In defense of Mid 70's 911s

[cbush]

Perhaps this is a tired topic, but I have been working on our 1975 911 lately and I have been amazed at how similiar it is to a 1970 911. If you were to just base your opinions on what you read about the two cars, you would think there was a huge difference. People gush about how the early 911s are so light and balanced and fun to drive, and the values of the cars are remarkably different.
But when you start taking them apart, they are about >95% or more common, and in fact the 75 has some logical upgrades that make them more reliable and easier to work on. Sure the bumpers are different, but it is actually a pretty clean look, and I don't imagine the weight is that much different--certainly not enough to have any real impact on the handling.
So the real difference and point of contention is then the engine. Having dis-assembled both now, they are more alike than not-pistons, cams and F/i system being the only real differences I can see. I acknowledge the horsepower difference between a 70 911S (180) and 75 911S (165 w/SSI's?) but I assume the 75 has better low end power, and is thus MUCH more practical and fun for the street. While the CIS system can be a pain- almost anyone can fix them, they run better on available gas, and they have to be WAY less expensive and complicated. So with a couple minor exhaust and engine tweeks that can easily be done in the process of maintaining a 35 year old car, you can have a fun, relible sports car for not much more than an engine rebuild on a 1970 911.

What got me thinking about this was the thread on the worst Porsches. So if the cars are essentially the same inside and out, how could you even say that?

What am I missing here? I have never actually driven the 75 as I bought it as a project car, and am working through a full driver restoration. I just can't imagine there is that much difference given all the similarities.

Couple of picts

Engine prior to rebuild

[moneymanager]

I had a 73 for ten years and have a 74 now and agree. But you do have to squarely face the engine issues which affected the 74's, but particularly the 75's and 76's as compared to the 73 and earlier. Once that's done, you have a fine car which will hold its own with any of the earlier cars and, with the added torque, is a much more pleasant daily driver.

[onboost]

Originally Posted by cbush

People gush about how the early 911s are so light and balanced and fun to drive, and the values of the cars are remarkably different.
But when you start taking them apart, they are about >95% or more common, and in fact the 75 has some logical upgrades that make them more reliable and easier to work on.

I think part of this has to do with the introduction of the SC in 78. 78 & 79 SC's really fall in to this "light, balanced and fun to drive category" as well, yet they're more car for almost the same and in some cases the same money as a "mid-year."
The SC offered the bigger engine, the wider fenders and wheels along with the galvanized body (which I know arrived in 76 but I swear they missed a few). And again, as you pointed out.. not remarkably different from the 70 - 73 cars save for the trans, engine size, bumpers, and a few interior appointments and changes.

Originally Posted by moneymanager

I had a 73 for ten years and have a 74 now and agree. But you do have to squarely face the engine issues which affected the 74's, but particularly the 75's and 76's as compared to the 73 and earlier.

There's also the rust factor to address.. Like the earlier cars, many 74, 75, and some 76's were more than prone to rust, especially the Targas.

[m110]

Nostalgia
n.

1. A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past

[IROC]

The magazines and enthusiast press of the time (mid-'70s) almost universally welcomed and praised the 2.7 liter cars. Just sayin'.

[JeremyD]

It's usually from people that are not in the know and that read crap on the internet. Sure the 2.7 has it's issues - especially in stock, smog choked form.

The 74 in particular is much more like a longhood than the later impact bumper cars that they resemble.

[Bob Kontak]

You are not missing a thing from a mechanical standpoint.

However, the early cars are starting to beat up the SCs and 3.2 Carreras as well in price. There is a sex, vintage and rarity appeal long hoods have that the 74-89s do not. I love my 81 but the long hoods are real easy on the eyes.

The better differential comparison is against the SC. If you have a durability upgraded 2.7 against a like SC you have roughly a $3-5k differential. If you can afford $8k for a 2.7 is $12k out of reach for an SC to get the goodies onboost speaks of? (Is $16k a stretch for the prospective SC buyer to pay for the non-G-50 3.2 to get Motronic?)

