P-on

I happened to slide into a debate with a die-hard muscle car fan and real afficianado who owns 3 Shelby's and rebuilds engines for SCCA club racers on the side. Obviously he has more experience than me. He went right off about how Porsche's are over-rated, expensive and no better than any 60s muscle car. I cited the usual: over-engineering, great durability, many race wins. But he was on me like stink on crap with stats and races and LeMans (GT40) and 0 - 60 times...etc. When I cited that they were the only independent manufacturer left, with a long history of winning (unlike Ford in a few years in LeMans in the 60's), he kept re-iterating these facts, which I was suprised he knew: why do they have Achilles heels? such as shifting, head studs and temperature control? When he asked why they were so special all I could say was that I loved them like he loved old 289's. Unfortunately I lacked the experience and knowledge to debate this and took an asswhooping in a crowded room of others who think I'm "snobby" because I like the P cars.

I need a one paragraph statement as to why the 911 engine is so good, as that is where I got my *** handed to me on a silver platter and lost face. i went back and read Bruce Anderson's three part series in Up Fixin der Porsche, but good God Bruce make it English. I don't care about alloys and throws and crankshaft revolutions- tell me why the hell engine is special in a way I can expain it. I know they're special because I've driven a lot of cars and can feel the difference. Maybe there's no defending my position. Please help me. I won't confront this guy again, but I need a "crash course"!!

cmoss

Personally I wouldn't worry over much. The fact that he had to go back to the GT-40 tells you something right there.
Just ask him who has more Le Mans wins, wins in general, ratio of P-car to any other make in wins, etc.
Patiently listen to talk of over-rated-ness(?)/problems etc. Then say "maybe..., but look at all the wins-that's all that matters."

MikeF

Simply say "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand".

'Nuff said.

RANDY P

Ask him why the Cleveland is such an overrated POS with not enough head bolts?

Or why the oil sump is in the front of the motor? And how does that affect oiling around corners or in a straight line? Or why you have to use aftermarket heads on anything with a Blue Oval to make any power? Or the lack of interchangability? Or the overly high oil pressure since the system oils backwards from the valvetrain down VS crankshaft up like any other modern car should? Or the durability of the early AOD? You can't do anything with the early production parts - it's all garbage. Wonderful cars folks. Shooting performance #'s of some one-off special one of a kind ultra rare had built Ford means nothing to any of us. What about that POS he drove up in?

The rest of that talk about Ford performance is BS. He's stating it as if it's a fact - should've asked him to enlighten you. If you think anything from the Blue Oval is competitive out of the box you're kidding yourself. All that overglorified nonsene about the 60's ford musclecar, is just BS and hype. Most of the cars they made back then required a lot of special help to make HP. Nowadays early Ford parts are never sought, they just go straight to the scrapyard. The closest Ford ever came to offering something decent that was competitive out of the box is the 5.0 Mustang. That's just the motor folks. If you can get the rest of the car to work as well then you're ahead of most of them. It takes a special person to make most early Fords competitive. Pay heed to them, you're talking to a truly GIFTED person. Ford when they wanted to could do well, but what you got on the showroom floor wasn't the same thing.

That's the beauty about a Porsche, you DON'T NEED a million changes to make the car competitive for what it was intended for. A few tweaks and you're set. I'm not a SCCA engine building guru, but you don't need to be one to recognize sub -par engineering. You're smoking crack to think some 60's musclecar,let alone a FORD is even close to a 911 in refinement. Most of the 60's hot cars ran slower ET's than my SC - no joke. There's a few out there that really ran, but they all had Bowties on the front . Not even mentioning those cars are absolutely centuries behind in overall refinement. Cornering, braking, longetivity of the parts? Overall fit and finish? If you won't acknowledge that then you truly don't know anything about cars. You must acknowledge that every car has a purpose. What are you setting it up to do?

If you still can't edge him out, ask him how does he like the Bowties kicking his *** all day?

rjp

special tool

yeah - the funniest one is a 289 k-code has 270 hp - bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahah
I think they mean metric horses or shetlands or seahorses...

<img border="0" alt="[bigbye]" title="" src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />

pwd72s

Muscle car nut? Tell him this old guy traded in a tri power goat on a new 912, back in '66. Why? I'd just had my first Porsche test drive. On the flipside? I don't think I'd have traded in my tri power goat for a 996...a 996 is too much like my dad's '56 Buick Roadmaster. Hard to explain, but I hope you understand.

UDPride

So much of that muscle car stuff from the 60s and 70s had huge amounts of horsepower and torque but if you look at overall performance, Shelbys, Cameros, Firebirds, GTOs, and all those other muscle cars didnt have that great of numbers out of the factory. Most new stuff nowaways with half the horsepower can outrun that stuff. Cars that have 185bhp now can do what cars with 350bhp were doing back then. Better, more efficient engines, variable valve timing, better fuel systems, whatever. And the new engines are doing it at 1/25th the emissions.

I like a lot of the old muscle car stuff. I think they are beautiful cars and were the zenith of American manufacturing (in my opinion its been all downhill since), but I dont think people realize that a Acura RSX or Toyota Celica can run circles around the old stuff and take the twisty stuff with much better aplomb. I will agree that alot of the old muscle car stuff could and was modified for monstrous bhp/lbft gains and could go in a straight line extremely fast, but back then you NEEDED 400bhp to do what 175bhp can do today. My mom owned a Mustang fastback and my brother-in-law I cant stand owns one. A new Jetta could run circles around it.

RANDY P

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by IWANNAGOFASTER:
<strong> why do they have Achilles heels? such as shifting, head studs and temperature control? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Come to think about it - there isn't a mass produced FROD that doesn't have one or all those problems under track conditions! SOME Porsches have problems like that. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
the term "Curse of the Blue Oval" has real meaning. It's a simple formula: OEM Ford = Garbage. Ford thinks your stupid!

rjp

Sonic dB

I love car wars.

Porschephanatic

I'm surprised he didn't mention all of Ford's Formula 1 victories. I had a 351M ONCE! What a POS! Never again!

P-on

Thanks for the help guys. He was beligerent and it really got offensive. I made some of the same arguments posted above but when you're talking to a pig headed ******* it's tough to get words in edgewise. The only real satisfaction was that I have an SC with 124K miles and it's never had a thing done with it. He couldn't say the same about any of his cars.

RANDY P

I'm sure his engine building biz keeps him real busy. You know he's got job security <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

RANDY P

double post. sorry.

Red1

Some people aren't worth arguing with.

It sounds to me like the guy has p-car envy, and won't acknowledge it to himself, so he attacks them as inferior. I'd take my 951 against anything out there by Ford. I'll still be going long after he's cooked his brakes and has shot off course.

If p-cars were so poorly built as he contends, a 1982 911 SC wouldn't be worth any more than a 1982 mustang, and we all know that's not the case. If he maintains the 911 cost more new, that doesn't matter on a 20 year old car.

Or, just go for the jugular: Say "Mustang II" Nuff said.

hoffman912

GRRRRR.. i hate american cars. they are too big, cant handle, guzzle too much gas. badly designed, and engineered to go around in a circle or a straight line. most are nothing but POS. american muscle is no match for german enginering. brain beats braun every time. (then again we have both brain and braun.. they are just big dumb ophs)

i think the 80's porsche ad said it all
"they're like children, you can't understand until you've had one"

FORD doesnt not mean quality job 1, it means

Found
On
Road
Dead

also there's

Fix
Or
Repair
Daily

or theres also Delta airlines.. (a joke i once heared when i was a kid)

Dont
Ever
Leave
The
Airport