When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Do you think a 986S or 987 are faster than a 964? (Which is 5" narrower, slightly lighter, has slightly more power, and is a few tenths faster 0-60.)
Not sure if you're asking this as an interesting tangent, or as something relevant to classing the 986S and 987.
Yes, I think the 986S and 987 are faster, although that's based on a lot of conjecture. I'm not aware of anyone having run a 964 in Stock / Street in modern history, and thus I'm not aware of any comparative data.
I agree that the 964 looks good on paper, although it's worth noting that it has pretty narrow (7" F, 8" R) wheels. Also, people who haven't driven unmodified cars from the '80s and early '90s tend to overlook how incredibly soft they were. If you race two cars that look identical on paper, one built in the '00s and one built in the '80s or early '90s, I'd put my money on the newer car.
Here's me in a 1995 Porsche 968 with the M030 sports suspension, Motons, and a very big front bar (>1.25" if I recall):
I spent an obscene amount of money prepping that car.
Way back in 2005 we were speculating about whether the 964 RS America could be competitive with the Porsche 968: http://www.sccaforums.com/forums/aft/8825/afpg/7. We know that 968s were at the top of AS in the late '90s before being outpaced and thus obsoleted by the base Boxster in the early '00s. The 986S and 987 are of course faster than the base 986. Given that, unless we grossly underestimated the 964 back in the day, 964 ~= 968 < 986 < 986S ~= 987, and thus 964 < < 986S / 987*.
Between that and the fact that it's exceedingly unlikely that we'll ever see a well kept, well prepared, well driven 964 campaigned in Street again, I don't think the 964 comparison is particularly relevant to the discussion of where to put the 986S and 987.
* There appears to be a bug in the forum code where, if you type any character immediately after a < , the software gets confused thinking that it's markup and thus truncates the post.
But not really any more so than E36 M3, MR2 Turbo, 964 Carrera, Ferrari 328, and 350Z which are already in CS and have not toppled it.
I think you need to brush up on your history.
The MR2 Turbo and E36 M3 were both good cars in A Stock in the mid-nineties. The Porsche 944 S2 and 968 came along and proved sufficiently faster that the Toyota and BMW went away. As noted above, the Boxster proved faster than either of the older Porsches, and of course the Boxster S is faster than the Boxster. For that reason, the fact that neither the MR2 nor the M3 are at the top of CS has no relevance to the 986S classing decision.
No one's seriously campaigned either a 964 (the 964 to have is the RS America, not the Carrera 2) or a 328, so you can't cite those as evidence for anything one way or another.
Comparative data on the 350Z is a bit harder to come by since it was written off by most in the mid-2000s, but it's worth noting that after it was written off for B Stock, a bunch of people tried campaigning 986Ss in *A* Stock, myself included. Several of them did reasonably well in them, especially at Pros; while we all concluded that the 986S wasn't fast enough to keep up with the S2000s, that by no means means that the 986S wouldn't be able to outrun CS.
I think historical results show that you're significantly underestimating the 986 and 987's performance potential.
I think you've pretty much made my point- every car in CS with more power than an NC or FR-S has been completely buried due to other shortcomings, and ND is going to raise the bar even more. 986S is no stranger to shortcomings and every criticism you leviied against the 964 holds true for the 986S, too. Even if 986S is faster than the other more powerful cars in CS, it would have to be a large amount faster to compete.
I don't know why you feel your conjecture is more valid than the ample historical data that appears to contradict it, but if you're determined to disregard the data then there isn't a discussion to be had here.
Interesting discussion about the 964...I've autocrossed my 964 C2 since 1999 at the regional level here in Texas. First in A-Stock, then it was moved to B-Stock and now it's been in C-Stock for a number of years. The opinions of the competitive nature of the car is correct. I've run it bone stock except for aggressive alignment and Bilstein HD shocks. In the early 2000's, on Hoosiers, I was very close to the best M3 and MR2 Turbo that ran locally, but I could never quite beat them.....but it's always been fun!
Pedalfaster: cool pic of the 968! Earlydays: cool pic of the 964! sjfehr: I think my 944S2 front springs were 175 lb/in. Those softly sprung cars from the 90's just can't get it done anymore... too slow to transition. With body stiffness up so are the spring stiffnesses and roll angles are down, reducing the camber loss. Today's econoboxes transition faster than 90's sports-cars and develop more lat-g with proper tires.
I supposed you guys are right about the low chance of the 986 going into E-Street for exactly the reasons you guys state. But, I have more hope for the 986S in C-Street and the 987.1 Cayman S in B-street
B-street is a really healthy and fun class right now and would be even better with the Cayman. With a competitive place to play, the Cayman S used to come out:
5 CS drivers out of 16 in A-stock at 2012 Nats.
8 CS drivers of 17 in A-stock in 2011 when a CS took 2nd and 4 of the top 10.
If none of that happens, I might just have to save up, get a 987.2 CS and join sjfehr tilting at the windmills (Corvettes) in A-street. I really do think that car can do it if properly set up. It would probably take me a couple of years to figure it out, plus learn to drive it.
This thread got me thinking -- just how crazy would it be to prep a 964 RS America for C Street?
That's the kind of thinking that makes you build a 35 year old torsion bar car for STR.
Fun fact: When I was shopping for my car only maybe 5 years ago 964 RSAs were going for $40k and I thought that was absurd at the time. Scroll down on this site a bit, check the prices, and pick that jaw off the ground.
If none of that happens, I might just have to save up, get a 987.2 CS and join sjfehr tilting at the windmills (Corvettes) in A-street. I really do think that car can do it if properly set up. It would probably take me a couple of years to figure it out, plus learn to drive it.
At the very least you'll look good, right?? I don't think you'll have much of a learning curve; it's not a difficult car to drive. Figure that if I can drive it relatively fast, you should have no problems!
I'm looking forward to the DC Pro in two weeks. I'm really interested how I'll stack up against the GT3s.
At the very least you'll look good, right?? I don't think you'll have much of a learning curve; it's not a difficult car to drive. Figure that if I can drive it relatively fast, you should have no problems!
I'm looking forward to the DC Pro in two weeks. I'm really interested how I'll stack up against the GT3s.
Do you think a 986S or 987 are faster than a 964? (Which is 5" narrower, slightly lighter, has slightly more power, and is a few tenths faster 0-60.)
I'd say the 964 is quite a step down from a 986S or 987, at least in autocross terms. I had a 964 C2 for around 5 years that I autocrossed regularly. Like someone else mentioned, the 964 is REALLY soft and pushes like crazy, with not much camber in the front. I'd much rather have a 986S for autox. I owned a 2001 Boxster S for a few years, and while I never autox'd it back to back with the 964 (didn't own them at the same time), I have no doubt that my Boxster was a quicker autox car.
Looking at the proposed SCCA changes out for comment, I find the idea of the base 986 in ES pretty interesting. The 986-S in CS is also interesting.
04-30-2016, 01:38 AM
