165 Mph 73 2.4s ??? - Page 3

pwd72s · 07:31 PM

CAR & DRIVER performance figures on the 2.4 S:
Curb weight 2455 pounds (coupe)
0-60 MPH 6.0 seconds
0-100 MPH 15.7 seconds
Standing 1/4 mile 14.4 seconds
top speed: "approximately 145 MPH"....

Also, this seller mentions an "RS" limited slip? Well, yeah...maybe so. But it could also be a 911T, 911E, or 911S limited slip. Aka factory limited slip, available as an option in all models. Guess I'd better stop telling folks my car has factory limited slip...now that I know I have"RS" limited slip.

What's happening here? Some folks are figuring out that the tulip bulbs were priced too high, and they want out while the getting is good. The market is seeing more and more nice early 911s for sale these days. The "players" are looking for a different game. I believe this is good, because some of these cars might end up in the hands of real enthusiasts. That's much better than in the hands of a pack of wannabe tall dogs, each whining that he can pee higher up the lamp post than the other.

masraum · 10-09-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr9146
A few facts:
--I know the owner of the car for 20+ years.
--I have driven and worked on the car.
--The car is and does what he claims. I've seen 8K...
--165 indicated? Is possible. Car's had multiple trannys.
--Space savers are a must when using the plastic tank.
--It's a little more than a 2.4 ... how much more? Nobody knows. We've never been inside.
--He is a dork, but he's no liar.
--That car, even at 50K+ won't meet the reserve.
--All of you are retarded ... except Curt. He knows...

His claims and the way in which he made them make him seem like a fool or a liar. Maybe he's just a dork. His text implies that the car will go 165, not that the speedo reads 165. If he really thinks it's going 165 then that makes him seem like a fool, if he knows it's not going that, but the speedo says so then that makes him seem borderline dishonest.

It'd take a motor that was pretty much a race motor to hit 165 in that car. I'm willing to believe that he's no fool and is just a dork. If that's the case then maybe one of you buds should help him appear more credible in his auction and come up with more concrete facts instead of what's printed.

niner11 · 10-09-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr9146
Well, that's why I don't post here very often. Threads like this. And now I find myself being drawn into it...

Do us all a favor and make it a long time before you post again.

pwd72s · 10-09-2006, 07:50 PM

Ahhh, no need to get that nasty...we've ripped the seller, deservedly so...but it could well be a darned nice car. I hope it ends up in the hands of an enthusiast...

cegerer · cegerer's Garage

>>>>Do us all a favor and make it a long time before you post again.<<<<

You should really do your homework, before throwing out gratuitous insults. Marco knows his *****.

dd74 · 10-09-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr9146
A few facts:
--All of you are retarded ...

Even me, as I wonder who will do my "pending" transmission mods?

pwd72s · 10-09-2006, 08:00 PM

Yeah! My gratuitous insults go only to the seller...

75Carrera · 75Carrera's Garage

DOGPILE!!!

masraum · 10-09-2006, 08:03 PM

And cegerer is a respected member of the board so there's probably more to this car than meets the eye.

The claims may or may not be erroneous or false for a couple of reasons.

I still say the way he wrote the car up is enough to turn lots of potential buyers away, but the guy has gotten lots and lots of PR for his ad.

dd74 · 10-09-2006, 08:07 PM

I still say if it's geared properly, 145 can at least be eclipsed.

When I had my old 3.0, it was figured my car could go 150 mph.

A nice thought when I drive more in the world of 15 mph.

marc weintraub · marc weintraub's Garage

I am sure lots of people get plenty of PR for an ad, but the one in question is clearly false. I have owned 8 early Porsche cars including a real 73rs and real 74 3.0 rsr and I know how they run and how they are built.

The 73"S" was a very capable car, but the 2.4"S" engine had a finite amount of updates and upgrades allowing it to have enough hp to move this car (with standard body) to get it to 165mph. It is an aerodynamic issue that would mean your car would need over 300hp (give or take a few HP) to get you there. My 3.0 RSR was good for about 180, but it was pushing over 300hp and that was based on gearing, but the aerodynamics were such that it could stay planted firmly on the ground.

