I’m watching Le Mans (1971) on the DVR, and Steve McQueen is driving a black '70 911.
The Porsche 911 series has been in production since the 1964 year-model. I used to have a 911SC, and it was the most fun car I’ve owned. (Even more fun than the MGBs" :eek: ) One thing about it was that I found the interior to be ‘bulky’. I took off the door panels and replaced them with RSR ones.
The old chrome-bumper cars, as seen in the film, had much more spartan interiors. (The earlier models also had a shorter wheelbase, which made the handling a little ‘livelier’ than the pre-'69 cars.) Just an opinion, but I think that back then drivers of sports cars were less interested in creature comforts than later drivers.
I like the 911s up through the 993. The 996 is OK (it’s grown on me since it was introduced), but I don’t care for the Boxster front-end. I could live with a 997. Even though used 911s are reasonably priced, I have no desire to get one anytime soon. The MG is still fresh. But playing ‘What If…?’, which one would I choose? The 997 is the most capable; and why buy a sports car if not for the function? The 993s are the most capable of the classic-style 911s and were the last with air-cooled engines. The 911SC and later Carrera were closer to the classic styling than later models, but suffered (IMO) from the chunky interiors. Pre-'73-1/2 models are, I think, the definitive models. Just what you need for function, nice spartan interiors, and an overall clean package; but they lack several of the engine refinements that came later.
Why has this car been so successful? If you look on something like Wikipedia, they say the 911 has been one of the most successful racing cars in history. Isn’t the rear engine a drawback? I’d think that mid-engine cars would have an advantage. What is is that’s so great about the 911?
I personally have never driven one unless you count video games.
Gimmie a whale tail 80’s porsche. Other than that, I like the modern 911 Turbo.
My first sportscar was an 87 RX-7, a car that strongly resembled a 944. (With electrics less reliable than a Jag.) When I got tired of it breaking, I sorted about for a car I could race without breaking. It was a Camaro (yeah, move on), Corvette or Porsche. At the time the potential maintenance costs were what ruled out the Porsche, the general mulletness was what ruled out the Camaro. the Corvette was a good pick.
But I still really appreciate the Porsche. Adele Arakawa is a local news announcer, she’s well known locally as a Porschephile (and extremely fast), her GT3 is a pretty spiffy set of wheels.
My dad had a 1970 911T Targa when I was growing up. I loved the semi-enclosed, wide view feel of the Targa body. And I always liked the line of the back window better than the sweeping cut of the coupe.
In the last year or so, I’ve been thinking a Targa of my own would be nice. After the frame rusted out on dad’s '70, I told myself I’d never buy one before they went to a stainless body, but recently I’ve been attracted to the late -80’s series, with the updated transmission. My wife thinks this would be a maintenance nightmare, though. Is she right?
Light, fast, and nimble, all wrapped up in a timeless package. And marketing. Highly-skilled drivers could make use of the shorter car’s handling, but your average sports car driver was likely to get the back end coming round front if he wasn’t careful. They sold and sell the car as a racing car for the masses. To do that, they had to lengthen it. People were more inclined to buy a car that wouldn’t spin if they were a little ham-fisted. Then people wanted nicer interiors, power windows, center consoles, etc. Porsche provided. I read once (I think it was in Excellence or else under its previous name of Porsche) that Porsche aimed to build one fewer car every year than demanded. I don’t know if that’s true, but I think the impression was.
(Note: The 911 didn’t have a frame. They’re unibody.) Mine didn’t need any more maintenance than any other car. But when you put the P-word on things, they get expensive. The engines are bulletproof. I read one account of an amateur racer who decided to see how far he could drive his car without ‘doing anything’ to the engine. He was in a hill-clim event when his engine blew at 300,000 miles. Earlier cars did not have timing chain tensioners, but these can be retrofitted. You don’t want to lose a timing chain in a 911 engine. (I lost the timing belt in the 924 I’d had previously. Fortunately its Audi engine doesn’t destroy itself when that happens like the flat-six would.) From what I’ve read Porsches are some of the most reliable cars around.
I should add a component of driving that doesn’t get enough play: Polar moment of inertia. You can have two 5 lb. objects, one shaped like a barbell, and one shaped like a cueball. The cueball will turn more easily.
