71 T performance
 

As I look at the stats on the 71 T with its 2.2 and Zenith carbs, the output is only 125 HP. Not very strong compared to the E's T's, and S's of the early years. Is the low of power rating a consideration in the model purchase decision for an early car or not?

Can easy mods be made to crank it up a notch, or should I look to an E or S with MFI?

joe

As far as I understand it, S and E models will command a premium over Ts, (especially Es) but I'm not sure how much that's related to power, as opposed to just having the various extra options, or perhaps the relative rarity of them. These early cars aren't really all that powerful, at least in stock form. I'd say if power is what you're looking for, you're better off with an SC. My 83 944 with its 4 cylinders compares favourably to my 72 911T. It's not really faster or more powerful, but closer than you'd think.

IMO there is no way a T can really be considered a performance car. Only the S really makes the grade. But those are top money here in the UK as well as the US. I think it is the performance that folks pay for as it is possible to get Ts with S options but these cars do not go for S money.
SCs are certainly much better value.

As a 1973.5T owner with the CIS 2.4, the "T" is by no means is any kind of performer for that era. Consider the GTO, 442, Corvette, Malibu's, Hemi-Cuda's and 305 Mustangs to name a few back in the early 70's when muscle cars ruled. Off the line the "T" could have been beat by a well tuned VW Beetle!! So what was Porsche thinking? In comes the "S" and even "E" with respectable performance and a good challenge to America's muscle cars. The lonely "T" performed well in the twisties where the advantage of handling only a Porsche could be demonstrated.
No drag racer is the "T".

"T" stands for touring and is was engineered for just that. No blinding speed, no neck jerking performance, just a great car that gave you great confidence on the country roads and great handling in traffic. Compare a 3.0 SC to a 1973.5T 2.4 and its apples and oranges! SC's are great performers.

I like the "T" for the nostalgic feel and looks. Everything from a Toyota Corolla to a Cadillac Escalade can wipe me out off the line the first 50 yards or so, but if there are lots turns ahead, they break, I apex...............and its ballz to the wall in the turns.

Bob

:cool:

Re: 71 T performance
 

If you're not planning on tracking the car, you're better off saving up for an E or S rather than bastardizing a nice original T. You could get a lot more performance from something newer for your money if that's your main concern.

Me, I'd rather get a old 911 and enjoy it for what it is - a vintage sports car. My poison of preference would be an early SWB 911, as I think it's the purest expression of the 911, before outside influences got to it. It's why I tend to go for a band's early music as well, before fame and success corrupts them and the record companies turn their muses to prostitutes...

I thoroughly enjoyed my old 1970 911T...the key lies in enjoying a car for what it is. There are a lot of early 911 hot rod tricks that could be done to improve a 2.2's performance, but why bother? The $$$ it would take to do so could buy the latest hot rice rocket...one that would blow the doors off most of the modded early 911's. But the rice rocket becomes obsolete, while a 2.2 T will always be an enjoyable and good looking ride.

I own a 1971 T and it all comes down to what you mean by "performance?" If it is 0-60 time, then you already know it is not impressive -- about 8.2 seconds by my reckoning. But driveability it excels at... the 2.2 T pulls well from 2500 rpms -- try that in an S and you will be lugging up to 4500 rpms. The bulk of real world driving is not above 4500 rpms. Once a year I go on a 10 day drivein the T and I get 25 mpg, don't have to shift as much since I have a larger rpm range which makes for a more relaxing drive, and when I hit the twisty roads, I have a car that can corner at 40 mph as good as an S can. I have owned the car for 19 years... it idles easy, starts easy, does not backfire or complain driving in traffic.

Is there a noticeable difference in performance tween the 2.2 w/Zeniths and say a 2.4 w/ MFI?

I have both a 2.2 with Zeniths and a 2.4 with MFI. The 2.4 is definitely stronger. Neither is a corvette beater. My daily driver is a somewhat modified 1988 Carerra which is darn fast, I'd put it against just about anything. But it is a different car completely from the other two, much heavier, more plastic, more power this and that. I believe any long hood from 69 through 73.5 is a great car to own.

"Can wasy mods be made to crank it up a notch, or should I look to an E or S with MFI?"

Funny you said crank. Stoke it to a 2.4 and that thing will pull away from stock 3.2 Carrera's.

Easy is relative. New crank and rods are easy to do if you're doing an engine rebuild anyway.

2.2`s
 

I have a 71T and I love it.It`s a Targa ,which makes it even less desirable than a coupe to the purists.I put a new sport muffler on it and new k&N filters to replace the air box.With the top off and at 5000 rpm`s,it sounds wonderfull and I don`t start thinking I wish it was an "S". If you can find a good one,buy it and enjoy it for what it is,not for what you think it ought to be.By the way ,I have a 73 E and have owned a 70S,so I am in a position to make the call as opposed to the wanabees.Go have fun! TFM

Probably the most tolerent, un-fussy, easy to drive, best running early 911 engines ever produced. I've owned a 71'E '72E '71'S '73S and my father has always had his '71T (stock). The others are fun and have good snort. If you can live without it being hugely powerful you'll be really pleased with all of the "real world" attributes of the T. The most reliable of the bunch also.
Enjoy it for what it is.
Nabil

man, is all this good to hear!!! just got a 70T and can't wait to "enjoy" it!!!

Hi,
This got me to wondering about another difference. The 1970 911T that is being shipped to me tomorrow has Webers. Porsche switched over from Webers to Zeniths in '72' (?). Why make the switch? Was it a performance aspest or an economic aspect. From what I've heard from others, the performance is nearly identical w/ the Webers having a slight edge. Is this true?

Thanks,
HB

From what I understand, the Zeniths were a low cost carb w/o much adjustability to them. I don't think there is much performance difference between the two in their stock form.

You can get parts for Weber more easily and they can be "tuned" for better performance. :D