Are SC's really that slow......

skinnerd · skinnerd's Garage

A neighbor who has a 72E brought was walking by the house yesterday with a friend of his from Seattle who owns a 3.0liter SC (sorry I don't recall what year). His friend saw my RS replica parked in the driveway and was interested in it. They both knocked on my door, and we got to talking. Eventually he relayed to me how disappointed he was in the performance of his SC. He really thought it was quite slow. I kind of thought SC's could move along pretty well with all the topics on this BBS about them. Anyway, eventually I took him for a ride in mine, and got on it good in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear and took him home. Well, he definitely thinks my car has got tons of power, and really pulls through all the gears. Granted this is a 2200 lb car with with a 240hp warmed over 3.2 Motronic.

I told him a set of SSI's and dual inlet exhaust could help his SC, and an even better upgrade would be installing a 7:31 R&P with a taller 5th gear.

So what's everyone's experience out there with SC's. Are they the "slug" this guy suggests?

emcon5 · emcon5's Garage

I'll bet $5 he shifts at 4K.

Tom

skinnerd · skinnerd's Garage

This guy actually said that's where it all fell apart... above 4000 rpm. Didn't sound right to me. I advised he get the car into a mechanic that knew what he was doing to check timing, vacuum advance, etc, etc. Any other suggestions of what might be wrong?

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

check out this thread:

http://forums.rennlist.com/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004403

Depends on what you mean by "slow". My car could not keep up with Curt's R-Gruppe 3.6 car when he stepped on it...nor with Sherwood's 2.7 (?). But it is smooth as silk at 110, and the rear end squats nicely when it climbs above about 3.5K. It doesn't have snap-your-neck-back torque, but plants in the twisties just fine.

Besides, how many tickets do you need?

09-16-2002, 01:26 PM

My 79 is not as strong as my old 70E was, but if you put the SC in the context of other cars built in the era (I had Camaros and Firebirds...eeek), it is very strong. Consider the HP of the SC is only ~180, not a lot by todays standard. Still the car is plenty fast and has plenty of juice above 4K. I'd suggest he take the car by JWW and get a once over.
Mark

emcon5 · emcon5's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by skinnerd
This guy actually said that's where it all fell apart... above 4000 rpm. Didn't sound right to me.

Doesn't sound right to me either. My 82 wakes up at 3K, comes alive at 3.5-4K, pulls strong to redline. He should get it looked at.

Tom

Bill Douglas · 09-16-2002, 02:22 PM

I think this guys needs a whack around the ears.

Bill SCWDP guy.

mwbaum · mwbaum's Garage

Maybe he needs his throttle linkage adjusted?

skinnerd · skinnerd's Garage

Thanks for all the input guys. I'll forward all this on to this guy. I tend to agree, that something doesn't sound right with the way this car supposedly runs.

I haven't had any problems with either of 7:31's as Steve Weiner talks about in the one link. And I lean on them pretty hard in autocrosses. When I first installed the 3.2 in my 75 Carrera, I have to say, I was pretty disappointed with the performance of the car. Finally located a NOS 7:31, had it installed, and wholy moly.... the car was transformed. That drivetrain is a rocket sled now. Seems like that might be the best $ per $ bang for your buck?

speeder · speeder's Garage

SCs are not the fastest 911s they ever made, (or the slowest, by a longshot), when I first got mine it was the slowest one I'd ever driven. I bought it anyways 'cause it had good compression and sounded right, I knew that it was a matter of tuning. Since that time I've gotten it running a lot better w/o much effort, and it is about to get a minor rebuild, (studs, resealed, SSIs, cams, etc.), after which I am expecting some pretty decent thrust and torque, all the while getting 20+mpg on 87 octane and being one of the best driving cars ever made, IMO.

I have driven quite a few of them over the years, worked at dealer in the '80s, even stock when running right they do not have massive torque, but can be quick. Especially off the line and in their sweet-spot, ~3-5000rpm. His car needs to be checked out, IMO.

Jack Olsen · 09-16-2002, 04:58 PM

SC's do better than their numbers would suggest in track events. I'm generally more nervous about a good driver in an SC than one in a Carrera. The balance between power and weight is very good in an SC.

stuttgart · stuttgart's Garage

Yep! like everyone else is stating, I think he might have a sick car

( It all falls apart at 4k) sounds bad to me!!!

Eric Mckenna
78SC

rfng · 09-30-2002, 05:36 PM

That's why they need to be massaged. Stock they are ok for what they are a 20 + old car.

Massaged, they are a lot more fun to drive. I've driven a carrera, C-2, 993, and in stock form the Carrera and the SC are very similar, where the c-2 and 993 are much better.

I've compared my non stock sc by first driving my car, then driving a c-2 right after. I thought the C-2 was a little anemic, could use 50 more horsepower; then I drove my car again, then the 993, much better, but could use either less weight or about 50 more horsepower.