Which year Carrera to buy
02-22-2008, 10:49 AM
#16
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I see "that being said" one more time, I'm gonna quit the internet.
I'll take an 86 with a g50, non sunroof, club sport valence, no fog lights, CC AC rear deck rear seat heat delete turbo 3.2 @ 9:1 and 1 bar please.
I'll take an 86 with a g50, non sunroof, club sport valence, no fog lights, CC AC rear deck rear seat heat delete turbo 3.2 @ 9:1 and 1 bar please.
02-22-2008, 11:06 AM
#18
Burning Brakes
02-22-2008, 12:24 PM
#20
Racer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 on good condition vs trans hardware.
Just another perspective:
A very competitive PCA driver in SoCal preferes the '84 Carerra with 915-Trans. He thinks the G-50 is a good trans, but the extra weight for a trans that, in his opinion, shifts just a little better than a 915, is a weight-burden that offsets the HP gain vs ... say ... and '83 SC. So, he figures the early Carerra's, with higher HP but not a lot of weight-gain with a 915 box is a better deal for comptetitive driving and car handling.
A 915 trans with properly maintained shift-bushings and linkage seems to shift as well as many of the G-50's I've driven.
Adding over 100# to the back-end of a rear-engined car seems a bit counter-intuative when thinking of car control.
Just a different perspective.
Just another perspective:
A very competitive PCA driver in SoCal preferes the '84 Carerra with 915-Trans. He thinks the G-50 is a good trans, but the extra weight for a trans that, in his opinion, shifts just a little better than a 915, is a weight-burden that offsets the HP gain vs ... say ... and '83 SC. So, he figures the early Carerra's, with higher HP but not a lot of weight-gain with a 915 box is a better deal for comptetitive driving and car handling.
A 915 trans with properly maintained shift-bushings and linkage seems to shift as well as many of the G-50's I've driven.
Adding over 100# to the back-end of a rear-engined car seems a bit counter-intuative when thinking of car control.
Just a different perspective.
02-22-2008, 12:41 PM
#21
Drifting
+1 on good condition vs trans hardware.
Just another perspective:
A very competitive PCA driver in SoCal preferes the '84 Carerra with 915-Trans. He thinks the G-50 is a good trans, but the extra weight for a trans that, in his opinion, shifts just a little better than a 915, is a weight-burden that offsets the HP gain vs ... say ... and '83 SC. So, he figures the early Carerra's, with higher HP but not a lot of weight-gain with a 915 box is a better deal for comptetitive driving and car handling.
A 915 trans with properly maintained shift-bushings and linkage seems to shift as well as many of the G-50's I've driven.
Adding over 100# to the back-end of a rear-engined car seems a bit counter-intuative when thinking of car control.
Just a different perspective.
Just another perspective:
A very competitive PCA driver in SoCal preferes the '84 Carerra with 915-Trans. He thinks the G-50 is a good trans, but the extra weight for a trans that, in his opinion, shifts just a little better than a 915, is a weight-burden that offsets the HP gain vs ... say ... and '83 SC. So, he figures the early Carerra's, with higher HP but not a lot of weight-gain with a 915 box is a better deal for comptetitive driving and car handling.
A 915 trans with properly maintained shift-bushings and linkage seems to shift as well as many of the G-50's I've driven.
Adding over 100# to the back-end of a rear-engined car seems a bit counter-intuative when thinking of car control.
Just a different perspective.
the difference G50 vs 915 is 45lbs, but includes everything flywheel forwards. The bare trannies are about 22-27lbs difference. You can easily save 20lbs on the G50 by going for a lightweight aluminium pressure plate, a spring centred clutch and L/W flywheel. Now you are only 25lbs difference and you get the benefit of an engine that revs much quicker between gears and has less reciprocating mass for better acceleration.
02-22-2008, 12:56 PM
#22
Rennlist Member
Only because you "chipsters" defend them like it's a religion or something! 
I looked at 7 cars over 4 months and it a came down to buying the car in the best condition. I drove a 915 that shifted better than the g-50 I drove the previous day! As a guideline the later cars are better, but condition trumps all.
I looked at 7 cars over 4 months and it a came down to buying the car in the best condition. I drove a 915 that shifted better than the g-50 I drove the previous day! As a guideline the later cars are better, but condition trumps all.
02-22-2008, 12:59 PM
#23
Rennlist Member
and unfortunately - mis information:
the difference G50 vs 915 is 45lbs, but includes everything flywheel forwards. The bare trannies are about 22-27lbs difference. You can easily save 20lbs on the G50 by going for a lightweight aluminium pressure plate, a spring centred clutch and L/W flywheel. Now you are only 25lbs difference and you get the benefit of an engine that revs much quicker between gears and has less reciprocating mass for better acceleration.
the difference G50 vs 915 is 45lbs, but includes everything flywheel forwards. The bare trannies are about 22-27lbs difference. You can easily save 20lbs on the G50 by going for a lightweight aluminium pressure plate, a spring centred clutch and L/W flywheel. Now you are only 25lbs difference and you get the benefit of an engine that revs much quicker between gears and has less reciprocating mass for better acceleration.
02-22-2008, 01:38 PM
#25
Racer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlackPearl
+1 on good condition vs trans hardware.
Just another perspective:
A very competitive PCA driver in SoCal preferes the '84 Carerra with 915-Trans. He thinks the G-50 is a good trans, but the extra weight for a trans that, in his opinion, shifts just a little better than a 915, is a weight-burden that offsets the HP gain vs ... say ... and '83 SC. So, he figures the early Carerra's, with higher HP but not a lot of weight-gain with a 915 box is a better deal for comptetitive driving and car handling.
