Please help me decide between keeping my SC or paying big bucks for a 930

[jwakil]

Has anyone owned a non-turbo pre-89 911 as well as a Turbo 930 and can give a good comparison in terms of performance, reliability, and ease of DIY projects for each? I have a nice 83SC that I really like but the other day I saw a 1984 930 for sale that totally blew me away. I'm trying to decide whether it's worth the extra money (I will end up paying twice what I paid for my SC). How hard is it to work on a 930 vs a 83SC, how hard to drop engine vs SC, how often turbos need attention, how much more fun/difficult to drive a 930, etc, any other hidden costs...etc. I will be using it for daily driving mostly, but definitely enjoy spirited driving or an occasional Auto-x.

[initial]

I don't have a good comparison, but if it matters to you, parts cost will definitely go up! It will be a more expensive car to upkeep.

[Vin-barrett]

I have an SC, I have dropped an engine on both N/A and Turbo 911s and its pretty much the same except for a little bulk from the exhaust but barely mentionable. Working on them is the same except you will have to take the intercooler on and off as well as the big airbox to reach some stuff. No big deal.
Driving a friends modded 930 very recently was lots of fun, lots of power. The gearing and turbo lag does not make it seem very autox friendly though. The 4 gears are very long compared to my SC. It feels like a great top speed car but I would prefer my SC for lower speed shenanigans like autox and "fun runs"....

[Wil Ferch]

Both cars cater to a different drummer inside your head...the SC will have more instant throttle response ( and even *more* instant response with Webers or ITB's)..... and the Turbo will give you that .."wait, wait....WHOA" kick in your backside. Different giggles.

Turbo has more mechanical "Stuff" and will impede access almost any time for even normal maintenance...like a race-car, will require you to "remove stuff" for access. Are you prepared for that?. Oh yeah...more costly at some point to buy, repair and feed.

[T77911S]

from what my brither has said about his and from driving his, he does not enjoy the 930 around town as much. he misses the higher revs of a 911. this is just my opinion from driving his, but, a 930 is not fun under 100mph, well maybe 80. as a track car, i think i would wet myself, but then i dont drive it every day. the exhaust sound just blows me away. his has a very deep sound at idle. it has the sound of power. as where the 911 is a bit more raspier sounding. we were running about 110, i was in my targa, with the top off, he had nailed it and was 1/8 maybe 1/4 mile ahead, i felt like i was going backwards, i could still hear his car louder than mine, and oh it sounded sooooo sweet.
he has stirpped a lot of the crap off of his so the engine looks a lot cleaner now.

the cars are set up to be driven at speeds over 100mph, so slow speed handleing suffers.
valve adjustments are a real pain.

a well built 3.0 or a 3.6 in a stipped down long hood would be more fun.

[jwasbury]

I responded to your thread over on the turbo forum, but I'll chime in again.

At its core, the 930 is a similar beast as your SC. I don't think its much more difficult to work on. As I mentioned in your other thread, you'll be removing and replacing the intercooler for nearly every basic maintenance servicing you do. That's three 13mm bolts a couple hose clamps, and its off. After you've done it a few times, you can pull the I/C in your sleep. Once the I/C is removed, basic maintenance, and simple DIY repairs are pretty much identical to your SC.

There are a few other unique components (besides the I/C) on the Turbo vs. your SC. The turbocharger, compressor bypass valve (known as BOV, or blow off valve by some), wastegate, oil scavenge pump and associated oil plumbing. Get past those pieces, and the engine is almost identical to your SC (turbo has different cams, lower static compression ratio pistons, and a bigger oil pump). Turbochargers can last a very long time so long as the engine and oiling system is healthy and you allow for cool-off time after boost before shutting down the engine. A basic rebuild of the turbo (seals and bearings only, assuming the turbine itself is good) can run about $400-500. Wastegates can fail (which unchecked can lead to total engine meltdown if you have overboost), and are often replaced with aftermarket units (TIAL is the most popular, $500-$600). In good shape, there is no reason why any of these parts can't last for many miles and years, but like anything mechanical, they will wear out over time and the youngest 930 on the road today is over 20 years old.