The Corvette is a barbell. Big, heavy, good brakes, but a barbell. A miata (and I suspect the 911) less so.
Wouldn’t a mid-engined car have a lower moment of inertia than a rear-engined 911? Although I suppose it’s possible a 911 would have a lower one, but not centered on the center of the car.
Yes. But the 911’s got an advantage in acceleration (more weight planted over the rear wheels, and more traction the harder you accelerate) and Porsche’s engineered out the snap-oversteer tendencies you’d normally get in a rear engined car.
The problem is that advantages due to location of the engine can be minimized due to other aspects of a car’s design. As a rule of thumb, the porsche will be lighter, and make less power than the competition, but will have better brakes and out handle due to being able to stay on power longer. (YMMV, etc.) At the level of performance we’re talking about, it often relies more on the cajones of the driver than the location of the motor.
A thing of beauty, to be sure, but from what I’ve read she was a stone-faced bitch to drive. Richard Attwood was leading Le Mans by miles in a 917 with two hours left when the gearbox failed. I found a quote that he had never been so happy in his life.
(That was in 1969, and the car got better once they sorted out the aerodynamics. The wheels would stay on the ground, stuff like that.)
Exactly - has the old-school look with the “muscle car” influence…don’t get me wrong: my room was *littered *with posters of flair-fendered Turbos, 935’s and various other souped-up 911 types when I was a kid, but just like I moved from fancy hair-metal SuperStrats back to simple-but-always-perfect Telecasters, my tastes have gone simpler and more retro…
And yeah, like EJs Girl, I prefer a good Bathtub Porsche any day - a '63 356B Cabriolet would be nirvana to me…
Well, the reality is that a 911 is faster, accelerates quicker, handles better, is more comfortable, has better visibility, is more reliable, has better heating and ventilation, and you can really put four people in it in a pinch.
Don’t get me wrong; MGs are gobs of fun. They handle very well, the top comes off (which do on some 911s too, but I like the coupés), the engines sound great, and you really get into the Zeitgeist of classic motoring. But I really like the kick in the pants from that big boxer engine and the whole Teutonic-ness of the 911. OTOH I could have bought another 911, but I have an MGB.
Psst… they didn’t lengthen it. The basic dimensions remained the same from 1963 until they launched the 964 (internal designation) version in 1989- and even then they only added 2 1/2 inches.
Strength in numbers. Porsches win races primarily because of two things- one, there are tons starting every race, because of their superb support system for privateers and relatively low price, and two, there will be tons still running at the end of every race, because nothing will go wrong mechanically.
My favorite 911 is isn’t really a 911 at all - it’s the 959, the ultimate road car up to 1980, and arguably beyond. It used the 911 engine block and lots of the same parts, but was effectively an entirely new car. After that, it would have to be the 935, which also isn’t really a 911, being a race-prepped version with a flat nose that would eventually become available as a special order option. You might know it as Jazz from the Transformers comics/cartoons.
If I have to pick one that was actually badged 911, it’s got to be the purist’s favorite - the ducktail 1973 RS. That said, looks-wise, the last few iterations with the smooth nose have all been gorgeous, especially the last-gen Turbo with the Boxster headlamps.
After getting myself into trouble on numerous occasions driving a friend’s mid-80’s 911 Turbo, he switched to a Carrera 4. What a car. I’m unlikely to ever own a sports car like that (two kids and all that), but if I did, a 911 would be at the top of my list. Easily one of the three most enjoyable performance cars I’ve ever driven.
Even though used 911s are reasonably priced, I have no desire to get one anytime soon. The MG is still fresh. But playing ‘What If…?’, which one would I choose? The 997 is the most capable; and why buy a sports car if not for the function? The 993s are the most capable of the classic-style 911s and were the last with air-cooled engines. The 911SC and later Carrera were closer to the classic styling than later models, but suffered (IMO) from the chunky interiors. Pre-'73-1/2 models are, I think, the definitive models. Just what you need for function, nice spartan interiors, and an overall clean package; but they lack several of the engine refinements that came later.
But a 911 is the most fun car I have ever driven, and I’ve driven a few.