A 915 trans with properly maintained shift-bushings and linkage seems to shift as well as many of the G-50's I've driven.
Adding over 100# to the back-end of a rear-engined car seems a bit counter-intuative when thinking of car control.
Just a different perspective.
and unfortunately - mis information:
+1 on good condition vs trans hardware.
Just another perspective:
A very competitive PCA driver in SoCal preferes the '84 Carerra with 915-Trans. He thinks the G-50 is a good trans, but the extra weight for a trans that, in his opinion, shifts just a little better than a 915, is a weight-burden that offsets the HP gain vs ... say ... and '83 SC. So, he figures the early Carerra's, with higher HP but not a lot of weight-gain with a 915 box is a better deal for comptetitive driving and car handling.
A 915 trans with properly maintained shift-bushings and linkage seems to shift as well as many of the G-50's I've driven.
Adding over 100# to the back-end of a rear-engined car seems a bit counter-intuative when thinking of car control.
Just a different perspective.
and unfortunately - mis information:
02-22-2008, 02:46 PM
#26
Drifting
No lesson - just a need to clarify - I've heard anywhere from 75 to 200 lbs difference between the 915 and the g-50 - if you add a cooler (like the euro cars have) to a 915 the difference becomes smaller.
This is just one of things that is perpetuated on the interweb.
And yes, you would need to reprogram a SW chip for a lightweight flywheel - I changed to a turbo spring clutch (which was lighter) but retained the stock flywheel. With my 993 SS cams - steve thought I would have a problem with the engine stalling with the light weight flywheel."
This is just one of things that is perpetuated on the interweb.
And yes, you would need to reprogram a SW chip for a lightweight flywheel - I changed to a turbo spring clutch (which was lighter) but retained the stock flywheel. With my 993 SS cams - steve thought I would have a problem with the engine stalling with the light weight flywheel."
02-22-2008, 05:32 PM
#27
Rennlist Member
+1 on good condition vs trans hardware.
Just another perspective:
A very competitive PCA driver in SoCal preferes the '84 Carerra with 915-Trans. He thinks the G-50 is a good trans, but the extra weight for a trans that, in his opinion, shifts just a little better than a 915, is a weight-burden that offsets the HP gain vs ... say ... and '83 SC. So, he figures the early Carerra's, with higher HP but not a lot of weight-gain with a 915 box is a better deal for comptetitive driving and car handling.
A 915 trans with properly maintained shift-bushings and linkage seems to shift as well as many of the G-50's I've driven.
Adding over 100# to the back-end of a rear-engined car seems a bit counter-intuative when thinking of car control.
Just a different perspective.
Just another perspective:
A very competitive PCA driver in SoCal preferes the '84 Carerra with 915-Trans. He thinks the G-50 is a good trans, but the extra weight for a trans that, in his opinion, shifts just a little better than a 915, is a weight-burden that offsets the HP gain vs ... say ... and '83 SC. So, he figures the early Carerra's, with higher HP but not a lot of weight-gain with a 915 box is a better deal for comptetitive driving and car handling.
A 915 trans with properly maintained shift-bushings and linkage seems to shift as well as many of the G-50's I've driven.
Adding over 100# to the back-end of a rear-engined car seems a bit counter-intuative when thinking of car control.
Just a different perspective.
The 915 flywheel weighs 12 lbs, and so does the G 50 flywheel, so that's even.
The stock 915 clutch weighs 18 lbs, the G 50 clutch weighs 29 lbs. So, in total, the G 50 package is approximately 27 lbs heavier, which was offset (in 1986) by an increase in rear torsion bar size from 24.1mm to 25mm. Something else comes into play here that contributes to the 915 car "feeling quicker" to some drivers. Back in the day of Hemi-Cudas, 427 Vettes, etc., the ticket to really quick quarter mile times was having a "short", 4.11 rear end (final drive) ratio, or an even shorter 4.56 ratio. Of course, the big compromise with a short ratio was having to run at much higher revs at freeway speeds. Cars with a taller, aka longer, 3.00, or 3.30 rear end (ring & pinion ratio) just wouldn't come out of the hole as quick, and the race was usually over in 2nd gear. In 1974, 911s were fitted with a 7:31 ring & pinion, which is a final drive ratio of 4.43 (remember, the bigger the number the shorter the ratio). Later SCs and early Carreras w/915s had an 8:31 (3.88) final drive ratio, BUT, G 50s are fitted with a 9:31 (3.44) final drive ratio. Yes, the factory fitted all new, "shorter" ratios to 1st-5th to try and make up for it, but, while striving for better mileage and reliability, couldn't overcome that "longer" ring and pinion, which can make, combined with the extra pounds, a G 50 car feel more sluggish than a 915 car. A lightweight clutch will help the G 50 car, but on a road course there should be very little difference between the two because the rpm drop between second and third, between third and fourth, and between fourth and fifth, is very similar when comparing a 915 to a G 50. Yes, the 915, in some situations, will "feel" quicker, but can it generate quicker lap times on a road racing course? I doubt it.
Last edited by Peter Zimmermann; 02-22-2008 at 06:30 PM.
02-23-2008, 02:41 AM
#29
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zim-master-- thanks again for sharing your years of learning. For whatever reason (as in not thinking) , I had not connected the dots of different 911 types having different final drive ratios and the engine wear factor in relationship to miles driven. The same mileage on different 911 types have different meaning for the powerplant. It certainly turned on the light bulb in understanding the engine life of an earlier 911 like the 911S vs a later Carrera (discounting metallurgy and thermal units). More Rs mean more wear, producing shorter engine life. Slowly I get there.