I would have a 75 in a heartbeat. It is every bit the same Porsche 911 experience as the before and after years.

[cbush]

Originally Posted by JeremyD

The 74 in particular is much more like a longhood than the later impact bumper cars that they resemble.

I was just suprised on how similiar they really are. If you can work on and have the tools for one, you are set for the other. This by the way is a great talking point as you try and convince your beloved spouse why you need TWO old cars in your garage

I remember in the 80s when people were converting the long hoods to the newer style. It is funny that now they are being converted back. I even toyed with the idea at the time of converting my 70. Glad now that I didn't, but one thing that I still think is a more attractive design is the PORSCHE reflector across the back.

[AirKuhl]

The mid-70's cars suffer from the same fate as the 964. They followed what many consider one of the best series of 911's and aesthetically they are not as pleasing to most people as the cars they replaced, so they got a bad rep and are not considered as collectible.

The mid-70's 2.7's also suffered from some well known engine issues which people love to bring up even though your chances of finding a 2.7 without those issues addressed by now is pretty slim. The pollution control stuff was very poorly executed as well, although it's a non-factor today at least for a '74.

Comparing well sorted cars, the difference in driving experience between a '73 and a '74 is slim, much less so that a '73 compared to a '67 for example.

A good indicator of driving feel in a 911 is weight. Here are the base weights of a few different years:
73 - 2310
74 - 2365
80 - 2618
87 - 2750
90 - 3090

[exc911ence]

Originally Posted by JeremyD

It's usually from people that are not in the know and that read crap on the internet. Sure the 2.7 has it's issues - especially in stock, smog choked form.

The 74 in particular is much more like a longhood than the later impact bumper cars that they resemble.

Every 911 has had its issues, the 74-77 cars are not the first or last to have a bad rep. Personally, I think the M96-engines water-cooled cars have much worse engine issues. Pulled head studs on a mag-case mid-year is nothing compared to an intermediate shaft bearing failure IMHO.

The mid-70's was a bad era for every car manufacturer with new emissions and safety regulations appearing daily. I think Porsche did very well in comparison to some of the others. Remember the add-on bumpers on the Ford LTDII? Yeesh!

Regardless, there won't be very many mid-year 911's running around these days without every upgrade completed along the way so the horror stories from back in the day should just stay there. These are lightweight (~50lbs heavier than the final longhoods) cars with a strong, free-revving engine with none of the fat of the later, more luxurious 911s. What's not to love?

[AZAirCooled]

I have a 1976 911S Targa with a 1981 3.0 in it. I have driven it 15K miles in the last three years and I love it!

The mid-year 911S's are 90lbs lighter than a 78SC and about 300 lbs lighter than an 80+ SC! 1976 was the first year for the galvanized body and the last year for the manual brakes. You could also get power steering and AC (dealer added).

The SC is a great car, but compared to a mid-year in the same condition (and marketed the same), it will be a lot more money. A mid-year with a 3.0 or 3.2 will be a more nimble and faster car.

IMHO if you want the most return on your money (or the ability to Concourse show the car), buy the SC. If you want the most smiles per mile of driving for your money, buy the mid-year with the engine upgrade. Either way, you can't go wrong!

[tadel001]

I have a '76 Targa and '76 Coupe. The Targa has the stock 2.7 with few upgrades and 80K miles. The Coupe just got a 3.0 because the 2.7 had a bad P&C and I elected to install a good priced 3.0 instead of the rebuild. Both cars are extremely fun to drive and easy to work on. From what I can tell, if you have a rust free car and a good running 2.7, why wouldn't you love it? Fast, affordable, good looking, easy to maintain and typically more unique than the SC, et al...

[cbush]

You would think that the engines would have been modified, but the one I pulled apart this weekend did not look like it had ever been apart. Despite having four pre-existing broken exhaust studs, I did not break any pulling off the exhaust system. That was quite a relief having read the contortions folks describe going through to get them off with out breaking!