Obviously, there is more to take in account than that, but the bottom line is that his 73"S" is not a 165mph cruiser. Not a chance. Physics has taken over.

Mr9146 · 10-09-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
Even me, as I wonder who will do my "pending" transmission mods?

HA! I'm totally busted!

Obviously not meant for you, sir.

Actually, it was a tounge in cheek comment. Kinda shook my head to myself while writing it.

Big Willow on Wednesday?

pwd72s · 10-09-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
I still say if it's geared properly, 145 can at least be eclipsed.

When I had my old 3.0, it was figured my car could go 150 mph.

A nice thought when I drive more in the world of 15 mph.

Not by much...it's the math of the tire dia., and the gears. Not so much aerodynamics, though sans tail, things get VERY twitchy at those speeds. I will confess, thanks to the statute of limitations, of having seen my car's speedo indicate past 150...but I'm thinking it was more like 145. I was on the rev limiter, 5th gear, at the time. This was long, long ago...back when I was young, dumb, and full of "stuff".

sithot · 10-09-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by marc weintraub

Obviously, there is more to take in account than that, but the bottom line is that his 73"S" is not a 165mph cruiser. Not a chance. Physics has taken over.

Logic prevails. Thanks, Mark.

Tom

Mr9146 · 08:31 PM

What seems to be glossed over is the fact that this is not a stock motor. Now, what exactly has been changed internally is not known, as the only thing that's been off the motor since this guy bought the car have been the valve covers.

It's at least a 2.7, possibly a 2.8, and who knows what kind of head work has been done.

The 165mph claim may or may not be actual, but it very well could be indicated based on changes in tire size.

Example A:
I drive a 1963 356 T-6 B with a 2.3-liter four banger. Stock heads, high compression, nothing fancy. It's our weekend racecar, but serves more time as a daily driver. It has a 5spd 901 gearbox. The speedo was calibrated by North Hollywood Speedo in July. In August on the way to the Historics, with me, my girlfriend, a back seat full of luggage, a spare tire, tools, and a full tank of gas I hit an indicated 140mph on highway 101. It was in 5th gear at roughly 5500 RPM (+/- 200) and still charging. I lifted for lack of road.

It'd be a chore, but it can be done ...

Mr9146 · 10-09-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by niner11
Do us all a favor and make it a long time before you post again.

Why are you being mean?

I love you, Man.

Chill out and have a beer.

jdm61 · 10-09-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by widgeon13
This does not seem to be marketed as a concour car so what is a realistic price for a 73 S Targa?

I was told recently by my mechanic that the 72-73 S's are going for as much as $75-100k for minty ones. Heis converting one that a customer had een racing back to original specs because it is too valuable to race anymore. If you think about it, those years of the S may be the second most desireable widely produced 911 after the RS.

niner11 · 10-09-2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr9146
Why are you being mean?

I love you, Man.

Chill out and have a beer.

Aww...Lets have a group hug. I didn't appreciate the retarded comment when people were making valid well thought out points. If you use the smilies everybody will get your humour. Sorry, I missed it without you saying something in a later post.

dd74 · 10-09-2006, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr9146
HA! I'm totally busted! Obviously not meant for you, sir.

Actually, it was a tounge in cheek comment. Kinda shook my head to myself while writing it.

Big Willow on Wednesday?

Marco - no worries. I'm just funnin' with you. Big Willow might be a possibility. PM me your phone #, and I'll call you.

jdm61 · 10-09-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremyD
Just because 165 shows on the speedo does not mean you are going 165...

True. My dad had a 72 or 73 BMW Bavaria (guessing it was a 2800) for a while as a company car in 1975. We had it up to an indicated 152 while stomping a kid in some kind of smokey OldsmoBuick muscle car who wanted to show off on the interstate outside of Hartford...lol. Now I KNOW that the car couldn't go that fast, but that kid looked just as embarrassed at 140 or so than at 152 because his speedo was probably telling him the same thing ours was. And my dad had me and my brother in the car...wreckless, baby, but fun......LMAO