View Poll Results: Shark handling vs 1977 911
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll
911 Handling vs Shark
06-29-2006, 10:42 AM
#46
Rennlist Member
Any info on the 964 N/A's. It looks like they would fall even with the 928 CS
06-29-2006, 10:42 AM
#47
Rennlist Member
I did an insane run through the mountains above Denver (Idaho Springs area) after the 928 OCIC on Sunday with my Friend Eric and his Brother Eben. Eric in his '82 widebody 911 and me in my 86.5 928S. My 928 has new Bilstein/Eibach coilovers and 18x9 255/35/18 and 18x10 265/35/18 wheels and tires, the 911 is pretty much stock and with aged shocks and struts. My 928 was able to stick to the 911 like glue the whole time, and some of these turns were so tight i had to look out my driver side window to sight my line.
With my stock wheels and old stock boge setup i know for sure i would have been plowing on these turns at the speeds we were going. The story would have been a little different if the 911 had a recent suspension refresh as well.
Replacing the coilovers and a big set of wheels made a dramatic difference in the way my car handles hard cornering. Most of the time i am speeding up for turns rather than reeling it back in, and the loss of traction threshold is now closer to "crap your pants" lateral forces.
With my stock wheels and old stock boge setup i know for sure i would have been plowing on these turns at the speeds we were going. The story would have been a little different if the 911 had a recent suspension refresh as well.
Replacing the coilovers and a big set of wheels made a dramatic difference in the way my car handles hard cornering. Most of the time i am speeding up for turns rather than reeling it back in, and the loss of traction threshold is now closer to "crap your pants" lateral forces.
06-29-2006, 10:51 AM
#48
Rennlist Member
But of course a tight mountain road without guardrails is not the place to probe limits, and at no time did i feel it had reached that point. Lots of fun none the less. I actually started laughing a couple of times, it was that much fun.
06-29-2006, 11:24 AM
#49
Rennlist Member
But don't forget that a stock 82 SC had less than 200 hp and weighed in at 2800 pounds without the widebody conversion which probably brings it up close to 3000 pounds. You should have gobbled him up and spit him out.
06-29-2006, 11:34 AM
#50
Race Director
Tire choice-size on a 928 makes a HUGE difference!! When I put on the 18" Carrera III's with conti sport contact II's 235/40 front 265/40 rear it made a big difference.......much more grip than my stock 16"s I had before....far more confidence inspiring!! Now I think I need to shocks-springs to take advantage of this newfound grip!!
06-29-2006, 11:46 AM
#51
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by IcemanG17
Tire choice-size on a 928 makes a HUGE difference!! When I put on the 18" Carrera III's with conti sport contact II's 235/40 front 265/40 rear it made a big difference.......much more grip than my stock 16"s I had before....far more confidence inspiring!! Now I think I need to shocks-springs to take advantage of this newfound grip!!
06-29-2006, 12:14 PM
#52
Rennlist Member
hp didn't really come into the equation as most of the hard cornering was done going downhill where power was more than ample to toss either car off the road.
06-29-2006, 12:19 PM
#53
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by cobalt
But don't forget that a stock 82 SC had less than 200 hp and weighed in at 2800 pounds without the widebody conversion which probably brings it up close to 3000 pounds. You should have gobbled him up and spit him out.
06-29-2006, 12:37 PM
#54
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by 928drvr86.5
His SC is better than stock, rebuilt, less exhangers, headers, etc. Not sure about the internals but it at least has a few more ponies than stock. As far as the gobbling goes (LOL) i was following mostly because i didn't know where we were going so it never really turned into a, " I can drop you sort of thing". Just good clean fun.
