'87 NA vs. '77 911S Performance Comparison - Stats?
03-12-2004, 07:32 PM
#1
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'87 NA vs. '77 911S Performance Comparison - Stats?
Anyone know the relative stats on these two cars? I've been looking at a pair of '77 911S's this week and to be honest, neither car struck me as all THAT much quicker than my lowly little '87 NA - which, by the way, runs like a champ. My car is totally stock except for a K&N which I doubt does much and a throttle cam which I know does nothing real.
One of the 911's had 82,000 original miles, the other 7,000 since a rebuild. One was an absolutely perfect show car, the other a "ten footer". I love the 911 but was a little surprised there was not a greater performance difference. To be fair? There were two of us in the car when test driving it..I'm sure that makes a difference. Anyone with the stats?
One of the 911's had 82,000 original miles, the other 7,000 since a rebuild. One was an absolutely perfect show car, the other a "ten footer". I love the 911 but was a little surprised there was not a greater performance difference. To be fair? There were two of us in the car when test driving it..I'm sure that makes a difference. Anyone with the stats?
03-12-2004, 11:38 PM
#2
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1977 911S engine puts out 165 horsepower and 175 ft-lbs of torque and does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds with a top speed of 144 mph. IIRC, that's similar to the speed of the n/a 944.
Emanuel
Emanuel
03-13-2004, 12:07 AM
#3
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
the 1977 911 was the last year of the 2.7 engine. Hmmmm, not a real "great" laster that motor. Have you read about the head studs pulling and what not? Here is a small faq on it.
S cams are real peaky too. They come on late but rip from 4000 to redline. Still, not a good all-around-driver profile.
S cams are real peaky too. They come on late but rip from 4000 to redline. Still, not a good all-around-driver profile.
03-13-2004, 12:16 AM
#4
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The 1977 911S engine puts out 165 horsepower and 175 ft-lbs of torque and does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds with a top speed of 144 mph. IIRC, that's similar to the speed of the n/a 944."
Except... the 911S is at least 200-250 lbs lighter than a n/a 944.
I have a 77 911S now. I used to own an (2.5 liter) 87 924S. All I can say is that my 911S is a much much faster car than my 924S. And my 924S was at least as fast, or faster than any 2.5 liter n/a 944 I had driven (and I looked at lots before settling on my 924S).
The acceleration in the 911S should push you back in the seat hard. Mine does, and it's stock... except for the removed thermal reactors and newer exhaust system.
Car and Driver managed to get a 5.9 second 0-60 dash out of a (so-called) 165hp 911S. However, the main thing that's holding cars like this from this kind of a time is mainly the old-fashioned slow-moving transmission... and of course, old, tired engines in some of the 25+ year old cars.
-MAS
Except... the 911S is at least 200-250 lbs lighter than a n/a 944.
I have a 77 911S now. I used to own an (2.5 liter) 87 924S. All I can say is that my 911S is a much much faster car than my 924S. And my 924S was at least as fast, or faster than any 2.5 liter n/a 944 I had driven (and I looked at lots before settling on my 924S).
The acceleration in the 911S should push you back in the seat hard. Mine does, and it's stock... except for the removed thermal reactors and newer exhaust system.
Car and Driver managed to get a 5.9 second 0-60 dash out of a (so-called) 165hp 911S. However, the main thing that's holding cars like this from this kind of a time is mainly the old-fashioned slow-moving transmission... and of course, old, tired engines in some of the 25+ year old cars.
-MAS
03-13-2004, 12:26 AM
#5
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My uncle has a 79 911 SC, that is an awesome car. It can keep up with a 951 until mid 3rd gear, when the 951 takes off like a rocket. It has such a nice throaty sound.
03-13-2004, 12:55 AM
#6
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
911SC's have the 3.0 motor. Stronger alluminum case - can run 200K miles and more if well cared for!
As far as keeping up with a 951, a chipped car launched well should have him by the end of 2nd gear
But I agree that the engine note from a 3 liter is akin to a Wagner Opera - Scary beautiful!
As far as keeping up with a 951, a chipped car launched well should have him by the end of 2nd gear
But I agree that the engine note from a 3 liter is akin to a Wagner Opera - Scary beautiful!
03-13-2004, 11:38 AM
#7
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"S cams are real peaky too. They come on late but rip from 4000 to redline. Still, not a good all-around-driver profile."
This is incorrect. You are thinking of the earlier 911S with the smaller motor. The 2.7 liter 911S's had relatively "un-peaky cams". They are actually one of the flattest torque-curves of any 911. The 2.7 911S is actually less "peaky" than even the later 3 liter SC's.
Also... I think people need to get updated a bit about the head stud pulling problem the 2.7 liters had:
1) It's absolutely true that most or all of the 2.7 liter engines had head stud pulling problems, but...
2) This problem reared its ugly head early on in the engine's life. Usually within the first few years... and not, I repeat, not 25 years and later!
3) Unless... you are dealing with a 911S that has very very low miles... ie: under 50,000 (genuine) miles.
4) 99% of all 2.7 liter cars will have had this problem taken care of probably 20 or more years ago. Much of the time by the dealer.
5) Think about it: why would a so-called "time-bomb" of an unreliable engine somehow last through over 25 years of unrebuilt use, only to start pulling head studs on the hapless new owner in 2004?
6) It either means that these engine were:
a) as reliable as the other 911 engines, or
b) mostly rebuilt years ago.
You can't have it both ways!
The bottom line is... with any 911 a proper PPI is essential. 2.7 or not.
Incidentally, a recent (unofficial survey) of head stud problems on Pelican Parts 911 Tech Forum, showed that by far the most head stud problems (snapping, in this case) were with the 3 liter SC cars. This makes sense, because the main problem with the "bullet-proof" SCs is that they HAVE lasted well for 20 years... and only now are needing rebuilding!
-MAS
This is incorrect. You are thinking of the earlier 911S with the smaller motor. The 2.7 liter 911S's had relatively "un-peaky cams". They are actually one of the flattest torque-curves of any 911. The 2.7 911S is actually less "peaky" than even the later 3 liter SC's.
Also... I think people need to get updated a bit about the head stud pulling problem the 2.7 liters had:
1) It's absolutely true that most or all of the 2.7 liter engines had head stud pulling problems, but...
2) This problem reared its ugly head early on in the engine's life. Usually within the first few years... and not, I repeat, not 25 years and later!
3) Unless... you are dealing with a 911S that has very very low miles... ie: under 50,000 (genuine) miles.
4) 99% of all 2.7 liter cars will have had this problem taken care of probably 20 or more years ago. Much of the time by the dealer.
5) Think about it: why would a so-called "time-bomb" of an unreliable engine somehow last through over 25 years of unrebuilt use, only to start pulling head studs on the hapless new owner in 2004?
6) It either means that these engine were:
a) as reliable as the other 911 engines, or
b) mostly rebuilt years ago.
You can't have it both ways!
The bottom line is... with any 911 a proper PPI is essential. 2.7 or not.
Incidentally, a recent (unofficial survey) of head stud problems on Pelican Parts 911 Tech Forum, showed that by far the most head stud problems (snapping, in this case) were with the 3 liter SC cars. This makes sense, because the main problem with the "bullet-proof" SCs is that they HAVE lasted well for 20 years... and only now are needing rebuilding!
-MAS
