I call this magazine racing. I pulled up an old (OLD) C&D magazine article and did a comparison to a new 911 (991.2).

I read Car and Driver going back to the 80s

When I was a younger lad, I was obsessed with the two super cars of that time the Ferrari F40 and Porsche 959 (1986-93) just 300-some odd were made.

Back then when Corvettes ZR1's took 10.4 seconds to 100 mph (I mean thats not dog poop, but nowadays it's not exactly news of the world).-- for god's sake a BMW M2 can now do the deed 0-100 in 9.6 seconds.

Obviously back in the day computers were a lot more primitive and the sequential gearbox was not invented yet, tire technology was not as good either. I was just pointing out a that a ZR1 was quick back in the day but nothing compared to the 959 of the same era.

I'll give the results and give the links, I can't type everything so if you want to see the weights and measures go to the links.

However we will know the new 991.2 shares the basic layout, small flat six, twin turbo and (sometimes AWD). I can't find a base AWD test so added the C4S.

Obviously all will agree three letters 'PDK' is a wonderful speed trick and some may believe the main reason for the 991.2 quickness but I will add the 7MT as well.

1987 Porsche 959 (30 years old note Germany was still two separate countries)
$227K (would be $490K in todays dollars).
2.8L 444HP 369 TQ
0-60 3.6sec
0-100 8.8sec
0-130 15.9sec

2017 991.2 PDK
0-60 3.4sec
0-100 8.5sec
0-130 14.8sec
--------------------just 370hp RWD and PDK is a full second quicker to 130 mph.

2017 991.2 7MT
0-60 4sec
0-100 9.1sec
0-130 (not tested)

2017 4S PDK
0-60 3.2sec
0-100. 7.8sec
0-130. 13.6sec
-----------420hp AWD PDK 2.3 seconds quicker to 130 mph

P.S. the 918 will do
0-60 2.2 sec
0-100 in 4.9 sec
0-130 7.9 sec

959
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ed-test-review

1990 ZR1
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...duction-page-2

2016 M2
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ic-test-review

2017 911 Carrera PDK
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ra-test-review

2017 911 7MT
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...al-test-review
2017 4S PDK
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...4s-test-review

918 v 959
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...e-specs-page-4

 

Interesting comparison. It wasn't that long ago that anything over 400 HP was considered extreme! Now it's not uncommon.

FWIW, the early PDK dual-clutch transmission was around in the early '80s in race cars and in some prototype road cars. The Porsche 962 won at Monza in 1985 with a dual-clutch automatic. Audi had some success with it in their racing cars too.

 

Another interesting difference was that the 959's turbos were sequential, while the current 911s put one turbocharger on each bank of cylinders. That's got to simplify the intake plumbing quite a bit.

 

I'm 51 so I remember somewhat of the oil embargos of the seventies, early eighties. Corvettes with 190hp V8s.

I remember the 1987 Buick Grand National turbo was something of a quick car back then, it did 0-60 just under 6sec. Today a MX5 can also do that.

I think my point was how some people look at the base 911 and don't see it as a much of a hairy beast. But I see it as something of a wolf in sheeps clothing. It's as quick (probably quicker) as my old e92 M3 with twin clutch transmission and I never felt that car was too slow or underpowered.

Just fun to think today we can buy a 911 in base form that does most everything better than the half a million dollar 959, a car that I was truly amazed with, at the time it was almost like a car from another planet.

 

Great comparison with respect to acceleration. Let's not forget the amazing advances in safety, fuel economy and the relatively low level of emissions we now enjoy. Don't get me started on all the standard and optional gadgets we also take for granted in our base cars.

 

Whoa. I have an inbound 2018 C4 and I am more than happy with how quick it is. I agree that it is a beast. Thanks for posting.

 

New tire tech will make a decent different in some those times. I'd expect a 959 with new Pilot Sports or Cup 2's to shave a couple of tenths.

I seem to have forgotten the 959 weighed 3500lbs. That's a lot for back then considering how light the F40 was.

 

I'm also impressed with what you can get today with a base 911. Not saying $100K is cheap, but the 959 was $500k (inflated dollars) probably more after dealer markups.

I know all the R&D plus a limited run must have cost a ton, Porsche probably lost money on those cars (I think I read that somewhere). The 959 was a Tour de force, a moon shot.

The 959 was so different from normal cars, almost like the 918 is today from ordinary cars.

 

The 959 was a generation behind the F40. It's a Group B car, meant to go up against the 288 GTO. Those probably weighed 3300-3400 pounds, I'd guess.

 

That's a 30+ year old computer controlling the 959. Imagine what a desk-top computer from 1987 looked like.

Everyone still loves the sound of an aircooled Porsche though...

 

I generally think the straight-line acceleration numbers are the least interesting thing about a car's performance. The first thing I notice when looking at the 959 archived test is how much body lean the car shows in turns. A 991 (.1 or .2) will be dead level doing the same thing.

The test numbers bear that out - 0.87g skidpad for the 959, 1.06g for the 991.2. Some of that's tire width and compounds, but not all.

 

Well the new base is clearly superior. I'm sure Bill, Paul, and Jerry will happily trade you.

 

Me, too!

 

I'm curious what the service costs on a 959? I had a friend with a 70's Aston Martin which needed an engine rebuild it was like $25k.

My heart would sink if needed a repair and then told it would cost as much as a new car.

But I'm sure Bill Gates doesn't care about that.

 

What it tells me is that it took 30 years for this technology to go from unobtainium to consumer grade. Porsche was pretty far ahead of their time!