Fassi I

My understanding is that European Porsche enthusiasts tend to prefer the 915 over the G50. I personally like the feel of the 915 and don't necessarily believe that the supposedly more forgiving G50 is superior to a well sorted out, relatively lightweight 915. It would be great to hear what the members of this board think about this issue. Why do we disagree with our European counterparts when it comes to our transmissions? Thanks.

Bill Verburg

The only G50 that I would prefer over a 915 is a G50/21 euro 6spd.

As to why, I can only speculate that shifting technique has a lot to do with it. If you are used to jamming from one gear to another w/o any empathy w/ the machinery then the 915 can be unforgiving especially when the linkage and internals are somewhat worn.

Fassi I

Thanks, Bill. I thought there would be more interest in this topic. I guess everyone else is more or less for the G50

druck

Fassi,
I have a good friend in Europe which feels the 3.2 Carrera ended in '86. The cable actuated clutch has a much better feel over the hydro unit.
The 915 has a much better feel, IMO. I'm strange though, I shift it with one finger. Match the revs the box shifts by itself.
Regards,
d.

Tom F

I like the feel of the 915 better, for sure. Plus, the 915 is considerably lighter, and therefore more in keeping with my totally outdated (i.e., pre-Cayenne) image of Porsche as the premier sports car specialists. It's a purist thing.

The advantages of the G50 are in maintenance. I'm sure that Porsche saw a huge drop off in warranty claims with the G50. As with so many changes, Porsche seem determined to thrive in their business. Who can blame them for that!?

I like the feel of the 901 box best. Also, it is lighter than the 915, so it is more in keeping with the old Porsche image. The 901 just couldn't handle the torque of the later motors, owing to the overhung arrangement of first gear. So, I'm totally retro on this one, though I tend to like progress in design in general.

tminus3

[quote] If you are used to jamming from one gear to another w/o any empathy w/ the machinery then the 915 can be unforgiving <hr></blockquote>

Well said Bill. That was one of the first lessons I learned about driving a 911.

ked

my impression has been that the G50 design (w/ its BW type synchros & heftier internals) was required by the increasing hp & torque that the larger displacement motors demanded. recall that PAG did not expect the 911 to live much beyond the 3.0L capacity... when it was determined to be a key (& permanent) part of the Porsche line-up, going to 3.6/3.8 (& watercooled), the 901/915 design limitations had to be addressed. thus the G50?

Filip

How does the 930 fit into this? Or is this a dumb question?

ked

there are no dumb questions (however, dumb posts are welcome in OT...)

the 915 tranny for the 930s remained a 4 speed, I believe for the same reason I pointed out - the 915 was "hitting the wall" in terms of lifespan & robustness as 300hp & lotsa torque was becoming a standard 911 feature. An early 930 expert might tell us if the spool-up characteristics & gearing of the 4sp was a better match at that point...

Ruf made a 5sp for their flavor of the turbo, and the factory intro'd the G50 5sp for the Turbo in '89. That is one of the features that makes the '89 Turbo so appealing - last year of the original 911 chassis & of the original 930 type, ONLY year of the factory 5sp on that series 930.