Amazingly enough the car still had the thermal reactors on it as well as the rest of the emission system. No broken or pulled head studs- they look great for a 50K mile California car. I will upgrade the studs and have the oil pressure bypass modification done.

It did have a chain tensioner upgrade to the pressure fed type so someone was looking after the engine. I was suprised to see the thermal reactors still on it when I got it. Guess not everyone reads this forum

[Jerome74911S]

My '74 has a '75S engine in it. The car has plenty mysterious and exotic history, for both the engine and body, but I don't know much of it except for what I discover as I poke around working on the car.

This is fine with me.

All of you know about the issues that plagued mid-year cars - as well as issues specific to other years. As has been mentioned, it is very rare to find a '75 engine that has not had its weaknesses tended to. The result is a car that is great fun to drive. No problems, so just enjoy what you've got and don't worry about it.

Sharp eyes will see a number of aberrations from the original on my car, but it's still a Porsche:

[cbush]

beautiful car- looks like new!

[Joe Bob]

Unless reuired for smog...lose the Thermal Reactors.....go with SSI or early equal length HEs. The associated sport muffler will give some extra oomph....

[RWebb]

You are missing a few very important things from a mechanical standpoint. Many or most 1975 cars had thermal reactors. They will kill the motor after a while. It is expensive to get the case machined -- not that new parts are cheap.

All 1975's had CIS; earlier cars had MFI or carbs. CIS was a good choice for its day in terms of economy, emissions and cold start/cold running. CIS is about the worst system you can put on a sports car however.

As noted above, the later routing of the exhaust is bad for performance.

Yes, some things are improved on a '75 - the 915 is better than on a '73 for one, tho a 901 or 911 is much nicer feeling tranny. P AG also sought to reduce the inevitable wt. gain on the later cars with light wt. parts - the seats, the Al suspension pieces & etc. Put those on your early car.

I've had both a '75 and a '73. The best 911 is a mosaic of different years.

[Vintage Racer]

Originally Posted by cbush

Perhaps this is a tired topic, but I have been working on our 1975 911 lately and I have been amazed at how similiar it is to a 1970 911.

I am sure you are referring to this 8 1/2 year old thread?
911 Porsche World identifies 10 worst Porsche's

I think they were referring to a stock Porsche.

Your car has been rebuilt and the original problems are corrected?

The basic build was just a bit flawed (due to stock engine problems). Then while the 1965-1973 cars enjoyed some sort of "collectibility", many U.S. 1974-1977 cars were left outside to collect rust. It's really hard to find a nice one today.

They make great street hot-rods and/or race cars. You don't even need more horsepower or brakes than the later heavier cars.

74 - 2365
80 - 2618
87 - 2750
90 - 3090

[moneymanager]

Has anyone mentioned, for Californians, that the 74 is the latest Porsche you can buy which doesn't need to face smog inspections?

[cbush]

[QUOTE=Vintage Racer;5701206]I am sure you are referring to this 8 1/2 year old thread?
911 Porsche World identifies 10 worst Porsche's

I think they were referring to a stock Porsche.

Your car has been rebuilt and the original problems are corrected?

Yes, that is the thread I was referring to.

I am in the process of rebuilding it now. It is amazing it has not been done before. But I am confident I am going to get a strong reliable engine after the rebuild--and conversion to SSIs (since I am not subject to CA emissions).

The basic build was just a bit flawed (due to stock engine problems). Then while the 1965-1973 cars enjoyed some sort of "collectibility", many U.S. 1974-1977 cars were left outside to collect rust. It's really hard to find a nice one today.
QUOTE]

I think that is about where we were with the early cars 10-15 years ago. My 70 was a pile of junk--that was much more difficult to restore than this 75 is. I suspect many on this forum see the low cost of a great car, and are picking up the middies for much the same reason we picked up the long noses- a good project that rewards you with a fun ride.