165 Mph 73 2.4s ???

[audi2.7t]

Originally posted by execmalibu .

There are enormous risks like FIRES, FLOODS, EARTHQUAKES ,and even TIDLE WAVES here is Malibu.

TIDAL WAVE.... , it is TIDAL WAVE... not TITLE WAVE or TIDLE WAVE... here IN Malibu... If you must edit a post due to incorrect spelling ,make sure you spell check the second time around. Thank you.

[Todd Simpson]

...

Remember, the ad stated "stock",

No, it did not.

FIRST THE ENGINE IS A CORRECT 1973 911S ENGINE #6330055... IS IT THE ORIGINAL ENGINE? (I DONT KNOW AND I DONT CARE!) EARLY 1973 "S" CAR, EARLY 1973 "S" ENGINE ...

[lateapex911]

Hair splitting, eh? "Correct" is never a 2.7 or 2.8 or a modified with unknown internals engine. "Correct" to me, and I bet to the masses as well, is an engine ithat is an "S" engine, although the serial number might not match what was originally in the car.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by lateapex911
Hair splitting, eh? "Correct" is never a 2.7 or 2.8 or a modified with unknown internals engine. "Correct" to me, and I bet to the masses as well, is an engine ithat is an "S" engine, although the serial number might not match what was originally in the car.

+1

[Todd Simpson]

That's not hair splitting. You guys are picking his ad apart word for word, I'm just making sure you get your quotes straight.

Here's Paul also getting it wrong just a few pages back.

A stock 2.4 S, which was what this car presented as in the ebay ad

Again...he never said it was stock, a 2.4 or even that it was built to S spec. Only that the serial number is in the range for '73 S engines.

I believe the 8500 claim...Can't wait for the 15th to see if I'm right!

The 165? Well, that's indicated, and driven by the lower profile tires.

And please...let's drop the "loser" and other name calling. Exec is a character...so what? There are plenty of guys who've contributed lots to the Porsche community that if they posted here might come off a bit odd...

[SlowToady]

...You guys all owe me $100 for the time I wasted reading this thread instead of studying..lol.

I have no idea whether or not his car can do what he says, and I'm sort of disappointed that we have to wait 2 weeks to find out. I better subscribe so I don't forget about it.

Hey exec I just wanted to let you know I feel bad for you as well. If you just want to give me that 246, you'll be much better off

[lateapex911]

Whats funny here is when a car goes on Ebay, the board rips it to shreds if the ad says it has perlin carpets that end up being something else.

But here's an ad that states that engine is a correct S engine. I'm sure you're right, he didn't say it was 2.4, but guess what, all S's from those years were 2.4s! So yea, it has to be a 2.4, with the correct parts to match the ad.

And he didn't say it went an "indicated" 165, did he? He said it went "165"...actually "pulled past" is the line I seem to remember, but won't waste time finding. A pretty outlandish claim, and one that if I were making, I'd want to make accurately.

Being a "character" is fine, but he's a bit loosey goosey with the claims, and it's not unreasonable that when such outlandish claims are made, that he expect some debate, and he should be able to prove the claims.

Now, if he came on here and said, "Well, I should have probably said it went an indicated 165, and my tach is probably a bit optimistic", then it would have died down. He'd have a bit of egg in his face, but that's not the path he chose.

So, we'll see. But I for one can read black and white, and don't add words like "indicated" ....so as far as I am concerned, it's very simple.

It is a 2.4S engine that can go 165MPH with the Targa top removed, and rev past 8500rpm all day long.

Or it can do the performance, but isn't a 2.4S engine.

Or it is a 2.4S engine, but can't do the performance claims.

If it isn't the first option, he's been less than honest.


I look forward to some real data, but I hope we aren't relying on old tachs and other BS.

[sithot]

Get the Cd for a 1973 Targa. I suspect it borders on .40. Targas in general (until the advent of the glass roof) are not known for aerodynamics. If I were to make a brazen statement about how fast my car is it would have been with something a bit more streamlined.

There is a formula for calculating horsepower necessary to achieve a speed (calculating for drag).

Cal Tech, MIT or engineering grads step right up.

I concur that the short tires on the car are what gives the "False" readings.
"False", meaning erroneous. "True"; it may indicate 165 but it is "False".

Tom

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by lateapex911
Whats funny here is when a car goes on Ebay, the board rips it to shreds if the ad says it has perlin carpets that end up being something else.

But here's an ad that states that engine is a correct S engine. I'm sure you're right, he didn't say it was 2.4, but guess what, all S's from those years were 2.4s! So yea, it has to be a 2.4, with the correct parts to match the ad.

