'73 R&T RSR vs 911S Track Test ...

[Early_S_Man]

Since there seems to be some interest in the subject ... so how many out there wish they had ordered one in '73 at those bargain prices, and just stored it in a garage?

[jwetering]

What does $22,500 equal in today's dollars anyway?

[mattd]

Very cool article!! Nice to read the tests of these cars as new.

Matt

[Jack Olsen]

Thanks, Warren.

We're putting together quite an archive, here.

[pwd72s]

Thanks, Warren! Great read!

[jay castriotta]

That was great. I really enjoyed the article! Thanks for posting it.

[Dave Bouzaglou]

That exact orange RSR still resides in Sacramento today in all it's original paint and livery. It was time trialed briefly, then stored since. It made the Sacramento Parade a couple years ago. What a car!

$22,500 in today's Enron's dollars? Probably 35 million and a bullet to the head!

[jwetering]

What I was getting at with the "today's dollars" comment is that the opportunity exists today to get into a modern day equivalent of the RSR, for about ten times what it the RSR cost new in '73.

Thirty years from now will we be regretting not buying a GT2? I for one would be feeling quite the *hero*... showing up at a parade at the age of 65 with my original condition, used but not abused, legendary ceramic brake and hollow wheel equipped, road legal racer from the early 21st century.

So what's stopping me ? I can think of 250,000 reasons...and they're all spelled $.

Still, I'd get to enjoy the car for all those years, and I imagine that it's value would hold, and maybe one day even exceed, the price I pay today.

But then there's the wife.....

[epbrown]

Originally posted by jwetering
What I was getting at with the "today's dollars" comment is that the opportunity exists today to get into a modern day equivalent of the RSR, for about ten times what it the RSR cost new in '73.

For the record, $22,500 is the equivalent of around $97,000 in today's dollars, using a 5% average inflation rate for the intervening 30 years (avg inflation for the 70, 80s and 90s were 7, 5.6, and 2.7 percent respectively).

Emanuel

[Jack Olsen]

What I was getting at with the "today's dollars" comment is that the opportunity exists today to get into a modern day equivalent of the RSR, for about ten times what the RSR cost new in '73.

Thirty years from now will we be regretting not buying a GT2?

I think in 30 years we'll still be kicking ourselves for not buying the RS's and RSR's. Imagine explaining to your grandson that you could have bought a lightweight RS for 113K at Barrett-Jackson. But Gramps, he'll say, that car would be worth $113 million today -- why'd you pass it up?!

[jluetjen]

A couple of anomolies about that article. A year later R&T admitted that the "S" that they tested seemed to be pretty sick that day since the previous years test car (an "E" Targa) beat the "S" to 60 by over a second. I wonder if the weight of all of the luxury items listed on the "S" took the verve out of it's performance? I guess that we'll never know. Does anyone have a C&D or MT test of a '73 "S" for comparison?
The second curious thing is that the RSR apparently disappeared into a time warp after this test. Pano reported that apparently the owner used it as a "track toy" occasionally and then parked it. So it is one of the few RSR's that doesn't have FIA/IMSA/SCCA history.

I'm not sure what's worse: having an RSR and beating the c**p out of it racing -- or -- having and RSR and not racing it?

[NYSCAR]

I may be biased (of course I am), but I believe tuning is EVERYTHING when it comes to the early MFI cars, especially the S cars. Judging from the way my 73 911S runs (and its not in a flawless state of tune...yet), my car runs *way* faster than a 7.8 second 0-60 time and a 16.3 second 1/4 mile. Perhaps their testing involved acceleration with a dead cow attached to the rear bumperettes? They also stated that their gas mileage was unusually low, another indicator of a poorly tuned car. Sure it idled fine, but my car actually idled fairly well when my #6 spark plug wire completely failed. Recently I did one good yet not-too-abusive launch and timed it with a g-tech pro, got 0-60 of 5.9 and 1/4 mile of about 14.3. When testing with my previous M3, I found the gtech to be quite consistent with actual strip times, but always a couple tenths optomistic. So I figure the car did low 6's 0-60 and mid 14's in the 1/4 (which feels right to my butt).

Brad

[cegerer]

Man, the first photo of that RSR coming straight at you .... that, for me, is the very epitome of Porsche.

Thanks Warren -- Curt

[Dave Bouzaglou]

I'd be very happy to buy that orange RSR for $97,500 today, zero comp history and all, even if it meant I would have to live in it. What a bargain that would be!!!!! hmmm... Porsche Hilton? nah, dreamin too much

[Clark Griswald]

Great article!

Interesting read on the then-contemporary thinking that the 10 year run on the 911 was getting long in the tooth and the car had been refined to its capacity. Hah! If they only knew.

But the acceleration peformance numbers seem way conservative.

Look at the power-to-weight on the RSR: 2015 lbs and 280 HP! and 0-60 of 5.6 seconds, not much faster than a toady 2700 lbs 3.2 carrera with its measly 217 hp.

I suppose the RSR might have had first gear ratios for cruising the paddock instead of accelerating, but those numbers still look conservative.

Ditto the S which they report a test weight of 2870 lbs! Did they have a couple dead bodies in the trunk?

[cegerer]

even if it meant I would have to live in it

Dave, I was thinking the same thing. If only it had fully reclining front seats for sleeping purposes I might have a better chance of convincing my wife of what a good idea this would be .... -- Curt

[pbs911]

Thanks Warren!

[930fan]

I looked up the stats for a 996 Carrera from the Feb '98 issue of R&T and they are very very similar to the RSR:

0-60: 5.6(RSR) 4.6(996)
0-100: 12.0 11.6
0-1/4: 13.2@105mph 13.2@105.5mph
60-0: 112 122
80-0: 223 218
Skidpad: 0.927g 0.91g

I think that they were very easy on the RSR though because the 0-30mph time was 2.5 for the RSR and 1.6seconds for the 996 plus they didn't use the full 8000rpm. Nonetheless, technology sure has moved on from the good old days when production sports car can come so close to a factory race car.

One other interesting piece of data was that the 911S has a curb weight only 350 pounds lighter than a 996 (2570 vs 2920). When you consider that a 996 has 1 litre extra engine capacity, much bigger wheels and tyres, air bags, power seats, power steering, bigger brakes, ABS, 6sp tranny, water radiators, side impact bars, a stiffer, bigger and stronger chassis, I think Porsche has done an admirable job in keeping the weight to just 350lbs.

Having said that, I'd take an RSR over a 996.

[jwetering]

I looked up the stats for a 996 Carrera from the Feb '98 issue of R&T and they are very very similar to the RSR:

the 911S has a curb weight only 350 pounds lighter than a 996 (2570 vs 2920)

I posted a litttle while ago that the 2002 model 996 is a nice car....and down right handsome too.

Were it not for the historical significance, and the fact that the RSR is worth so much more, I would have to SERIOUSLY consider taking a new 996 over the RSR were the two offered to me in trade for my soul (or whatever other marginally valuabe asset of mine they would take).

Deck out a grand prix white 996 with black interior, sport seats, aluminum or carbon fibre accents, sport suspension, 11 speaker bose stereo, aftermarket Fikse wheels, and some xenion headlights and you'll have yourself a relatively light, very fast, sexy, usable Pcar.

And just think of the chicks!

[BlueSkyJaunte]

One thing to consider:

In 20 years, which will be worth more? The RSR? Or the 996?

I'll take the RSR, thankyouverymuch.