early 911 or an SC
early 911 or an SC
07-30-2002, 05:56 AM
#2
Race Car
It depends on what you're looking for, and whether you plan on exposing the car to salt. The early cars weren't galvanized (well, mostly). The SC is heavier, and has less power than the early S cars.
07-31-2002, 12:01 PM
#3
[quote]Originally posted by JackOlsen:
<strong>It depends on what you're looking for, and whether you plan on exposing the car to salt. The early cars weren't galvanized (well, mostly). The SC is heavier, and has less power than the early S cars.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've owned both and I think it comes down to preference. I like the early cars because they are lighter and are better looking than the SCs and Carreras, especially with the chrome trim
The SCs may not have the peak power of the early S cars, but I think they have more torque. I think the early cars need more care than the 911SCs. I have 101 projects to do on my car, but this gives me a reason to tinker in the garage and rummage through spare parts pins at swap meets. Of course installing a late motor into an early car is always an alternative.
<strong>It depends on what you're looking for, and whether you plan on exposing the car to salt. The early cars weren't galvanized (well, mostly). The SC is heavier, and has less power than the early S cars.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've owned both and I think it comes down to preference. I like the early cars because they are lighter and are better looking than the SCs and Carreras, especially with the chrome trim
The SCs may not have the peak power of the early S cars, but I think they have more torque. I think the early cars need more care than the 911SCs. I have 101 projects to do on my car, but this gives me a reason to tinker in the garage and rummage through spare parts pins at swap meets. Of course installing a late motor into an early car is always an alternative.
07-31-2002, 09:50 PM
#4
Advanced
I prefer the SC, mainly for looks, reliability and performance, but I haven't owned an earlier 911 to compare it to. I think its a matter of personal taste...it has what I like.
Some 0-60 mph performance stats to compare (from the Porsche 911 Redbook):
1965 Coupe 9.0 sec
1967 911S 8.1
1968 911L Sportomatic 10.3
1970 911S 7.3
1972 911T 6.9
1972 911S 6.0
1973 Carrera RSR 5.6
1974 911 7.9
1975 Turbo 5.5
1978 911SC 6.3
Whatever 911 you end up buying, you'll like it.
Good luck!!
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
Some 0-60 mph performance stats to compare (from the Porsche 911 Redbook):
1965 Coupe 9.0 sec
1967 911S 8.1
1968 911L Sportomatic 10.3
1970 911S 7.3
1972 911T 6.9
1972 911S 6.0
1973 Carrera RSR 5.6
1974 911 7.9
1975 Turbo 5.5
1978 911SC 6.3
Whatever 911 you end up buying, you'll like it.
Good luck!!
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
07-31-2002, 11:11 PM
#5
The later cars are much easier/relaxed to drive due to their torque characteristics. I've been lucky enough to own a 190Hp 72 and a 200 hp 76. The 76 is far more enjoyable to drive except at a race track.
Beauty is in the eye of the owner, I like them both
My 76
My 72
Beauty is in the eye of the owner, I like them both
My 76
My 72
08-01-2002, 01:28 PM
#6
[quote]Originally posted by rayjay...'80SC:
<strong>1978 911SC 6.3
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. My 78 SC didn't do 0-60 in 6.3 seconds. Wonder how they did that.
<strong>1978 911SC 6.3
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. My 78 SC didn't do 0-60 in 6.3 seconds. Wonder how they did that.
The following users liked this post:
Superdave312 (08-05-2020)
08-01-2002, 03:05 PM
#7
Instructor
Yeah..that sounded kind of quick to me too.
I alway thought the SC's were around 7 seconds
0-60 and the Carerra was in the low 6's.
I think my C2 is about 5.5, so I can't imagine a 180 hp SC being that close.
I alway thought the SC's were around 7 seconds
0-60 and the Carerra was in the low 6's.
I think my C2 is about 5.5, so I can't imagine a 180 hp SC being that close.
Trending Topics
08-01-2002, 06:06 PM
#8
Three Wheelin'
The SCs are quicker than many people think. 0-60 times from the original road tests include:
Car & Driver '78: 5.5
Car & Driver '80: 6.0
Car & Driver '82 (Comparison test): 6.3
These cars all ran 1/4 miles in about 14.8 seconds at 93-94 mph.
These articles are in the Brooklands Books "Porsche 911SC 1978-1983" publication, available through Classic Motorbooks at <a href="http://www.motorbooks.com." target="_blank">www.motorbooks.com.</a>
My '81 feels every bit that quick.