06-29-2006, 04:32 PM
#56
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by cobalt
Any info on the 964 N/A's. It looks like they would fall even with the 928 CS
Code:
Model Year CC HP KG KG/HV --------------------------------------------------- 993 Turbo 3.6 1996 3.6 408 1500 3.68 964 Turbo 3.6 1993 3.6 360 1470 4.08 993 Carrera RS 1995 3.8 300 1270 4.23 968 Turbo S 1993-94 3.0 305 1300 4.26 996 C2 1998 3.4 300 1320 4.4 911 Turbo 3.3 1985-89 3.3 300 1335 4.45 911 Carrera RS 2.7 1973 2.7 210 960 4.57 964 Turbo 3.3 1991-92 3.3 320 1470 4.59 911 Turbo 3.0 1975-76 3 260 1195 4.6 928 CS 1988-89 5 320 1480 4.63 928 GTS 1992-95 5.4 350 1620 4.63 964 RS 1992 3.6 260 1220 4.69 928 GT 1989-91 5 330 1580 4.79 993 C2 1996-97 3.6 285 1370 4.8 928 S 1980-83 4.7 300 1450 4.83 928 S 1984 4.7 310 1500 4.84 993 C2 Cabriolet 1996-97 3.6 285 1400 4.91 928 S 1985-86 4.7 310 1530 4.94 928 S4 1987-91 5 320 1580 4.94 993 C4 1996-97 3.6 285 1440 5.05 993 C4S 1996-97 3.6 285 1450 5.08 911 Carrera 1974-75 2.7 210 1075 5.12 944 Turbo S 1988 2.5 250 1280 5.12 944 Turbo 1989-91 2.5 250 1280 5.12 911 Speedster 1989 3.2 231 1220 5.28 964 Speedster 1993 3.6 250 1350 5.4 964 C2 1990 3.6 250 1350 5.4 911 Carrera 3.2 1985-89 3.2 231 1260 5.45 968 CS 1993-95 3.0 240 1320 5.50 964 C2 Tiptronic 1990 3.6 250 1380 5.52 944 Turbo Cabrio 1991 2.5 250 1390 5.56 911 Carrera 3.2 1987-89 3.2 217 1210 5.58 911 Carrera 3.0 1976-77 3 200 1120 5.6 924 Carrera GT 1981 2 210 1180 5.62 911 SC 3.0 1981-83 3 204 1160 5.69 968 1992-95 3.0 240 1370 5.71 944 Turbo 1985-88 2.5 220 1280 5.82 968 Cabrio 1992-95 3.0 240 1440 6.00 928 1978-82 4.5 240 1450 6.04 911 S 1974-75 2.7 175 1075 6.14 911 SC 1980 3 188 1160 6.17 944 S2 1989-91 3.0 211 1340 6.35 911 E 1972-73 2.4 165 1050 6.36 911 S 1967-68 2 160 1030 6.43 911 SC 1978 3 180 1160 6.44 911 E 1970-71 2.2 155 1020 6.58 944 S2 Cabrio 1989-91 3.0 211 1390 6.59 924 Turbo 1981-84 2 177 1180 6.67 944 S 1987-89 2.5 190 1280 6.74
06-29-2006, 04:41 PM
#57
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Erkka power to weight ratio unfortunately completely ignores braking ability, cornering ability, front to rear weight ratio , rim size tire size , number of gears available final drive ratios. It will give you some indication of drag racing capability but little else.
06-29-2006, 04:52 PM
#58
Race Car
Originally Posted by Jim bailey - 928 International
Erkka power to weight ratio unfortunately completely ignores braking ability, cornering ability, front to rear weight ratio , rim size tire size , number of gears available final drive ratios. It will give you some indication of drag racing capability but little else.
06-29-2006, 05:00 PM
#59
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I know Jim. It's just easiest way to compare different models as numbers are clear. Putting rim size/hp or something else on table doesn't directly tell so much what will actually happen on the road. What is interesting to me is that I bet if we would give above models list on paper and ask people to put them in power to weight order even most 928 owners would put 928's much further down. Car with 1200 kg & 240 hp is most likely better on track than one with 1600 kg & 320 hp even though kg/hp is same. That is as long as suspension, brakes etc. is close to equal. But if 1600 kg car has 350, 380, 410 or what ever higher hp it will eventually be generally viewed better car simply because it has better power to weight figure. It obviously debents each individual which hp number is enough to make fat and lazy actually better despite extra weight.
06-29-2006, 05:09 PM
#60
Range Master
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I have one of each..........they are two entirely different cars..............entirely different. There are things I would try with my C4 that i definately would not try with the 928 and visa versa..............