puzurinshushinak

Pundits say that the desirable early 911s are the 1965 (because it's the first), certain years of the S, and the 1973 1/2 911T. Nobody mentions the E. Resale prices would tend to confirm the silence, since fine examples can be had for less than $12k.

Nevertheless, Zimmerman's "Used 911 Story" notes that 2.4 liter Es in excellent condition are a rarity, and that a good one would cost a small fortune. Certainly, there are no more nice Es on the road than there are Ses.

So what's the scoop? Is the 2.4 liter E at all desirable?

James Achard

puzurinshushinak, I Bought a '72 911 E last year and love it. I believe that there value will go up since so few were brought to this country. The engine is solid and in fact a little less peaky than the S due to lower compression ratio. If you live in an area where high octane gas is hard to find, I would steer you towards an E. The E has most of the S features depending on year and manyS options were added to them at the showroom. As for why they haven't caught on yet, I'm baffled as well. If you do find one in good shape ****** it up before someone else does. if you have any other questions regarding these cars let me know. Regards, James Achard

Michael Krone

The E I just purchased does cost a small fortune to optimize (16k invested so far). Mine is a 1969 E with 1973 2.4 liter engine with tensioner upgrades on stout 1986 suspension. I like the linear torque of the 1973 engine which is strong up to the 7k redline and the suspension is very stiff. I just installed the SSI heat exchangers and single port performance exhaust which improved acceleration. $16k is not much when discussing Porsche and certainly cheaper than S models. From my poor upbringing, the entry and maintenance price ($98/hour) is high. The smile on my face is priceless! Michael

J richard

The E's are really nice cars, more power than the T's and not as much of the peaky nature and cammy curve of the S. I think that for the longest time the E was underrated due to the funky hydromatic suspension system which by now has been retrofitted to the standard strut system of the other cars. I also think that the self leveling quality of the system kept the factory from putting a proper set of swaybars on these cars, which I am sure has been remedied on all of them by now. Since the E was meant to be the lux-touring car of the bunch it was the one most likely fitted with the sportomatic, semi auto trans as well, which puts it in an odd segment for a 911. As Steinfeild would say, "not that there's anything wrong with that..."

Enjoy the ride.

puzurinshushinak

Thanks for all your input, guys.

So what do you think this car would be worth: 1973 911E Targa. Has been repainted. 38k on rebuilt engine, probably 85k overall. Needs targa top seal replaced, fuel injection adjusted. Otherwise in original condition.

mistatwo

I know I'm resurrecting a really old post, but why is the 73 1/2 911T highly sought after? I was thinking the S would be, but the T would not. Just curious.

Tom F

I had a 73.5 T. The CIS was a huge improvement over the carbs and MFI (I've also had both of those) if you actually planned to drive the car. Of course, the carbs and MFI are great to look at and they look racy. It is easy to convert a 73.5 T to 2.7 CIS pistons and cylinders (did that too), which gave the car good low end torque (small intake ports). It was a great autocross car.

Stuttgart

According to the 1972 Car and Driver:
0-60 times
911T coupe 6.9
911E targa 5.8
911S coupe 6.0

1/4 mile
T 15.1
E 14.3
S 14.4

80-0 feet
T 271
E 234
S 280

I've always thought the E's were underated. They are much faster at slower speeds as shown in the comparison, and they tested a targa which is heavier, yet it was still faster than the S.
Many E's also have many S options such as the aluminum S brake calipers, and the metal front s spoiler.

GrantG

A good website for early 911 info:

<a href="http://www.early911s.com/" target="_blank">http://www.early911s.com/</a>

Grant

73 911S
88 944TS
02 996 C2

JackOlsen

[quote]Pundits say that the desirable early 911s are the 1965 (because it's the first), certain years of the S, and the 1973 1/2 911T.<hr></blockquote>Huh? As an owner of a 73.5 T, I'm confused. Why on earth would one of them be more desirable than the same year's E or S model?

NTI 911E

I love the 911E

This is my dad's '73 E Coupe that he ordered new. It's equipped with most of the 911S options, including the alloy front brakes. It has cost him a lot more than the $13,200 purchase price over a four-year span to get it where it is today, but I think it was worth it. He didn't drive it for about 20 years, from the end of the '70s to the end of the '90s, and that took its toll, even though it was in a heated garage.

Before:


After repaint, wheel refinishing, 911S front suspension retrofit, and plenty of mechanical work:


I am constantly impressed by this car, and with the only "modifications" being modern Bridgestone S-03 tires and lowering the suspension, it handles like a modern sports car.

While I've never driven a T or S, I don't believe anyone would be disappointed with an E

Jim Richards

Nick, that E looks great after it was freshened up. Timeless beauty and a blast to drive I'm sure.

Tom F

In reply to Jack Olsen's question, I would say that the answer is that Porsche's MFI installation stunk. It was a maintenance and warranty nightmare for people who bought them new. The MFI systems cost a fortune to restore correctly today. In my opinion, it's strictly a collector's item. Mercedes used a similar MFI system, but with many detail differences, which added up to a world of difference.

By the way, that is a gorgeous E!