deleted

 

Beautiful car Christien....I'm sure it won't hang around for long

 

car looks great. GLWS!

 

Looks good.

 

Looks fantastic,

Any chance we can get a writeup describing a comparison between it and your '72? I'm curious!

 

Nice to see that clean 3.2s are holding their value. You should have no problems selling at $25k.

 

What? You want me to talk about my car? Well, if I must...

The similarities are much more striking than the differences. The single biggest differences are power and fuel injection.

Power, well, 205 vs. 135hp, even at some 600 lbs more, it's definitely a more powerful car.

Fuel injection vs carburetion: no comparison. From the way they start to the way they sound at idle and acceleration, and the feel of the acceleration. The fuel injection is much more civil.

Out of the box, the 86 handles much better, though my car has had several suspension improvements, which, coupled with the lighter weight, make it handle better. The 86 could be on par for a few hundred $$.

Comfort - the 86 is a much more comfortable car to drive long distances for 3 reasons: seats, sound and climate control. The seat in my 72 is shot, so I guess if that were fixed the 2 cars would be equal. Sound: my 72 is loud. It could use a windshield resealing, which would cut down wind noise, and new sound deadening would help, too. Climate control: this can't really be changed. The heat in the 86 works, and works how and where you want it to (even if you do have to RTFM to figure it out - what a ludicrously unnecessarily complicated system). The heat in the 72, even when working properly, isn't as controllable and effective.

The similarities are where the cars are really striking. When I had both in the bay, several people did a double take, thinking my car had multiplied (if only it were that easy...) To the untrained eye, they're identical, except for the Carrera spoiler vs. ducktail.

Transmission: wow. Just wow. 1972 was the first year for the 915. 1986 is the last. And it's virtually the same box. The 86 is a bit less of a soupbox - the shifter is held in position a bit tighter. But the problem areas are all the same - shift into one at a full stop (or close), slow shifting into reverse, have to let the tranny wind down, careful hitting third not to miss it. And both gearboxes have been rebuilt within the last 5 years.

Braking: surprisingly similar. I think the weight difference is the explanation - my car's easier to stop because it's lighter. Personally, I prefer the feel of non-boosted brakes, in a performance car, because I can feel everything that much better. (ok, I'm not talking about a GT3 going 240 on the back straight, where I'm sure you need the power assist!)

Acceleration: no contest, of course. The power band feels much different - there's surprisingly little power down low in the 86, but once you hit about 4000 rpm, it takes off like a rocket.

I think that's about it. For me, the biggest difference (and what made me consider keeping the 86 and selling the 72) was comfort. I do a lot of highway driving, and the 911 is my DD in the summer. I was really struck by how comfortable the 86 was. But I think I can achieve about 80% of that comfort for very little money in the 72 - reseal the windshield, fix the heat properly, fix the driver's chair, all in all about $500-700. The big difference is a/c - there are times I leave the 911 at home because it's just too hot. A retrofit is about $2000-2500 (using a modern, aftermarket system). The additional power is very nice, no doubt, and it's got me back on the path of considering just dropping a 3.2 in there, rather than rebuilding and upgrading my 2.4. Cost is a big factor in that - I could sell both the 2.4 and the 2.0 for the cost of a 3.2, whereas rebuilding and upgrading the 2.4 to achieve 200hp would cost about 5-7k, as a DIY.

At the end of the day, the winning factor was the feel of my car - there's just something missing in the 3.2. I'm not talking about "soul" - the 86 has that in spades. I have a stupid-*** grin every time I turn the key. It's the raw-ness, the connected to the road with the absolute minimum of intervening devices feeling that I love about the 72. It's a personal taste thing, so I can see easily why someone might disagree.

 

Your 72 with that 3.2 would be awesome.

 

A 3.6 would be even better, but I'd need a new tranny and all new upgraded brakes. 15k, plus a divorce, most likely

 

Back in the day,I bought a new 1986 911 identical to the car in your photograph. The only difference was that mine did not have the power seat. The color and whale tail plus a much smaller architecture bring back many memories. I wish I still owned it. Correct me if I am wrong but I think it had 225hp then. It was a show stopper then and still is today. Good luck with your sale.

 

Could be. Could be US vs. ROW (US are usually a bit less power due to stricter emissions regulations). I'm seeing different #s in different places. I'll get it sorted out sooner or later

 

I believe (and I could be wrong) that US was 208hp and ROW was 231hp for the 3.2 Carrera.

Thanks for the writeup Christien, I enjoyed reading that! It's very interesting reading about the '72 making you feel more connected to the road, because I'm used to reading the exact same thing when referring to the SC's and 3.2's as compared to modern 911s.

Love the ducktail btw!

 

I'm pretty sure the North American cars were 217 for 1986, ROW was 231.

 

I think it's true all through the line. I've driven several boxsters and 996s and while they're fun, they're completely different. Though, interestingly, driving a Z06 and a 996TT back to back at Mosport, I felt significantly more feedback from the road in the 996 than the corvette. The corvette really felt disconnected, like it was trying to isolate the driver from the road - more like what you'd expect in a Benz or Lexus. So I think what I'd really enjoy is a 1965 with a 3.6 and a/c

 

Damn, wish I had more garage space

GLWS, I am sure it wont last.


Stan