Is the 930 significantly better than SC ownership?
 

Aside from purchase price, is the 930 really significantly better/more satisfying to own than the SC? I realize this may seem like a ridiculous question, but I'd like to hear from anyone's pov on this matter. I love both cars equally, but wonder if the turbo requires more attention, mechanically, and has a much greater liability if the engine requires a teardown. Thanks in advance,

Kurt

Never owned a 911 turbo...
 

I've driven a few though. I think the biggest detractor of the turbo is the wacky power band on/off boost. It takes practice and attention to drive one well. The 4 speed transmission does little to help, but seems to stretch the power band a bit.

I've always heard the cost is considerably more than an SC/Carrera and that overhaul intervals are roughly half the NA brethren. No experience just re-stating info accumulated over the years - let turbo owners who once owned an SC or Carrera confirm.

I think there is considerable collector interest stirring in early turbos. I've seen some nice cars go cheap (under $20k) in the past year. While not really the best "drivers" IMHO, they are fast (supercar fast in their day) and visually stunning with wide fender flares covering special Fuchs (and that huge rear spoiler). They seem to have a certain "presence." The best driver would probably be an '89 with the G50 5 speed, while the best deals seem to be on early ('76 - '79) cars.

930 is a different animal. More expensive for major repairs, but on the upside, it suffers from many of the same annoying chicken-***** problems as the SC. :-)

I can say that my pal with an 89 930 loves my 81SC on the short mountain twisties in NC. If that were the only application of the two cars (short twisty roads) I don't think the 930 would be significantly more satisfying.

On a side note:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1328568792.jpg

If you have the space to use 300-400+hp, than yes, the Turbo is superior. If you don't, than the SC becomes as much fun if not more fun imho.

My basis for comparison was my track prepped SC driven back to back with my brothers track prepped 930. Driven back to back at Watkins Glen. My SC seemed to hanlde better (perhaps due to no fear of coming on boost without warning) but man, HP and TQ are nice and more is always nicer than less... the straights were covered much more rapidly in the 930 :)

Oh.. imho, the 930 is the badass 911.. so if you think looks alone are enough, the 930 fills that role nicely as well.. expecially with some nice wide Fikses or BBS wheels stuffed in those flares.

The 4-speed (pre-'89) 911 Turbos are great cars, but if you drive regularly in commuter-type traffic, or are limited mostly to speed regulated roads with 35 mph, 45 mph, and 55 mph limits, then the 930 is not for you. The SC is far more fun to use as a commuter, or in suburbia; where the 930 can be a very frustrating car to drive. I loved my 930, which I owned for a number of years, but after about a year I stopped commuting in it, and kept it strictly for weekend use when I could actually "drive" the car. Pictured below are the SC that my wife and I drove more than 100K miles, and my Turbo "canyon pounder."


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1328570556.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1328570612.jpg

To answer your question, YES! The 930 will blow an SC right off the road in terms of power and braking (and looks, too), and yes, the vastly superior performance comes with a price . . . and of course, they don't call them the "widomakers" without a reason (got to be respectful with both the throttle and brakes - smashing the brake pedal will have you upside down and backwards just as fast as the throttle)!

you need to ask yourself the question....what do i want to do with it?

if you are going to track the car and get some real driving instruction... - yea...930 if you have the means...but for normal street use an SC or better yet a Carrera would be more than adiquate IMO

an old saying ----

more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow :p

I think this statement would not hold-up to even a single 3K+ RPM moment in a 930 (even in a straight line) . . .:D

Put a newer turbo on the 930 (like the 7200 IIRC) and lag is gone, boost starts at 2500 and it pulls like an animal until redline. Drop a G50 in it and fuggetaboutit. The one I built (out in Kansas now) on it's maiden run at the Glen, blew 4 seconds off my SC full racecar's best time and I was not pushing hard.. at all..

I've owned several examples of both and just sold a 930 that I owned for 25 years. Long story short, I like the 930 much better. It doesn't matter what type of driving you do, or where you use it, you learn to work around the "problems" everybody ascribes to them. Once you have enough miles under your belt, a normal 911 can seem to be a pain in the butt, in comparison.

