CMA'ed his MFI, rebuilt his own 911 engine, AND bathed in gas fumes from crappy Webers....I know the pitfalls of the non CIS world!)

[Fidalgo911S]

This thread is like reading dialogue from a Hemingway novel. Who said what, what are we talking about, and what was the original point?

I prefer to do the maintenance (or lack thereof) on my CIS car than I did on my carb'd 911's. Throttle response is just fine. At 3500 rpm's I'd like anyone to be able to record throttle lag when I stomp on the pedal.

Gas milage is good too. My old '67S, '66, and '68 got around 9-10 mpg. My '74 with CIS gets about 22+ mpg.

'72's are cool but I'd buy the '73.5.

[Komenda Fan]

I am certainly biased, as I own a 72 T with no sunroof, but I do think that it is a great way to go. The oil tank is unique, and just better engineering, but I do agree with whoever it was who stated that on the street, you aren't going to notice that. Aesthetically, I believe the 72 is more pleasing, and personally, I really like carbs. I also prefer the brightwork on the 72. Buyers do actively seek out 72's, I can't imagine that anyone has ever looked for a 73.5 specifically, but I could be wrong. Either way, however, you will be getting a nice car, so just make sure you post some pics when you make the decision, ok?

[signature65]

Its an emmotional rollercoaster on this thread, Drive them both, then figure which one you like. I have to say the CIS looks so ugly under the decklid. But the benefits outweigh the carbs.

That being said if you drive a dual carbed car more often it will require LESS maintenance. YES LESS. The floats will stay in adjustment and they wont sit and get out of sync. So if this will be a somewhat of a daily driver then dont worry about the maintenance. Dirt is a weak argument. keep your filter replaced.

IMO the 72 is the car to go for. The oil tank is only gonig to go up in value. More so than the last year of the long hoods. Just my 2 cents.

[jtkkz]

I have driven both...

My dad has an all original '72 MFI w/78K original miles and I use to have an all original 73.5 CIS w/65K orig. miles....

To be honest, I like driving my 73 better, smoother, good gas mileage....

A car w/carbs and tuned well should be snappy/quick off the line, but the gas mileage will be horrible......

[petevb]

I'd go for the '72. As I understand it, the changes from the '72 to '73 were largely backwards steps forced by regulations:
-The oil tank was moved back to the original position because of crash regulation reasons- the '72 design is both more practical and offers better weight distribution.
-The bumpers were changed for crash regulation reasons- the '72 bumpers were lighter and IMHO look better.
-The CIS was brought in for emissions and fuel economy reasons- carbs or MFI offer higher performance when both are in proper working order.

So if you agree with regulators and value fuel economy, bumper regulations and emissions highly then the '73 is the one to go for. The '72, on the other hand, is a purer expression of what Porsche wanted to build before government regulators got into the picture. All else equal it's therefore faster and looks better, if not smoother. Take your pick...

[M491Cabriolet]

Thanks a lot for all of your opinions. I'm not really sure about a couple of things, though. First of all, the 2.4 carburetted engine makes only 130 HP, versus the 140 HP of the CIS engine. So, why so many keep saying that the 1972 is faster is something I can't understand. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Next, the bumper issue is really almost funny to because the bumpers are all interchangeable and require no modification to the car at all. It's a non-issue. The bumperettes come off with very little effort and can be replaced with the old style bumper overriders, which is what I have done on my 1973.5. I like the look of the older bumperettes much better and the exchange can be undone with no evidence of it ever having been done.

Finally, I have both of these cars, but the 1972 is not actually running right now. I initially said "all things being equal" to get a good read of opinions regarding the two vintages. I think the engine of the 1972 will have to be gone through, which, as we all know, can run into a serious amount of clink. So, I can't afford to get the 1972 up and running AND keep the 1973.5. The question becomes, should I sell the 1973.5 and have the work done on the 1972, or should I just keep the 1973.5 and leave the 1972 languishing in the garage for another day? There seem to be strong negative feelings about the CIS car for some reason. It might be cheaper to just have the CIS engine rebuilt to an S spec... What do you think???

Thanks. M

[ljowdy]

Since there was no 911S in 1973.5 it may be a difficult task but, when the 2.7 was introduced, it too had CIS and was called a 911S. The problem I had with my 2.4 CIS was getting it to start and it took a long time for it to warm up. Regardless, once it was warmed up, it had a great deal of power and cruised very nicely. I think it's up to you to make the decision armed with the opinions received in this thread.