I'm looking at 911s again--my signature should probably be changed to "ex 1986 targa Carrera" since I was rear ended and totalled Monday. Fortunately no one was hurt and I'm old enough to be only sad not mad. But boy, I was getting to love that car.
To the question. I just drove a well maintained SC with 70K on it. It ran well but I thought that the Carrera really kicked in over 4000 RPM where the SC seemed to just pull steadily almost to redline (I didn't take it all the way there since it wasn't my car) Is this a characteristic of the SC's--a flat throttle response compared to that surge of acceleration as the carrera winds out.
I need to know because if it is I won't be looking at any more SC's.
Thanks

 

I would say yesy but I have never driven a Carrera , my sc has a little punch after 4k but it is certainly not a 3.2 with dme.

 

With a good SSI and exhaust, the SC will rev more freely, but the surge is 3.2 all the way. Low end grunt is the SC hallmark and rapid throttle response.

 

A SC is 200lbs lighter but has 20 less HP. The early 78,79 had the big port heads those motors with SSI and good exhaust run really nice.
Phil

 

My brother has two SC's (both '83's) and I have an '84 Carrera. I think the 3.0 liters tug just a bit harder at low rev's around town. But, my '84 has that "Carrera pull" above 4000 that the SC's just don't quite have.

Both are extremely nice driving cars, so I wouldn't rule out an SC by any means unless you really want a Carrera and a Carrera only.

Hope this helps,

Jay
90 964
84 3.2

 

I had a 83 SC and sold it for a 86 Carrera Cab. I liked the Carrera better. They both were in great shape, but the Carrera had more in the motor for sure.

Mike

 

My 82 Sc 9.8:1 RoW, w/o AC, w/SSIs & Dansk 2 in/2 out weighs 2500 lbs, makes 220 hp.

That's 11.36 lbs/hp.

Compare lbs/hp of various SCs and heavier Carreras and I think most have a less favorable ratio, a few are about equal and some a more favorable ratio (depending on which Carrera motor and weight of the particular car).

Mine has good low end torque and the 2 in/2 out muffler lets it breathe freely as the revs climb.

The Carreras I shopped for, whether they were guicker than mine or not, felt somewhat numb in comparison, I think having a lot to do with the hydraulic clutch as opposed to the cable operated SC clutch and the less mechanically direct feel of the G50 (in those that I drove that had them) compared to the 915.

Out of the box, to me anyway, the SC "feels" more "racy", while the Carrera "feels" more "Grand Touring". I chose my SC because I liked its "feel" and lucked out finding an RoW car.

 

Darisc--I agree 100% about the transmission. I just drove a G-50 Carrera and didn't like the lack of feedback from the modern synchros and the light hydraulic pedal feel. My late, lamented loss was an '86 with the 915.
The SC I drove was an '83 ROW cab with SSI's, don't know about the muffler. My carrera was a targa so the weight difference is probably the same 200 lbs. (targa and cab each being 100lbs. heavier than coupe) and horsepower and torque should have been at least equal with advantage maybe to the SC. No question that it was fast--it was. It just didn't have the grunt as you pass 4000 rpm at full throttle.

 

Hmm....Since "getting there is half the fun", the SC's low end torque is really appealing to me on the way to 4k. Mine's a daily driver - 99% of it's time is spent off-freeway, so I make that trip to 4k numerous times every day.

I drive "spiritedly". I find myself commonly shifting out of 1st at 4k even in casual, laid back mode) and usually take it to redline once or twice in 2nd and/or 3rd (4th on the rare occasion that it's safe to do so and I feel like ticket risk is low) 'cause ya jus' gotta keep the carbon blown outta these ole' cars .

Redline comes up quickly after 4k; perhaps not as quickly as a 3.2, but, as I say, sho' do like the low end grunt (which has allowed me to pull a number of 3.2s 'till they slowly drew even - at about 90 per).

And the damned car is so gritty and noisy - I jus' luv' it!

 

SC (cab) with SSIs pulls well WOT and can have very good sound. The 3.2 SSIs et al if tight pulls well. 3.2 the builder with the tight valve / valve guides, cam timing ring gaps can get it tuned to pull well to 7300.

Regarding tranny, cant say 915 tops G50.

 

Drive a ROW SC and you will be sold. Drive a nice G50 car and you will be sold.

You must drive them. This is like describing the taste of beer. It only works if you have already tried them.

Between you and me, I have the SC. I love it. It has a great history and is a real driver. I would gladly trade it for a G50 with upgraded air. I'll take the touring feel and sunroof thanks, knowing that the car will be just as fast or faster in most driving situations. An 89 speedster turbo look convertible please. I drove a low miles example a few years ago, and it was quite the car.

It is no joke that 911s got better as they progressed. No joke at all. Drive as many as you can, and decide for yourself where to get off the bus. Heck, I would have three or four if I could. And I probably will. Just not all at once.

 

They're all different and objectively are better as they progress but driving 20+ year old cars is by nature subjective. The next'll be number three. Started with a '90 C2--very modern feel, very fast. I preferred the '86 for bombing around. Liked the direct steering without power assist and loved the sound. Just felt closer to the road. (and yeah, I know, if I like road feel I should try a SWB car--but like I said this is subjective and SC is where I get off the time line)
Enjoy

 

Performances varies from car to car. My little 2.7 pulls well from 3500-6300, outruns upgraded 3.2s up to 80, and surprises them when I'm able to light up the tires in 1st or 2nd gear curves.

The positraction makes it easy to recover from these low-speed feints and I love the balance of the car. Give me wet pavement and the car will slide nearly as predictably in 3rd gear, but the 4th gear powerband is too fast for me to play.

No 3.2s I've driven so far have compared, but if you wait for them they do eventually kick-in a bit.

Once you have the basic ignition and exhaust upgrades, and the right fuel curve, performance is all in the heads, cams, and gear ratio of the particular car so you can make any of them do what you like. Buy the platform you like best and then tweak it to the RPM range you like. Clearly an SC is the most economical path for most to reach that goal.

 

with a simple distributor cap and rotor I got a brand new 3.2 with lots more low end grunt. It pulls hard all the way from the low RPM range now. I don't have to hold out for the 3,000 range anymore to have fun with it. She is always up now.. and yes on the 95 octane I can smoke second, but the new clutch is way too week to drop in first gear. but then again I have never driven an SC....

 

My apologies if I implied clutch dropping is involved in setting the tires alight. Even with my Kevlar clutch I would avoid that sort of abuse and was referring to merely matting the accelerator at the apex of a curve, sometimes setup with some left-footed trail braking.