How fast is a 3.0 or 3.2 L 911?

[EugeneYu]

How do you compare these 911 3.0 or 3.2 NAs with 951 and S2? Are they faster or slower? I think they are a little bit heavier with same range of power. Am I wrong?
Any heads up?

[Rollins]

Any years in particular? Either way I would think that the 911 would be quicker. No turbo lag there. Not easily moded though.

[Scott R]

My father has a 93' 911 RS America. It will completely kill my 951. Conering, accleration, 0-60. And top end.

[EugeneYu]

I think 80-83 3.0L and 84-86 3.2L are what can afford and want to consider.
From auto info at msn.com, 88 3.2L (the latest one I can see) only has 214 hp and 195 torque with 2756 lb. That's very close to S2 at 208hp/207 and 2880 lb. I think 3.0L 911 numbers are alot less than 3.2L.
So why are 911s are faster than S2 and 951?

[todd951]

Older 911's are lighter than 944's. A friend of mine has an '83 911sc. A 911sc has 180hp, but only weighs around 2100 lbs. Compared to a 951 with 217 hp and nearly 3000 lbs, the 911sc has a better power to weight ratio.

[EugeneYu]

2100 lb/180 hp=11.7 With this ratio, 951 has to have 240hp to catch up with 911sc (2800 lb/11.7= 240hp.
Am I right? Doesn't sound too hard to do for a 951.

[Macabre]

Originally posted by todd951:
Older 911's are lighter than 944's. A friend of mine has an '83 911sc. A 911sc has 180hp, but only weighs around 2100 lbs. Compared to a 951 with 217 hp and nearly 3000 lbs, the 911sc has a better power to weight ratio.

Common misconception. In reality, the 3.0L SC and 3.2L Carrera both weigh about 2800lbs. Some of the RS models are a different story, but they are so rare and valuable you could probably buy 20 951s (or a 911GT2) for the cost of one of them. The only non R/RS 911s to weigh anywhere near 2100lbs are the short wheelbase cars from the late 60s..


------------------
'86 951 Graphite Metallic/Tan

[klasic951]

The last time I was at the track in my 951 (three weeks ago) I was running the car in nearly stock trim (only the air filter had been changed) and in my run group was a stock 86 carrera. And I know drivers do make a difference, but was lapping the track 5-6 sec faster (Carolina Motorsports Park). I would say out of the box the 951 is a quicker track car, but now that my car is modified the next track experience won't be a fair comparison. Actually there were two 911's in my group (the other one was a 88 I think) and that one was quite a bit slower as well.
Just my .02

[MAS]

The 951 in either 87 (or possibly 88) was the fastest Porsche model made in stock form.

-MAS

[Doug914]

What, MAS? How about a newer 911 Turbo, with 4.0 sec 0-60, 12.5-sec. 1/4 mile and 180 mph-plus top speed?

I run my '89 S2 with 1984-1988 911s (I believe these have the 3.2-liter engine) in PCA autocrosses. The two cars are very similar in respect to power/weight ratios. I don't have a limited-slip diff, and I think the 911s have an advantage putting the power down out of low and medium-speed corners...they don't spin the inside rear like I do.

--Doug

[Macabre]

Doug914: MAS meant that they were the fastest cars of the time when they were released. It's only because the 911 Turbo of the time was in a lapse between generations.

------------------
'86 951 Graphite Metallic/Tan

[eligunn]

911s can be made extremely fast, but be prepared to spend alot more money to buy one and own one. My friend has an 81 targa with a high compression rebuilt engine and 6 webbers on it. It's a rocket, but the carbs don't allow it run right at lower rpms. Once he revs it past 3k, though it sounds like a monster. he wants to sell it for 16k

[MAS]

"Doug914: MAS meant that they were the fastest cars of the time when they were released. It's only because the 911 Turbo of the time was in a lapse between generations."

Yes, that's what I meant... sorry if I wasn't clear.

-MAS

[Z-man]

A HUGE factor in performance is the driver. At my first DE event with PCA, the newbie rungroup was full of cars with better hp than my lowly 944, including a Boxster S, several 911 Carerras, even a 996. I wasn't the fastest around the track (Lime Rock Park) and a lot of the cars would pull away from me in the straights, but in the corners, I was faster than some of these cars! They would eventually slow down in the straights to let me go by. Granted, many cars passed me too, but the point is: driver skill has alot to do with it. Anybody can drive fast in a straight line: it's the twisties that make things interesting. (Disclaimer: my reference to straight line fast driving does not pertain to official 1/4 mile racing: that definately requires a skill to be effective)

Note: I'm not saying I'm the best driver in the world, just that I may have a little more experience than others. Just my $0.42.
-Zoltan.

------------------
PCA NNJR
My Toy:


[This message has been edited by Z-man (edited 10-10-2001).]

[klasic951]

I don't know if I made that clear, I don't think I did in my earlier post, but I really do agree that the driver is a huge factor. Given the right drivers a VW golf can lap some courses a fast as a Viper. But as soon as that guy driving the viper figures stuff out he will be the faster driver again.

So driver skill does play a huge role, in my earlier post when said I was faster than the two 911's I am assuming an equal skill level because we had all had similar track time.

If you want to be a quick driver there is no substitute for practice, make yourself a better driver first and then get more horse power. This is why my engine is stock, I want to learn the dynamics of my 951 before I start thinking about 300hp.

The reason I think the 944 makes such a good race platform is its inherent balance, 50/50 in the wieght distribution deparment, and steady predictable handling make this a good learning car. The 911's are much harder to drive, but in the hands of a skilled driver the dynamics of a 911 make them hard to beat. They have a stiff chaisis and can take full advantage of the weight transfer under braking and acceleration, but watch out you screw up in a 911 and you are going ass end first in a direction you probably didn't want to be going. You screw up in a 944 you have a bit of time to catch it. Of course if you screw up bad enough in anything and you are not going to be happy with the result.

[Dan944t]

test

[Dan944t]

In 1986 The 944 Turbo was Porsches Fastest production car that came to America for that year. My source is Car & Driver I beleive Aug 85 edition (i will check). It was also the FASTEST CAR IN America in 86 until the Ferrari Testarossa came out in 87 which was faster. I will try and scan some of the images if my scanner works.

Dan
87 951 42k miles
87 951 200k oil cooler replacment underway

[dk944s2]

Hmm. I think the Countach of that year might have been faster, but it was made in such small numbers that I don't really consider it a producion car.

Yep, the '86 944 Turbo was quite the sensation. Just helped my friend pull the cylinder head off his car over the weekend (more hoses than a garden supply store!) and was admiring the attention to aero underneath the car, specifically the plastic panels beneath the footwells...also neat channels for brake cooling, and those 90-degree sheet-metal pieces on the struts that direct air toward the rotors. Those engineers in Weissach/Zuffenhausen/Wolfsburg/Ingolstadt/
wherever think of everything! If I remember right, the coefficient of drag is something like 0.29-0.30, phenomenal for its day.

--Doug

[Macabre]

The Turbo has a Cd of .33 (compared to .35 on the NAs) and a frontal area of 1.89sq/m which resulted in the best overall aerodynamics of any production car built at the time.

------------------
'86 951 Graphite Metallic/Tan