hhlodge

I am about to fulfill a 20 year dream and get my first 911. I am
looking at 1985-1988 coupes. With this, I have a few questions.
I have thus far only driven a '79 911SC and a mid-80's 944, hence
some of my questions.

I know the 1987 models have a newer transmission but seem to command
about $5K or so more. Is this because of the transmission or just
being one year newer? Is the newer transmission much better and if
so, is it apparent in the shifter, clutch or both?

I am in New Hampshire and don't want to have to store it for months
in the winter because it just seems bad storing anything. I have a
large property with a long, plowed and salt-free driveway and I could
literally take the car out of the garage for drives every week or so.
Would this be better overall for the car? Is so, once a week?

I want to take whatever car I am considering to an independent
mechanic for a pre-sale lookover. I am aware of the shop in
Middleton, MA (USA) and the owner is very accomodating, but I know
he isn't cheap. Can anyone recommend an alternate place near the
MA/NH border?

I presently drive a chipped Audi A4 1.8T and while acceleration is
okay, I'd like more. Will I be disappointed in what the base 911s offer;
i.e. should I be looking at Turbos instead? I'd like to stick to a base
911 from a cost perspective.

Finally, if I get a non-Turbo coupe and it has a whale tail, will I get
made fun of?

Thanks.

John D.

Welcome to Rennlist....

I *just* sold my '87 911 & I'm in NH as well.... Let's see if I can't start you going...

Yes - the G50 is substantially different then the 915 - in feel and operation. As well, the 915 uses a clutch cable, where the G50 uses a hydraulic system.

As well, I drove my '87 year round - just be SURE when you get it in the garage and at least once a week - spray the wheel wells and undersides down, and keep it waxed and clean. After 9 years - not a spec of rust.

PPI's - I dunno where you are - but go to Mark Nadler in Plastow NH (EXOTECH). He is excellent, and did the heads for me when I rebuilt the engine last year.

As for a Turbo - hmmmm. Only driven many - never owned one, but as an every day driver, I'm not sure they would make sense for me..????

As for the whaletail - you won't get made fun of IF IT'S the correct factory fitting (NOT A TURBO TAIL (sorry that offends anyone ) Also - if it does have a tail, be certain it also has the front chin spoiler...!

Anyway - welcome to Rennlist - neighbor!!!

John D.

Jay H

Kyle:

Your first post and 'the boss' answered you. Not a bad thing!!

Just to expand on John's post above.

I've stored cars for years over the winter months here in Wisconsin. If you put them away correctly, there are usually no negative effects if they sit for 3-6 months. Years of inactivity can sometimes cause problems... I tend to put cars away shortly before I feel the roads will be salted and then take them out in spring after the salt is washed away by heavy rains. One good thing about storage is that you feel like a kid in a candy store every spring when that car comes out...

IF you can get the car heated up enough on your driveway, then a drive every other week isn't a bad thing. 911's take a bit of driving, especially in cold weather, to heat up fully. If you can not get the car up to operating temperature, it's best to leave them sit. You end up just building up condensation in the motor and exhaust and cause moisture related problems.

In most instances, an '87 911 will bring more than a comparable '86 911 just due to the the G-50 trans and it's popularity. Though I'd take a mint '86 over a beat '87 any day. Condition is everything on these cars.

The pre 964 cars (before the 1989 C4) are quick enough, but your Audi probably is quicker in most aspects. But, we buy these older cars for their feel and not necessarily to win every stop light race. You would not be dissapointed in a Turbo's acceleration. The 964 and 993's have a more modern feel to them and definitely feel quite fast, even compared to today's standards.

Best of luck to you,

Jay

90 964

g-50cab

In the for what it's worth department - I have a 1987 Cabriolet. The G-50 was a must have for me after driving many models. I also think that with a little tweeking, the 3.2's will motor with the best of them. Car and Driver timed one at 5.4 0-60 and that was in 1984. I have tinkered with mine, have bigger wheels, Steve Wong Chip, dual out dansk with a euro dansk premuffler and it's much more responsive than when stock.

Anyway - drive many if possible - they all have a different personality.

sschmerg

The Audi 1.8 T -- even chipped -- will not beat an SC or a Carrera 3.2 in any respect. I've driven plenty of cars with that motor, and to me it feels adequate, but not particularly fast. The Carrera will feel faster, and you won't be disappointed with the performance.