And he didn't say it went an "indicated" 165, did he? He said it went "165"...actually "pulled past" is the line I seem to remember, but won't waste time finding. A pretty outlandish claim, and one that if I were making, I'd want to make accurately.

Being a "character" is fine, but he's a bit loosey goosey with the claims, and it's not unreasonable that when such outlandish claims are made, that he expect some debate, and he should be able to prove the claims.

Now, if he came on here and said, "Well, I should have probably said it went an indicated 165, and my tach is probably a bit optimistic", then it would have died down. He'd have a bit of egg in his face, but that's not the path he chose.

So, we'll see. But I for one can read black and white, and don't add words like "indicated" ....so as far as I am concerned, it's very simple.

It is a 2.4S engine that can go 165MPH with the Targa top removed, and rev past 8500rpm all day long.

Or it can do the performance, but isn't a 2.4S engine.

Or it is a 2.4S engine, but can't do the performance claims.

If it isn't the first option, he's been less than honest.


I look forward to some real data, but I hope we aren't relying on old tachs and other BS.

Couldn't agree more. My car sports a "correct" 911S engine for it's year. A documented original engine. No way in hell will I try to rev it to 8,500. My car is a non sunroof coupe. It is not capable of 165 mph. So yeah, I call Bull Caca on Execmalibu's claims. If the car can't do as claimed, Caca. If it does do as claimed? Caca again, because it's not a "correct" early 911S engine.

[speeder]

Just stumbled onto this silly thread. Funny, but I think that I have met the seller of this car back in '89 when I was parting out my '70 911E after the crash. Even been to his house in Malibu. Named Jeff by any chance?

Says he's owned the car for 20 years, so I'm betting that I'm guessing right. Nice enough guy when I met him, the internet has a way of reducing everyone's personality a few notches.

Small world, anyways.

[CurtEgerer]

Now that this has been unceremoniously demoted to OT, I'd like to know the following:

1. Did Exec hire Karl Rove to write the eBay ad?

2. Was Halliburton involved in a clandestine engine building program funded by taxpayers?

3. Was Cheney actually driving the car at 165MPH in an effort to evade aliens 10 years ago? I believe they were close to Area 51 on that run!

4. Has anyone ever seen Exec and Rumsfeld in the same room together?

5. Isn't all of this really Bush's fault?

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by CurtEgerer
Now that this has been unceremoniously demoted to OT, I'd like to know the following:



3. I believe they were close to Area 51 on that run!

HOOT! You could be on to something here, Curt. RoninLB told me he was driving past area 51 when his Permatune started to act up. He peered up through the sunroof (probably a full moon that night as well) and cried out, "WHAAAAT????"

[DohertyCM]

So politics is where this thread is going now...why not we have covered every other thing except sports...

I noticed that you named all of the Republicans...doing the work of course while the Democrats sit on the side lines and complain...and *****

And when this car does perform as advertised, then the democratic 2 step will come into play and call foul and say things like the tach is not calabrated and there was a conspiracy because a democrat was not in the passenger seat...or the drivers seat...

BLAH BLAH BLAH.....

I think he is going to take your money, I can tell you that formulas and mathmatics to figure performance have been exceeded many times over CALCULATED figures in the aircraft industry...I dont see why it would not be the same in the auto industry.

If you dont read all this in jest as well then you really need another life so you can relax.....good clean fun is the name of the game..!

[pwd72s]

Trust me on this...I've been LOL all the way through this. It's been very funny.

[lateapex911]

I don't know...dragging politics into this might dirty the good name of politics........

[randywebb]

clock is ticking

[T77911S]

my brother just bought a 930, his speedo reads about 5 to 8 mph hi. tire size- 205-50-16 / 245-45-16

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by DohertyCM
So politics is where this thread is going now...why not we have covered every other thing except sports...

How about those Beavers??? Beating USC in football! WOW!
Then 44-10 over Arizona State? Double WOW!

[randywebb]

A great victory -- unless you are a spoiled child.

Then there was the annual heeling of the dawgs last weekend, also.

[sammyg2]

Sorry, I'm a doubter.
I don't buy that it will do an actual 165 mph. I don't buy that it is a correct motor that will rev to an ACTUAL 8500+ rpm, and not a number that is influenced by gauge error.

My 911SC says it will do well over 160 (extrapolated) with stock engine, (OK a few bolt on modifications to the intake and exhaust) stock gearing, stock tires. Sure it probably has the power (significantly more than our new friend Mr. perfect's car) but if I actually had my speedo calibrated correctly I would lose much of that top end speed.