In stock Euro spec trim, the 3.3 liter turbo put out 300hp at the crank, so at least 100hp more than the SC (or 50% more power). Many (if not most) turbos have received bolt on exhaust, turbo and intercooler upgrades which can push the crank hp up to 400. Even in stock config, turbo engines have a pretty high hp per liter, especially when one considers aircooling and "dumb", open loop fuel and spark control. Therein lies the reason (IMO) why Turbos are known to be more costly on maintenance. Chances are the engine will require major surgery more frequently than its normally aspirated brother. The actual cost of rebuilding a turbo engine vs. N/A should be similarly painful, you may just have to do it more frequently with the Turbo.

Now if you were willing to drive like a grandma all the time (no boost), I think the turbo engine may actually last longer than N/A due to its low static compression ratio...but this experiment has probably never been performed since boost is SO MUCH FUN!

As mentioned, the 4pd trans takes getting used to, and its probably not a good auto-x box. However, on the road it works well once you become accustomed to it. For me, on tighter backroads (ones with suggested corner speeds of 35, but you take them at 60), just leave the car in 2nd. In 2nd, 3000rpm = 40mph and you are in the meat of the torque curve where max boost is immediately available. The car will pull hard from there up to over 90mph at redline. No need to shift, really, so you can concentrate on your corner entrance/exit and braking/throttle application.

[jwakil]

Very interesting comments on the driveability. I thought the 4 gears would actually be better for Auto-x as well as in town driving (can keep in one gear for longer). Since in town driving and some Auto-x is all I would be doing, this kind of changes my thinking about the 930. Would a standard 911 beat a 930 in Auto-X with same driver?

[MJHanna]

I’ve had both, 78 SC, and an 86 930. Also one of the 911’s I currently have an 85.
My main concern is that you’re looking at a gray market 930. A lot of them when they were modified to come into the US were not done to the highest standard. Remember that they can here for a reason. A lot of them were run hard/ wrecked before being imported. As a daily driver the 930 is not the most fun around town. If the car has not been modified the four speed is not the best gear box. Acceleration from a stop light sucks until the turbo comes on. The SC or a Carrera has more torque off the line from a stand still. Once the turbo is lit, it is gone but you do not get to do that on a daily basis. A lot of parts are more expensive as their numbers and demand for replacement parts is lower than with a standard 911. The engine compartment is a lot tighter and harder to get at some items. (you have to drop or partially drop the engine to get to some of the plugs) and if you price the cost of the “correct plugs” they are 10 x the price of the SC plugs. I loved the 930 so don’t think I’m against it, just go in with your eyes wide open cuz their at a different level then the 911’s and for a daily driver might not be the best choice.

[wjfk32]

I had the same situation back in the early 1990's. I had an 82SC-Targa and I thought it was fffaaaassssttt. Then my mechanic told me to drive a 930. I finall had an oportunity and I fell backwards and it was nuts. I wanted to throw rocks at my car. What to do. I didn't have the funds to go the 930 path.
A few years later, I purchased a used 930-3.3 engine. I did a top end rebulild. Added a 7006,SC Cams, light porting, new lines,hoses,magnecor wires-B&B exhaust/HKS-AIC-7th injector..The list goes on..Oh-rebuilt the 915-tran.

Today - I still own the sleeper/beast..Did some upgrading recently-didn't drive the car for 10yrs.(out of the country). Added an MSD-6AL-& COIL, new injectors,fuel pumps,new oil,accumulator, new front spoiler & oil cooler.

Mechanical wise-Changing plugs, electrical, oil, chk fuel lines, suspension, basically the same as a turbo.
Just have to get familar with AFR'S,Boost,turbo,detonation, etc.. Have your senses keyed in and mechanical skills is a plus.