I would stay away from the 930...the performance is obviously better, but there is a lot of turbo lag, and they feel a lot heavier to me. The price difference and the maintenance cost make it not worth it IMO, and they are much more difficult to sell if you change your mind (due to the higher costs I suspect).

I do not feel that the 964 3.6 is that much quicker than a '87-'89 3.2. The added weight of the 964 seems to balance out the HP increases to some extent.

I have both an SC (with the 915) and a Carrera, and personally I prefer the '87-'89 with the G50. Transmission and clutch are much improved, though the 915 is fine if it is in good shape, and even better with the factory short-shift kit.

As for the tail, there was an optional tail for the n/a cars (as seen on my avatar), which is different from the Turbo tail. As long as you have that one, it's a pretty desirable option, and you will certainly not be made fun of. You probably wouldn't with the other one either, but I don't think it looks quite as good on the n/a car.

Good luck with your search!

-Sean

delhi

now way in heck can a chipped 1.8t will match a 3.2 carrera. these carreras are in the mid 5s from 0-60. the 964s are not any faster as stated above. but their mid range punch is quite intoxicating. not to mention they are a bit more refined than the 3.2 carreras. but there's something to be said owning one of these. perhaps it's the whale tail....or those fuch wheels. i dunno. they look so .... classic.

Jay H

I stand corrected... I thought the A4 had a bit more punch to it. A quick glance at the Audi website shows curb weights in the 3200 - 3500 lb range. Hp @170 and torque @ 166. Audi publishes 0-60 times from 7.8 sec to 8.5 sec depending on transmission and AWD or not. Thanks for correcting me.

I'm sure a chipped and mod'd 1.8 Turbo can easily exceed 200 hp and 185 ft lbs of torque to match the power spec's of the Carrera, but the Carrera's will weight much less.

Some more numbers for comparison:

From a 1986 Porsche 911 US showroom brochure, 0-60 is listed at 6.3 seconds.

From a 1987 Porsche 911 US showroom brochure, 0-60 is listed at 6.1 seconds.

From a 1990 Porsche 964 US showroom brochure, 0-60 is listed at 5.5 seconds and the 1/4 mile is listed at 13.9 seconds (both numbers for a C2).

Having owned both an '86 911 and a '90 911, the 964 definitely feels faster in most ways, even though the curb weight is about 275 lbs. greater.

Regards,
Jay

sschmerg

Thanks for that information Jay. This is really off topic, but...

The times from the brochures and car mags are not worth all that much really. There are just too many variables involved... the car itself, the driver, the weather, bias, advertising money, etc. Car & Driver got 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds in an '84 Carrera, for whatever that's worth. The 964 is probably a little quicker, but not by much...a few tenths of a second maybe. Clearly a better driver in a 3.2 could beat a lesser driver in a 964 to 60 mph.

The biggest difference to me is not in the straight-line performance, but rather in the feel of the 964 compared to the earlier car. It feels much more like a modern car, and has the dual air bags, power steering, suspension, ABS, HVAC, etc. you would expect to find in a 90's car. This is progress to be sure, but if one is looking for the more "classic" 911 feel, the Carrera 3.2 is more along those lines. To me, the 964 feels much more similar to the 993 than the 3.2, and that probably makes it one of the best bargains of the 911 family.

-Sean

Jay H

Sean:

You are definitely correct in that 0-60 times aren't very meaningful since there are tons of variables. I've even read about sub 5 second times for a C4 964. They must have abused the poor thing while testing... I've read other reviews were the 3.2 was clocked closer to 6 seconds from 0-60. Huge differences...

I posted the factory brochure times since those times were all published by Porsche (the same source) and the factory tends to be conservative. Might be the best (and only?) way in a numberical sense to compare the cars we've been talking about...

Hopefully our originator of this post can find out some comparisions to his Audi from our posts.

I'll agree too that the 3.2 cars are the classic feel of a 911 and the 964 and newer 911's are definitely a more modern interpretation of the 911 'vibe' if you will. Porsche spent a great deal of R&D time and money on the 964 in hopes it would revitalize sales... Definitely the first clean slate design of the 911 since it's inception.

