Is the 930 significantly better than SC ownership?

[Plecostomus]

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

[G450X]

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.

[Bob Kontak]

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:

[racer]

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.

[Peter Zimmermann]

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."

[Ronnie's.930]

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)!

[ivangene]

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

[ivangene]

an old saying ----

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

[Ronnie's.930]

Originally Posted by ivangene

an old saying ----

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

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

[GaryR]

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..

[javadog]

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

[aadrew10]

Originally Posted by Ronnie's.930

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

Explain please

[jsveb]

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.

[PorscheGAL]

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.

[john walker's workshop]

yes, except for taking off in 1st.

[Peter Zimmermann]

Originally Posted by PorscheGAL

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.

Bingo! Thank you.

[s5uewf]

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.

[AlfonsoR]

Originally Posted by Plecostomus

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

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.

[Ronnie's.930]

Originally Posted by aadrew10

Explain please

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!

[wgwollet]

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.....