The car SOUNDS GREAT/MEAN/SLEEPER. Never regreted it. Well worth the it. INMOP
Only 15,600 miles on the rebuilt engine.

Walt

[jwasbury]

Originally Posted by T77911S

a 930 is not fun under 100mph, well maybe 80.

the cars are set up to be driven at speeds over 100mph, so slow speed handleing suffers.

Disagree. A 930 is not fun under 80mph in 4th gear. I assure you that its stupid fun in any gear above 2800rpm or so, and the handling is as good (if not better) than any similar vintage 911 at legal speeds. 2800rpm in 4th gear is...80mph, how about that! Don't even bother with 4th gear until you're breaking the speed limit. Don't expect to have a good time below 3000rpm. That means if you shift into second before 40mph, its going to be a dog until the revs pick up. In a low speed auto-x situation, you're going to be in 1st a lot I imagine. The 2nd to 1st downshift is possible (if the gearbox is in good shape), but its not real easy (try it in your 911, bet its the same).

All that said, if you're living below 40mph most of the time, I agree that you'll probably be happier in an N/A car

[Wil Ferch]

jwakil .... from your comments I am going to guess that your opinion and characterization is based on comments made by others, or from reading...but not from actually having driven a Turbo. (Quote." ... Very interesting comments on the driveability. I thought the 4 gears would actually be better for Auto-x as well as in town driving (can keep in one gear for longer)..."). With some models of Turbo having 6.5:1 compression and only 4 gears....it was mentioned that Pinto's get the jump on some of these cars across an intersection, until they get scorched by the flames roaring past a bit later.

This is so far removed from the actual situation that the best recommendation is for you to try to get some seat time driving an example of each. Really. It will answer a lot of questions for you.

[cole930]

J,


Owned and driven 20-30 911's, I bought and sold them to get enough money to buy my 930. The 930 is the only car I lusted after ever since I saw my first 930 in 1976.

I happen to be a die hard 930 guy and have owned mine for 22 years. If it's any indication, I'm 67 and will still turn the garage light on before I go to bed just to look at the "Old Sled"

I have 2 son's in law that have 911's and I work on all 3 cars. I see no difference, and in fact prefer working on the 930. Part costs are comprobable with the exception of the turbo charger related items. It's an issue of where you buy the parts if you shop around and stay away from the dealerships they are not any worse than the 911.

Performance wise there is no comparison, hands down the 930. All the crap about low end performance is not knowing what to do. There are some relativly easy tuning tricks you can do that really transform the low end on a 930. Better timing via MSD programmable ignition $325.00 and some turbo lag elimination
tactics really make the old girl come alive. I have the factory 4 speed, I actually prefer it as I'm old and lazy, I sold the original 4 speed and bought one from an old Brumos short track car that has an 8:37 R&P and short 2nd. and 3rd. gears. Again shopping around, I have about $400 dollars difference in the tranamissons.
With the original 4 speed I shifted from 3rd. to 4th. at 140-145 and with the short gears I top out at about 150. I don't track the car so cutting down the top end wasn't much of a loss. The only 2 911's I've owned that came close to the low end performance of my 930 are a 73 RS Liteweight, and a 72 Targa with a 2.8 RSR motor and webers.

When I finally got my 930 I can honestly say it has been everything I ever wanted in a car and I would never get rid of it. In fact I'm going to be cremated so whichever of my two sons in law gets it can take me out for Sundy drives.

Hope this helps, a totally biased testemonial from a REAL 930 Guy.

Cole

[Wil Ferch]

Like Bob Akin said of the 935's....."you can't make a race-car out of a pig.....but you can make an awfully fast pig".

[Grady Clay]

The best advice above is from Wil;

… get some seat time driving an example of each.

