3.2 G50 Driving Impressions & "heaviness"

[umfan866]

3.2 G-50 Driving impressions.

I have now driven 2 3.2s, an 88 cab, and an 87
coupe, both with a G-50. Here are my impressions,
as a longtime BMW driver, and someone who has also
test-driven a 74 911, a few beater SCs, and ridden
in a '67 912 (to let the driver deal with the dog-leg
shiftter)

Both cars shifted fine. Its not that you notice
how smooth a G-50 is, its just that it shifts
"normally" like any other (modern) car. Its the
*absence* of a G-50 that you notice when driving
an SC--like trying to find 2nd gear. A g50 is
something my wife could drive without 2nd thought.
A 915 both I and anybody who drives it including
my wife would have to carefully learn how to shift.
Smooth 915s aren't real bad either--its the rough
(unmaintained ones) where they are popping out of
2nd all the time that are particularly challenging.
So to summarize the G50-well it's what I would expect
and its absence is what makes you notice it.

Power. Both cars had a nice rumble and seemed to have
adequate power. The cab had a Weltmeister chip in it,
but hey I couldn't tell the difference either from
sound or engine pull.

Handling. Both cars had no power steering and man you
had to work. I thought my BMW with power-assisted
(but not full power steering) was a lot of work, these
911s are a workout. THe cab must have had some old shocks
or needed control arm work, because the front end felt a
little mushy. The coupe I drove was accurate and tight,
reasonably crisp, but neither car handled too incredibly,
my e30 bimmer is a really fun handling car, not as nice,
but a tricked out e30 with ground-control suspension
(coilovers) and all lowered (also an 1989/1990 car) handles
maybe equal or better. BTW I was driving on regular streets
and the highway in both cases, didn't make any sudden turns
because he I'm driving with the ownwers of these cars to
my right in the passenger seat. BTW both of these cars had
modern low-profile tires.

Heaviness. Now I get to what I want to talk about. I like
the fact that these 911s are solid, heavy cars, but I am
a little disappointed at the power to weight ratio. The one
cab owner said well "you aren't going to win any races"
and the coupe owner talked more about the handling than the
power on his car (he also has a WRX and compared to that,
he said his 911 has a nice low end, no wait for power at least).
Its not just 3.2s because I have also had this impression in
some SCs.

Now maybe I am just not revving the engine enough, or stepping on it (I keep the revs about 3.5, and that little upshift light keeps coming on ..annyoing)...I don't know, I just don't understand. This is suposed to be a Porsche, a fast car, but they both felt more like a heavily reinforced dune buggy that had a lot of engine but the whole car was just weighing itself down! I mean my Honda Odyssey van (2006) has this 240 HP engine, and when I floor it, you feel the push back in your seat a bit. Now maybe I just wasn't driving aggressive enough, or maybe both of these cars were just not tuned right (the coupe at least was stock and had impressive maintenance records)....what gives?

I mean hey I LOVE the body style of the 911s, I love the status
and the looks you get, I love the solid tank-like feel and the
way it hugs and sits on the road, and the sound of the nice 6
rumbling (I do NOT like the VW sound of the 912 and the gutless
motor).. I just don't get why the car feels so heavy / laden down.

Can anyone tell me what the deal is, and why I am having these
impressions. What model of older 911 should I drive next, that
woudn't have this heaviness - is there one? I am told the early
cars (up to 73) had more of a lighter feel. I drove a 74 that felt
perhaps a tiny bit lighter, not sure.

If I wanted to get more performance and more of press-back-into your seat feel, which 911 do I drive? (The next car that I am going to look at is a 78 SC that has A/C removed, rear seats removed, SSI headers/ no exhaust, and Carrera 4 wheels - it will be interesting to see how that feels in comparison.)

[87coupe]

Only taking a 911 up to 3500 rpm's isn't really "driving" one. The fun starts at 3500 rpm and doesn't end till the rev limiter.