SPDRacer (cool name),
I think an SC is easier to own than an earlier 911 -- galvanised, better (but still not good) ventilation system, easier to drive (torque), and less sensitive to trailing-throttle oversteer. This last point is something to consider for a guy who is just old enough to drive legally, no matter how much respect you have for the car -- unless you have experience I'm unaware of, you'll make a few mistakes with decreasing radius corners and the like as you accumulate experience miles. An SC is less likely to bite back than an earlier car (though an SC will also exit the road backwards if you get it sufficiently wrong). I got away with things when I was 16-17 in my first car (the forgiving-handling '83 Saab Turbo I still have after 262,000 miles) that my SC would not have forgiven me for and that an earlier 911 certainly would not have forgiven.
They're all wonderful cars. Happy hunting.
<img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" />
Car & Driver '78: 5.5
Car & Driver '80: 6.0
Car & Driver '82 (Comparison test): 6.3
These cars all ran 1/4 miles in about 14.8 seconds at 93-94 mph.
These articles are in the Brooklands Books "Porsche 911SC 1978-1983" publication, available through Classic Motorbooks at <a href="http://www.motorbooks.com." target="_blank">www.motorbooks.com.</a>
My '81 feels every bit that quick.
SPDRacer (cool name),
I think an SC is easier to own than an earlier 911 -- galvanised, better (but still not good) ventilation system, easier to drive (torque), and less sensitive to trailing-throttle oversteer. This last point is something to consider for a guy who is just old enough to drive legally, no matter how much respect you have for the car -- unless you have experience I'm unaware of, you'll make a few mistakes with decreasing radius corners and the like as you accumulate experience miles. An SC is less likely to bite back than an earlier car (though an SC will also exit the road backwards if you get it sufficiently wrong). I got away with things when I was 16-17 in my first car (the forgiving-handling '83 Saab Turbo I still have after 262,000 miles) that my SC would not have forgiven me for and that an earlier 911 certainly would not have forgiven.
They're all wonderful cars. Happy hunting.
<img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" />
08-01-2002, 09:26 PM
#9
Advanced
The 6.3 sec 0-60 mph for the '78 911SC quoted from the 911 Redbook was a Road & Track Magazine raod test...did 1/4 mile in 15.3...mine feels this fast, but I haven't timed it. Could be faster...
rayjay <img src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" border="0" alt="[hiha]" />
rayjay <img src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" border="0" alt="[hiha]" />
08-02-2002, 09:00 PM
#11
Instructor
Thread Starter
I really like the early cars as far as looks, but is it really that bad on reliability campared to the SC. I really dont plan to drive the car near its limit, far from it. Cops would be all over me before I even think of downshifting. So I realy dont care about how fast it is though that is a positive aspect of all the 911's.
Thanks for all the replys
<img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />
Thanks for all the replys
<img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />
08-03-2002, 09:46 PM
#13
Advanced
Really nice car!! A couple years ago, I saw a Volkswagen someone had transplanted a 400hp Chevy 350 into...point is, ANY car can be made to go faster...
rayjay <img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />
rayjay <img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />
08-03-2002, 10:37 PM
#15
Advanced
It went faster than it used to, but it was still a Volkswagen!...and he probably wore a bow tie...
To address the reliability question, the 3.0 SC engine is the first to be known as the "bulletproof" Porsche, the 3.2 also carried that over...it is not uncommon to see these engines with over 250,000 miles without a rebuild...Bruce Anderson knows someone with 450,000 on one. The 2.7 has the bad rap for reliability, but there are folks on this site that have had great luck with them. The 3.0 usually needs some "updates"...chain tensioners & pop off valve & replace the rubber centered clutch, and all Porsches need proper and regular maintainence. All 911s are great...drive several and feel the differences for yourself.
rayjay <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
To address the reliability question, the 3.0 SC engine is the first to be known as the "bulletproof" Porsche, the 3.2 also carried that over...it is not uncommon to see these engines with over 250,000 miles without a rebuild...Bruce Anderson knows someone with 450,000 on one. The 2.7 has the bad rap for reliability, but there are folks on this site that have had great luck with them. The 3.0 usually needs some "updates"...chain tensioners & pop off valve & replace the rubber centered clutch, and all Porsches need proper and regular maintainence. All 911s are great...drive several and feel the differences for yourself.
rayjay <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />