Performance of '73 CIS T

[Saffs]

Does anyone have the performance specs. of the '73.5 CIS T?
It's US spec only, of course - so not in my collection of old UK car mags!
Like 0 to 60, top seed, etc. Even more enjoyable, anyone got any road tests they could scan?
TIA

[RarlyL8]

Performance?

The early "T" cars were arguably the biggest sluggs to carry the 911 badge. I know first hand, I had one.

[Saffs]

Originally posted by RarlyL8
Performance?

The early "T" cars were arguably the biggest sluggs to carry the 911 badge. I know first hand, I had one.

Well, a 2.4 with MFI or CIS isn't a 2.0 with a carb - nothing against those - it's not that bad.....!
The gran plan is to put a 3.0 SC motor in it anyhow....

[kstar]

FWIW, according to Frere in the Porsche 911 Story, the early Weber equipped Ts had heads that were like the S "featuring larger ports and valves than the normal 911 head". Frere goes on to state that "in contradiction with the official factory handbooks, the less luxuriously equipped 911T was the lighter car of the three and it was the factory's intention to use this model for competition tuning". (see page 35)

The early competition 2.0 T: In 1968 a 2.0 T (factory prepared) won the European Rally Championship; also in 1968 2.0 Ts took first and second place overall in the Monte Carlo Rally - these 'long distance' wins earned Porsche the International Constructor's Trophy for GT Cars (from the FIA).

In '69 a 911T won the 1,320 mile Polish Rally!

(above data from "The Porsche Book" by Boschen and Barth, page 242)

While these cars were prepped competition cars, they carried the T badge, not much weight and enough power and reliability to win some important races.

"T" means touring, and in this regard sometimes the "slug" beats the "hare"!

Having said this, I found my stock '72 T to be "sluggish" on the road and replaced the motor with a hot rod 2.7.

Best Regards!

Kurt

[CamB]

Originally posted by Saffs


Well, a 2.4 with MFI or CIS isn't a 2.0 with a carb - nothing against those - it's not that bad.....!
The gran plan is to put a 3.0 SC motor in it anyhow....

Wait a minute! I have a 2.0 carbed T. It is really really fast disclaimer: "compared to an Austin Allegro".

Hehe, and I am doing the grand plan too.

[Saffs]

Ha ha, Cam. Really, no offense.
I bet a 2.0 can be quite quick.
Incidentally, don't know you you got it, but there was an Austin Allegro last of line model that was quite nippy, it was like a 1600 something, twin carb....

[nhromyak]

I had a 73.5 T. It had a 2.7, I was told it should have been a 2.4 .

Anyways, I rebuilt it and I was running 0-60 in 5.6 - 5.8 secs. Timing with a friends stop watch consecutevily.

Damn, I miss that car...

Have FUN!

[Jack Olsen]

Table 1. 911 Models by Year and Type
--+--------------+------+----+-------+----+---+----+-
| |induc-|0 to| Horse | |top| |
Yr| Model/Disp |tion | 60 | power |trq |spd| wt |
--+--------------+------+----+-------+----+---+----+

70 911T 2.2 carb 9.5x 125 130 127 2250
70 911E 2.2 MFI 7.6 155 141 137 2250
70 911S 2.2 MFI 7.0x 180 147 138 2250

71 911T 2.2 (r) 9.5x 125 130 127 2250
71 911E 2.2 MFI 7.6 155 141 137 2250
71 911S 2.2 MFI 7.0x 180 147 138 2250
71 911 racing MFI . 270 . . .

72 911T 2.4 (a) 9.5 130u 145u 127 2250
72 911E 2.4 MFI 7.9x 165 152 138 2250
72 911S 2.4 MFI 6.6x 190 159 144 2250
72 911RSR 2.8 MFI . 275-308 . . .

73 911T 2.4 (b) 9.5 130u 148 127 2250
73 911E 2.4 MFI 7.9x 165 152 138 2303
73 911S 2.4 MFI 6.6x 190 159 144 2303
73 Carrera 2.7 RS MFI 5.8x 210 187 143 2145
73 RSR 2.8 MFI . 308 . . 2145
73 RSR 3.0 MFI . 315-330 . . .