[88-diamondblue]

Mine really comes alive around 3800 rpm. I went with a more agressive cam which moves it up some. 4000-redline is where its at. They are not a stop light racer even though everyone else who wants to race thinks they are.
They still do pretty well at it when needed Find one that you can take to redline or ask the owner if it is ok with them. Let us know what you think then. BTW ignore the upshift light unless you are trying to save gas. I keep hoping mine will burn out

[ZOA NOM]

You haven't driven a 911 until you've taken it to a track. If you're looking to drag race, look elsewhere. If you want to experience a car meant for serious drivers, take a 911 to the track, but you better know what you're doing when you get there, or take a course, because these cars will not forgive mistakes. One track day in a 911, and you'll never look at your BMW the same way again.

[Duckworth]

For a guy who's never owned a 911 - you have good instincts for both the car and transmission...especially the trans.

I ended up with an SC that I thought was underpowered - but redoing the ring and pinion livened it up considerably.

The 915 was and is a marvel in these cars. It's almost an addiction how you have to finesse second gear as well as doing it at various rpm speeds.

You 'work' on these cars to get them right - and they repay you handsomely.

Funny thing is that when I did my quest of searching out decent model years of about '80 - thru '87 it was an '87 Cab that a dealer had for with only 3000 miles on it at the time in Sewickley Pa. They wanted $47,000 at the time. Needless to say I had to act like I was interested....just to check it out and the test drive totally knocked my socks off - but it was very high priced for my blood. I just 'soaked up' every minute in the car that Spring day.

My SC I bought was very clean also - but I had to remove 250 Lbs. from the car and change the gearing before it felt right.

BTW, if we could all jump back in time and drive almost any vintage Porsche at a bran new stage of it's life - it would be absolutely exhilarating.
_________________

'82 Targa - sold
'80 928

[DARISC]

I'm a relative newbie, having owned the below, my first Porsche, my daily driver, for just over a year:

1982 Porsche 911 SC coupe, RoW w/sunroof, w/o AC
Stock 204 hp, 9.8:1 comp. ratio, 2500 lbs,
SSIs, smog pump off, conservative est. 218 hp,
Weight to power ratio = 11.47 lb/hp.

Given the above 11.47 lb/hp, the car, as expected, is quite quick and pulls hard, as the 82 motor has considerable low end torque.
Not having been familiar with driving a 911, my first impression was that the car did feel heavy, steered heavy and felt like it
had a lot of understeer that made it feel like it was plowing through corners. However,once one grasps the very different handling
dynamics of this tail heavy marvel it becomes anything but heavy feeling.

Squeeze on the power while in the right gear at the right revs at the right speed at the right point in a turn and the 911 will dance
in a way unlike any other car I've ever driven. Just remember that any dance pair requires one of the partners to be a strong lead.
With a 911, you've got to be the strong lead or you'll find your partner spinning YOU around in a way that ain't fun and can land you
both in a ditch, or worse (treat her badly and she can be an unforgiving *****). If the dancing analogy doesn't get the idea across,
think skiing with 60 lbs of lead strapped to your butt, or hell, I don't know except ya gotta get on it ta get it.

Once you "get it", you'll see that "There is no substitute" is not hype.

[450knotOffice]

umfan866,

Like others have said, these engines NEED to be reved up above 3800 to 4000 RPM for them to really come alive. Once you've got the RPM up, these cars will most definitely give you a good shove in your back. Yes, it's true that the bigger engines in the 911 family (the 3.0, 3.2, 3.6) have significantly broader powerbands than the earlier smaller engines, but they still need 3800+ RPM to come alive. And come alive they do. Next time you get a chance to drive one, run it through the first three gears with your foot buried to the floor and wind it up to redline before each upshift. I think you'll come away with a much better impression of the car.

In terms of handling, these cars also benefit greatly from some suspension work, as does your BMW. New Sport Bilsteins all around, stiffer torsion bars and new bushings along with a slight lowering of the car and a good alignment and corner balance will create a very tight handling 911.

Don't give up on these cars just yet. Just drive them the way they were meant to be driven (hard) and they'll show you what the 911 is all about. Honestly.

[umfan866]

Wow thanks guys!!! Sounds like I need to own one to experience all the pleasures. A friend of a friend also offered to let me ride in some cars that are being Autocrossed and I am sure that would make a difference!
Keep those comments coming .... because this sure is interesting.

[masraum]

Yep, as stated, the problem was likely your driving. Most 3.2L cars have a real kick in the pants at 4500 rpm. Run the car to the rev limiter. I've driven cars that felt heavy the way you describe. Like the car was too heavy for the weight. My old '88 was not one of those cars.