Jay

P.S. To get even more OT, Karl Ludvigsen's writings even state that the 964 motor was to be inserted into the J program cars in the summer of '87 for the '88 model year Carrera's but they couldn't get the motor done in time for those cars. THAT would have been a treat.

geo.aigel

I would not pay 5k more on a comparable car to have a G-50. If you have a well working 915 that has no worn synchros and if your shifter is maintained with new bushings etc. that transmission is just fine. Drive as many cars as you can to make up your own opinion. I think the G-50 is a bit overrated. If you want a camaro transmission, buy a camaro. <ducking>

George

delhi

i'd be happily owning a white 86 911 by now if if wasn't my wife who absolutely resolutely told me firmly that "you can buy any porsche, but not with this tranny that shifts like your dad's vw beetle!" I think the 915 tranny has it's charms. Especially if you want to intimidate the 'weak knee-ed' folks. for sure thieves would have a hard time driving your car away!

hhlodge

> I'm sure a chipped and mod'd 1.8 Turbo can easily exceed 200 hp and 185 ft lbs
> of torque to match the power spec's of the Carrera, but the Carrera's will weight
> much less.

APR says the chip at 93 octane setting is 206hp/245lb-ft. I know it's a huge
difference from before or when I set it back to factory mode.

AZ911

Turbo lag is very over rated. My freinds 930 is building boost blow 2K rpms and that is with the stock turbo. Just think how fast a K27 quickspool would build boost. A 930 will waste a regular 911 in all aspects.

-Steve

delhi

the quattro's awd parasitic power loss will be evident once you hit higher speeds. not to mention it's a heavy car. i don't even know why it's being compared to a 911 carrera?

Mark sP

My other car is a 200 bhp Ur quattro turbo.

It has the ability to scare the pants off passengers, just because they are not used to going round corners or into bends that fast. You notice people subconciously pressing the brake pedal!

However, it is a completely different animal to the 911. in fact it is completely different to all other forms of quattro!

To ask which is best or which is more fun or even which is the biggest challenge, is impossible to answer. You have to have at least two totally different personalities to drive these cars. Each one demands respect.

The 911 is far far quicker 0-60 than the quattro. Chalk and Cheese. Top speeds are academic. How often do any of us see actually get to the top speeds? However, I have seen 142mph in the quattro, (Audi quote a top speed of 132) but it takes ages to get past 120. Off the mark the Turbo Lag is almost as legendary as that of the 930. Nothing happens before 3000rpm. Having said that, not alot happens on my 3.2 until 4000rpm. (I have just ordered a Steve Wong Chip to improve on this). So far I have seen 140 in the 911 and she felt like she was still at rest! I was amazed to discover 100mph in third gear! 100 to 140 seemed to happen in the blink of an eye in comparison to the Audi. Despite the weight and the four wheel drive, the quattro does not feel as stable above 120 as the 911 does. You know you are going fast in the quattro. The 911 could be a licence loser! I am frequently amazed when I glance at the speedo and realise that I am going that fast!

I am still learning in the 911. I am a very new owner. I reckon the 911 would eat the quattro untill we reached the twisty bits.

We get alot of rain over here, but even so, the 911 does not seem as twitchy as legend would suggest.

My feelings so far are that the 911 tells you whats happening intime to correct it. Whereas by the time you get a quattro out of shape you are going way too fast to do much about it.

To sum up, IMO there is not a great deal to choose between them on the road from a drivers view point. On the track however, I suspect that the 911 would be way ahead. Unless it's raining that is.

As for 'lesser' quattros', they are all under-powered/over-weight, to be considered true drivers cars in my experience/opinion. Except of course the great Audi/Porsche rs2, 4 and 6's. Which I reckon are the best all-round cars know to man.

Just a few thoughts to steer the thread even further of course!

Regards,
Mark

As a footnote, I drove several 3.2's prior to purchase. I found it difficult not to crunch 1st and 2nd gears in the 915 gearboxes. I am sure that as people have said above, that with good bushes and practice, this would not be a problem. But after experiencing the G50, my mind was made up.

Out of interest, are the ratios different? The 915's I drove felt like they were shorter 1st and 2nd gears. Much easier to spin the wheels.