I too have driven and owned many examples of each.
My personal choice is a large displacement, high compression, normally aspirated engine in a lightweight 911.

Take your SC and loose weight and add power, displacement and CR.

I have a 2000# 914-6 with a 2.8S, 11.5:1 CR and MFI that can cause serious neck distress (possible failure) if not for a passenger headrest. It also passes 5.0, 12-cylinder Ferraris at 130+.

Your SC can perform likewise.
Fraction of the cost to prepare and maintain a 930.
... and more reliable.

Best,
Grady

[Steve@Rennsport]

Originally Posted by grady clay

the best advice above is from wil;

… get some seat time driving an example of each.

i too have driven and owned many examples of each.
My personal choice is a large displacement, high compression, normally aspirated engine in a lightweight 911.

Take your sc and loose weight and add power, displacement and cr.

I have a 2000# 914-6 with a 2.8s, 11.5:1 cr and mfi that can cause serious neck distress (possible failure) if not for a passenger headrest. It also passes 5.0, 12-cylinder ferraris at 130+.

Your sc can perform likewise. :d
fraction of the cost to prepare and maintain a 930.
... And more reliable.

Best,
grady

+++1

[jwasbury]

Originally Posted by Grady Clay

Fraction of the cost to prepare and maintain a 930

Fraction? How much is a 2000# 914-6 with 2.8S 11.5/1 CR, MFI engine going for these days?

Different ways to scratch the itch for sure, but performance always costs $$.

[Wil Ferch]

No question.....the same saying having power in a long stretch like the Mulsanne at LeMans is a kick. You can get a different ( but similar feeling) "kick" around a twisty road course.

Some people like the absolutely-wired quick response of a NA engine with indivudual throttles...either carbs or ITB FI....yet there is also a "rush" when the "boost" comes on in a Turbo and never lets up pushing you back into the seat even as you pass the 100 mph mark....

Pick your poison......

[Grady Clay]

Originally Posted by jwasbury

Fraction? How much is a 2000# 914-6 with 2.8S 11.5/1 CR, MFI engine going for these days?

A LOT less than preparing and maintaining a 930 to similar standards. I have been there and done that – many times.

The issue is HEAT.
Turbocharged engines are at the extreme limit of heat management. Without continuous water injection, turbo engines can run above the thermal limits of much of the engine. Not good.

Yes, they are fast and powerful. Porsche did a remarkable job of making them street-able. They even last far longer than other manufacturers attempts. The problem is if you are going to ‘dance-on-the-limit’ of performance with a turbocharged engine, you pay a huge price in maintenance.

Normally aspirated, high compression engines are more manageable with oil coolers and engine fans. Yes, they too benefit from water mist (heat-of-evaporation) cooling. They also can run for decades without special treatment other than high octane.


I will admit to somewhat jaundiced opinion due to my high (Denver+) altitude. Our thin air exacerbates the cooling issues. That doesn’t mean that these same issues don’t occur at lower altitude (thick air) conditions – only very slightly less so.


I will repeat my advice above:
“Take your SC and loose weight and add power, displacement and CR.”

The ‘really good news’ is you can also build a turbo engine to swap into your car and experience the differences first hand.

Best,
Grady

[Vin-barrett]

Originally Posted by jwakil

Would a standard 911 beat a 930 in Auto-X with same driver?

Absolutely.

I like Gradys upgrade advice or do a 3.6 swap

[Wil Ferch]

It's funny...I thought about all the 911's I've driven over the years...and thoughts are coming back to me now how very different even the very early 2 liter 911's were....lighter...less caster angle in the steering....the 901 box. These cars felt very light on their feet...and not so ponderous as (say) an SC or 3.2.

I say "funny"....because as you review the RUF film clips on RUF history, none-other than Ruf himself marvels at the "delightful" controls lightness of driving an early SWB 911. so...even the NA cars have very different characterisitics. The irony is that this is coming from the "Turbo-master" himself !