[masraum]

PS Ignore the CASSIS shift light in the tach on the 3.2L cars. That shift light will come on at really, REALLY low rpms, but if you read the owners manual for those cars Porsche tells you minimum shift points (basically 2500rpm, but specifically they vary by 100-200 rpm per gear)

[JeremyD]

Shift light was for gas mileage. You should really only focus on the 2nd time the shift light comes on which tells you that you are approaching the rev limiter.

I also chuckle when people talk about taking these cars on a test drive. When I test drove a 993 (before buying my current car) I spent a majority of my time above 3500 rpms. The salesman who was with me - after he unclenched his hands from the handle - said man, this car moves, I thought it was kind of a slug - good grief!

Under 3500 rpms and these cars have the power to weight ratio of a Honda Accord -

[Zef]

UMFAN866...you got an excellent comment...

[svb]

Get a euro-spec car like me....more hp and torque...higher compression....faster than u.s. cars. I believe they must compete in a different class in pca events because of this power difference over US carreras.

[Jims5543]

The 915 in my SC is very smooth the PO really took good care of it and I think it had some light rebuild work done on it.

I consider myself to be a good driver. At Autocrosses I have gotten into others cars and turned times close to or faster then the owner of the car. I can adapt to cars very quickly. Plus I can drive my torqueless wonder RX-7 with a 9.5# flywheel and 6 puck racing clutch. That alone is an accomplishment.

That said, I had one hell of a time getting adjusted to that darned 915. All my shifts were off and I had one hell of a time finding ANY gear. Once I got the hang of it, it feels so natural and smooth. The adjustment to it was just a nightmare for me.

[RideShoot&Drink]

On those cars fun begins at 4K+ rpm. As others said, they are not the best platform for stoplight racing. If you want more grunt down low, try car with 3.6 (964 or 993). Best of luck.

[Jims5543]

Or an older lighter car with a 3.6 swap.

I bought mine without driving it, I did a lot of research on here about the 3.6 swapped cars. After 3 failed PPO's on 930's I decided non-turbo was the way to go. I could not be happier. Tons of grunt down low and it just gets better and sounds better as the RPM's rise. Big grin factor car.

[G60SuperCharger]

Yep, what the others said about revving the engine higher. Keep in mind that the Carrera 3.2 was the fastest car you could buy in the US in 1984. Bar none, Ferrari or likewise! Technology has progressed a lot since...nowadays, a Honda Accord V6 will keep up with it.

If stoplight racing is your thing, then a WRX might be a better fit. You have to appreciate these cars in terms of their vintage...if not then maybe you're not a 911 guy (it's OK, really!). Also keep in mind that a 3.0 or 3.2 911 CAN easily be made to keep up with a WRX too, assuming you have the $$$.

[Eric-325I]

Having recently gone through this process myself, I can sympathize. I started with the thought that I wanted an earlier 911 and drove a few early and mid-year examples. I never had the impression that I was driving a really fast car off the line, but because of the years lurking this site and much research, I never really expected to 'feel' that way. I then drove a few SC's for comparison (and the urging of a fellow Pelican) and that was it. The little extra low end torque and the fully galvanized body convinced me that I had found the series I was after. Ended up buying a '79 SC.

While test driving I never pushed real hard as, like you, I either had the owner in the passenger seat or I was leery of something untoward happening. Now that I own my 911, life is good. I thought the car was fast, especially in the upper revs, till I found my throttle linkage needing adjustment!!! Once adjusted for WOT, holy cow! No, she's not a drag car, but from 35k rpm to red line, watch out... 2nd and 3rd gears are heaven!

Good luck with your search!

Eric

[Jim Smolka]

I second what Jim Cesiro says, the SC's or Carrera's with a 3.6 are blast to drive

The trend is for auto manufactures to add a bunch of HP to cars. Most of todays 6 cylinder cars produce more than 200 HP. Many SUV's have over 300 HP. This quest for more HP has caused some to look at the HP ratings of the Carreras and SC in less favorible light. 911's are a fun to drive, but 0 to 60 times are not the best way to experience these cars.

[masraum]

But a 3.2L car is good shape should be capable of 0-60 between 5.5 and 6.5 with no problems. Those times are no slouch.