For example, a turbo is often criticized for poor off-boost performance. Well, a 911SC isn't exactly a rocketship in the first 3500 revs either. If you look at the power curves of the two engines, a 930 makes more power than a 911SC at every point in the curve.

People also complain about the gearing of the 4 speeds. Yes, it's tall, but it's not a bad thing to drive around town. You shift a lot less than in a 911 and that's not a bad thing in stop and go traffic. A 911 can seem really short-geared after a while. If you're in a hurry, once you get on boost in first gear (which doesn't take much longer than getting a 911SC up on the cam) the 911 will be behind you forever.

On the highway, there's no comparison, the 930 wins hands down. Faster, more stable, more comfortable...

I'd suggest a ROW spec 3.3, if you buy one.

JR

Explain please

I have got both a 930 and a carrera 3.0 ( which compares to an sc) my 930 is fine for commuting. It depends on how it has been setup.
Both are just great cars.
If I were to pick one, I'd be the 930 it is just that much more of a super car beast while being perfectly drivable.

I have never driven an SC only my Carrera vs the turbo. I will say that comparison is like apples and oranges. A turbo loves the highway and long leg drives. It is not happy until 15 to 20 minutes into the drive and once the oil gets warm it is ready to go. They are sad in traffic and uncomfortable in short stops and starts. They want the open road with wide turns with a few cars to pass. If you live in an area with lots of commuter traffic then owning a 930 is like having a Great Dane in a small apartment. It just doesn't work or if you force it to work you are both unhappy.

On the other hand, a Carrera, and I suspect an SC, work in both worlds. It can handle traffic, and enjoys small twisty roads. On the highway, a Carrera is fun, but not to the level a 930 is.

When I walk out the door, I pick the Carrera for short traffic trips and the 930 for those that will allow it to stretch its legs.

IMO: neither is "significantly better," just different.

yes, except for taking off in 1st.

Bingo! Thank you.

I had a 1988 Carrera, and enjoyed the G50 more than I enjoy the 930 4 speed.
Every other aspect of the 930 I enjoy much more than the Carrera.
And after replacing the stock (weak) turbo with a newer turbo model, the 930 is head and shoulders above the Carrera in all aspects except shifting.

They are very different cars. The extra power the 930 has, the different power band, the gearing and the stronger brakes really change the nature of the "ride". The 930 is fun and intoxicating. The Carrera was fun.

Why are you comparing these two, what is it you are looking for in each?

If you simply like the looks of the turbo's wide body, you can get a carrera with the 491 option, but the price will be nearly the same as the turbo. You also get the turbo brakes with the 491 option. Make sure to check the calipers if you go that route.

Also, some say that a 5 speed makes a huge positive difference in the turbo. The G50 5 speed is available in the last year only, 1989.

I was just making a little joke that even driving the 930 slowly (like quick little bursts in a straight line), will give you more of a rush than driving a slow car quickly . . .and refering to how at above 3K, the 930 just explodes down the road!

Hi
 

I had a SC and now own a 1986 Black 930.

This was discussed before, yes the 930 could cost more in maintenance but for my car it never did, I just love the 930. I could care less about the 4 speed and the 1989 930 5 speed might be better, but it's not worth the money for the extra gear.

The 930's will always be special, less made, better looking, most likely to hold value better and faster. I too agree with other 930 owners, the Turbo lag is just plain fun, it's one bad car. The price of these cars are a bargain, if you buy right I don't think you can loose......tell me any Porsche today or any sport car that can be so much fun to own and keep its value. The age group that identifies with the car is strong and will drive the prices.

I think cars function based on the age groups it represents. When the 930 came out it was on every kids bedroom poster. Now these kids can afford one. Look at Model T's they have not gone up a bit in many years, the owners are all too old. Some 356 are starting to be flat too.....

+1 long trips=Turbo
normal fun =SC
Unless you get a 964 or newer Turbo which is really the best of both worlds. 5spd or more, great a/c, very little lag, very quick and oodles of power on the hwy.
I had an 81 930 and my 91 is sooo much better. Even though not quite as brutal and quick.

