Quote:
Originally Posted by ckissick
Yes, but the point I have been trying to make here is that a 911S often goes for way, way more than a 912. Yet there's not much of a difference between them. What you say can be applied to a 912 as well. So the the stratospheric difference between the two can only be attributed to status and image.
I had a very fast 911E but was rarely able to use the power. I've still never driven a 912, as mine is under a complete restoration. But I have a feeling that I'll enjoy the 912 as a driver just as much. Maybe not off the line, but everywhere else.
|
No you won't...
The early 911's were dogs off the line...even I could run faster...and that is SLOW. the 2.0L and 2.2L engines were meant for running at high speed on the autobahn. They had handling and braking which was unheard of in any American car of the time..(I had a 66 427/450hp Vette).
From what I understand the 72/73 E and S were a bit quicker at the get go...with the 2.4L,
The 912 just does not have the effortless OMMPH of the 911...those 2 cylinders make a whole lot of dif. I drove a 912 as a dd for a long time, and a 68 wt a 70 S motor. The S was wicked.
The long hoods were a lithe no frills straight to the point, no BS sports car... After 73 that all changed.. they became luxo slugs. With all the amenities that fat Americans want.
If you wan some performance put Big Bore cylinders in your 912..it won't be as anemic.
I like the 356 body, and would suffer being a slug while driving one of those...they are just kool. Especially a Cab or Speedster.
It is about the experience of sitting behind the wheel and cruising along..
That ^^^ is what it all about driving 50 some odd year old cars...it is not about performance or amenities it is about the experience of driving something kool..
So BAZ is nutz on in his comments....most people looking at an old 911 can't tell the dif anyway...