[cegerer]

I had a stock 73T 2.4L CIS and, while not nearly as fast as my current 2.5L 911, I don't think the word 'sluggish' ever came to mind while driving it. In fact, it was quite fun! -- Curt

[campbellcj]

I don't have the specs handy, but when I was looking for my first 911 about a decade ago, I drove a gorgeous tangerine 73.5 CIS car. It felt like something was "wrong" with it; although it ran smoothly it just didn't have the pull or the throttle response I had experienced in the other cars I had tried around the same time. The car was expensive and I don't think there was really anything "wrong" with it. My roommate's 70 2.2T felt considerably quicker and more responsive on the butt-dyno.

[Sunroof]

My daily driver is a restored 1973.5 T. I drive it about 800 miles monthly with an occassional trip south (600 + r/t) every so often. My overall opinion is:

. compared to other models of that year, "E" and "S", the "T" is
the slowest. After all the "T" does stand for TOURING.
. Gas mileage is decent, but yet compared to any Porsche it ain't
a Yugo!
. In traffic, I can get moving and go around the slow folks with
some degree of confidence, but do not expect anything close to
what a 3.0 and above can do to ease the nerves. This applies
to passing on the highway in close quarters as well. It just does
not have the high end torque to toss you back into the seat as
you move around the other car(s). Top end for me is 120 but
even a Volkswagen can achieve that! Do not expect to outrun
any mounties on the interstate or even a new Audi.
. Handling is excellent, but it does help when bushings are fresh
and Koni's carry the load. Its pure Porsche on the twisties!
. The BEST PART though is the constant parade of cars that hover
around, admire and complement everywhere you go. Something
magical about an older Porsche.......even if it is Sepia Brown.
Thats good enough for me and of all the 911's I have owned
('74, '79 SC and the '73.5 T), by far the "T" has been the most
special overall.

Regards

Bob

[Saffs]

Thanks for your help everyone.

[Matt Smith]

Jack- where were those performance figures from? I have never seen a 9.5 sec 0-60 in print. I'll find some other roads tests at home and report back.
There must be something wrong with my motor. It never feels sluggish, can out accelerate mosty stuff on the road that doesn't cost a million , and feels very alive and responsive.
Car has stainless free flow exhaust, properly tuned MFI, 'Ol' Snakey' (K&N) and MSD ignition. Fibreglass S spoiler, otherwise totally original.
It comes on cam noticibly at around 3700 and will wind to 7k, still pulling.
Maybe I should crack it open and see if someone has sneaked E cams in or something.

Cam- you should be ashamed with yourself. Your car is not a slug; I suspect you have just got used to it because you are 1)pining for that 3.2 (understandable) and 2) because you drive it every day.
Get back into that Jag for a while and reappraise!

[CamB]

Hahaha

Matt, I got back in the Jag this morning to take it to get serviced. Not only was it slow, but it cut out twice on the way there (about 3-4 miles) and nearly cut out about 5 times more.

I have ZERO idea what could be wrong too. Hopefully after the service (which I don't have time to do myself) it will go better , my sister needs to borrow it around Christmas to drive down country a bit. She better pray the problem doesn't happen on Christmas Day in a small country town.

OK, so the 2.0T (E cams ) is pretty quick, but not that big-time!

Cam

[T Bird]

The 72-73 spec book lists a 0-100KMPH (62MPH) time of 9.5 seconds for the T. My 72T owner's manual has a time/acceleration curve that indicates 9.5 seconds for the 0-60 MPH run (USA car with 4 speed manual). Back in 1972, Car and Driver road tested/compared the 72 T, E and S. C&D claimed a 0-60MPH time for the 72T of 6.9 seconds and the 1/4 mile at 15.1!

One reason that the T specs out to 60MPH slower that the E or the S is that with the T's lower redline, the second to third gear shift occurs at about 57 mph. This shift adds about 1.3 seconds to the 0-60MPH time (as per the time/acceleration curve). The shift to third gear in the E and S occurs after reaching 60 MPH. So, some of the differential in 0-60 times reported for the T as compared to the E and S isn't due entirely to a lack of grunt on the part of the T, but rather to that ill-timed shift into third gear.

Looking at the time/acceleration curve in the owner's manual, it appears that if the shift to third could be delayed until reaching/exceeding 60MPH, the 0-60MPH time would be something like 8.2 seconds. This compares roughly to the 2.5 liter 944, a car with a similar power/weight ratio.

My 72T is slightly modified with S pistons/cylinders and Webers. It is a light, nimble car with excellent torque coming on at about 2700 rpm. The run from 60-90MPH is particularly effortless, requiring just a slight application of pressure on the gas pedal. It may not be the fastest 911 in the world, but it puts a smile on my face!