In the late 70s I saw in person every 930 engaged in the 24 hours of Chamonix on ice being eaten alive by the Peugeot 104-S, simply because the rear wheel power of the 930 was unusable on the icy track vs the front wheel drive lightweight 104.
So what I am saying is that there is a car for each purpose, and the 930 is no exception. I still wouldn't mind owning one!:D

I don't understand the problems some people say they have with these cars (930) in traffic/commuting - the long gears mean much fewer gear changes and the power means with just a light touch of the throttle you are scooting down the road in a hurry . . .

I drive my 930 at least 3 or 4 times a week and mostly in everyday traffic... I LOVE it and would happily drive it everyday but I'm careful about where I take it (parking etc)..
I have the 89 5 speed but with a 964 Turbo motor .. K27 7200 Turbo
I went for a drive through the mountains with a friend in his 82 SC and he just couldn't keep up .. The extra power was there when required so if I had to overtake I knew I could do so safely etc .. When I was looking to buy it was always going to be the 930 - just so happens that the exact car I wanted came up at the right time ...

I have a 78SC, and I run with a few 930 guys. I have spoken to them at length about the cars as I do want to get one, one day. Here is what I have gathered.

They are amazingly powerful there is no question there. The maintenance is more, not per say more often but larger in quantity. There simply are more moving parts that have to be cared for, that is true for all turbo engines. That being said the SC with its CIS has plenty of its own issues. I have never seen a bad condition 930, every one I have ever seen either in person or for sale has been in great shape as any one that owned them cared for them and did it right. This plays out nicely as in many cases they seem to need less work but that tends to be because of how well they were cared for.

IMO it boils down to use. If you are a suburban rally car driver (as I like to call my self) making the best of the back roads by your house, and the drive to the grocery store, the SC will give you more than you will know what to do with. I would genuinely be afraid to unleash 350HP on the back roads by my house. That being said im sure it would be a blast.

I know many people that drive them very often just like there SC's in the end of the day a well cared for car will work, that's that. It all comes down to application, you would not use an F-16 to crop dust(with in reason), and you would never fly a small prop plane in to battle. Though they would both function for the task, the right tool is the right tool.

Regards
Dave

Thank you, gentlemen! I appreciate each of your responses very much. I've been looking for an sc for quite some time now, but I have always been attracted by the sexy and powerful allure of the 930. For the 1st time, I am expanding my options. I was recentky admiring an m491, but came to the conclusion that this body style should really be coupled with a turboed engine. I just love the 930's wide stance and muscular curves paired with the turbo-weapon. As for driving goes, I'm only interested in occasional spirited rides(not spirit-producing!).

Thanks again, Porsche bros!

Kurt

I think it has to do with the fact that the people making the comments don't have enough seat time in a 930. I find that I have to drive a regular 911 really hard to come even close to what loafing around in a 930 is like. Even at light throttle openings and minimal boost a 930 makes so much more torque in the midrange it's not even close. Hop from a 930 into an SC or Carerra 3.2 and they seem pretty gutless.

Another point is that a 930 isn't much more expensive to own than a 911. It takes longer to do a valve adjusment but it's not like you do those every month. The brakes are more expensive to replace but they last a long, long time. A typical 930 that sees just weekend use won't break the bank.

JR

Aesthetically speaking, it comes down to the difference between a B-cup and a DD-cup.

Never a deal-breaker, but DD (real) wins every time !!! :D

I can get in more trouble than I care to "speed wise", in my 3.2. Turbo for me, would be trouble. Tim

For me the ultimate (which i sadly discovered after purchasing my narrow body) is the M491 with 350 hp, naturally aspirated engine a la PMO carbs and rear wing delete.

The 930 may very well have more torque (just speaking below 2500 rpm), but the taller gearing and heavier weight pretty much negate that when taking off from a stop light.

I have owner my SC for almost 20 years, and have a bit of seat time in 930's. I personally don't think the 930 is a good driver, and just plain sucks in autox. I'm not saying its impossible as a daily car, but it does take some seat time, and trying to drive fast in the rain would be a bad thing. I think the service issues come from the fact the motor is hot all the time, and you have to keep the revs 3k all the time. I was just driving one last week down the frwy and it never seen 3k in forth gear. I also wouldn't just hand the keys to a 930 over to just any old smuck. I think there was a good reason they stopped importing them to the US for many years.

OtOh: the 965 (964 turbo) is much more drivable and would be my choice if I had to drive one every day. But it can still get you into trouble if your not on the ball.

I have both a 77 turbo and an 83 SC. I just got the turbo in August.
The turbo has a 915 in it. When its time to drive anywhere, I will pick the turbo every time. Some have suggested the turbo is ugly to drive in traffic, that is not true with the 915 in it. It seems about the same to me as the SC off boost, and boost is addictive. The turbo gas mileage is 13-18, the SC is always 20-22.

If I remember correctly, the 930's engine is set a couple of inches more to the rear than those of the naturally aspirated cars, further screwing up the f/r weight bias. It's why you have to be so careful to prevent off-throttle snap oversteer.

I've only driven early ones, but from what I recall, they come on boost quite suddenly. You really have to be careful with the things.

One final thing, in reference to this comment:

That is so true. It is even true of my car, a very vanilla-flavored, completely stock SC. Once everything gets warmed up - tires, suspension, brakes, transmission oil, engine, steering rack - the thing just comes alive. In that respect, the cold/hot comparision, it's like two different cars.

The off-throttle oversteer issues are overblown. You'd have to be a pretty lousy driver to get into trouble with that one and a 930 isn't worse than a 911 in that regard. What's more of an issue is understeer when coming out of a corner on the power, which also is something that a 911SC or Carrera does, to one degree or another.

A 930 gets to operating temperature just as quickly as a 911, so I don't know why that's an issue. In warm weather, it takes nowhere near 15 to 20 minutes in either car.

The onset of boost can be managed as well. Changes to the exhaust, turbo, etc. can give you something different than stock and anybody that drives a 930 long enough can modulate the throttle during the boost transition to make it less abrupt. What it comes down to is easing out of the throttle somewhat as the boost starts to build. Any abrupt transition comes from being hard on the gas at low revs and keeping your foot planted as the boost builds, something that nobody that I know does. It's not a particularly good idea to be at full throttle well below the torque peak for any 911 or 930, so if flooring the throttle at 2000 rpm is considered normal for some people, then maybe they need to rethink things a little. A 930 responds well to a driver that anticipates things a bit, which is also a good thing in any other car. Lots of things that a 930 does "poorly" have nothing to do with the car and everything to do with the bad driving habits that some people have. I'm not trying to rag on anybody in particular, it's just that maybe these cars are less tolerant of bad habits than others. In other words, don't blame the car...

One thing I will agree on is that they are lousy in an autocross. But, a lot of autocross courses tend to be too tight for any car. The one at the '83 Parade was nice...

JR

I have owned a 1986 Turbo, 1984 Carrera, and currently own a 1987 Carrera. I loved them all when I had them...but the 930 is sluggish or hauling ass and not much in between in my memory. It just wasn't that exciting until you accelerate through 80 mph plus on boost, then it is amazing if not street legal. I always attributed this "off or on" characteristic to the four speed (was I right???). Not much argument that the 930 is one of the best looking Pcars ever.

It probably had more to do with how Porsche tuned the car stock. It could easily be made much better, which is why you seldom see a stock late-model US version. This is why I suggest buying a stock ROW 3.3. It's a different beast and pretty happy just as Porsche built it.

JR

I've been driving a bone stock '80 euro 930 and I don't think its much different from a US model.

That's surprising, since I consider them night-and-day different. FWIW, the 2 930's I had the longest were a bone stock '80 ROW version and an '86 US car that I bought new and kept for 25 years. I had them both at the same time, so I got pretty familiar with their characteristics. Even my wife liked the '80 better than either the '86 930 or her '86 911.

I ran the '86 for years, bone stock, then modified it like most other US cars (cams, turbo, exhaust, intercooler, etc.) and either way, the ROW car was easier to drive.

Oh well...

JR

Most fun to drive a fast car fast! :D