What to choose? 1970 T project vs '87 Carrera

[johndglynn]

So this is a T originally in Dark Green Metallic? You are not just going to build it back to original?

Original is nice - all too easy to make a mess of longhood hot rods or have it look like a backdate. Speaking as someone who has probably driven more longhood hot rods than most...

Obviously I get why people want to modify but if you can't consistently apply better engineering to the project than it left the factory with (and write down the true costs of these things before you embark on the project), then expect slightly disappointing results. This is why I ended up passing my 1971 911T on to a new owner.

Nice project though. I like that bodykit.

[8bucksagallon]

@johndglynn 

I am coming slowly around to that way of thinking, and doing a restoration, with just a few tweaks to enhance rather than change the car. I have built many cars over the years and modified cars seldom seem to fulfil the dream. The only reason for the varioram is to build the current motor with "enough" power makes no sense financially. the plan is fit the varioram and inhibit the original and store it for sale with the car if the time comes. Appreciate your comments. The body kit can be yours!

[Richard Bernau]

What motor is in it now?  Original T case or something close to original.

An EFI S or E spec engine built around 2.4 or 2.7 litres would be perfect in a narrow early car.  Frankly, 3.8 vario just seems the wrong choice IMHO.  2.4E very lightly modified is one of the most fun 911s I have had the pleasure of driving.

[8bucksagallon]

@Richard Bernau Thanks for your interest. Its the original 2.2, or 2.4 (not sure at the moment) on carbs. Not run for 20 yrs, but was ok when parked, and does turn over. On the basis of weight alone, I was looking to build something that was well balanced (Weight wise) and with as much power as would ever be needed, not looking to overpower it, ive had those kind of cars before. but looking at the raw number on a 2.7 they are 200+/-BHP, and that might be ok if I can get it light enough. As a STD car, it might not have the go I am looking for. My porsche experience is low I confess, but my current 3.8 in the S/C is about where I want to be performance wise, if that can be achieved with any other motor, I am all ears. Which brings me to a couple of other questions, and that is, If adding lightness, where to do it from? Carbon at the back and move CG forward, or just lighter everywhere? These cars are so tail heavy, and as above my experience with them limited, Im in a bit of funk trying to decide where to remove weight from for the best results. Engine builder recommendations welcome also. Car is in Poland now so should be ready for paint by  mid February, so no huge rush at this point. Motor was always going to be a bottle neck, which I suppose means 901 dogleg can stay if I can find right motor combo for it. Thanks all.

[Richard Bernau]

Well, if you like 3.8 in an SC and want that power to weight, then you have fewer options other than a 3.8, I guess.  You can't get that power to weight too many other ways.  3.0RSR makes 330hp...

Thoughts on weight.  Real world weights on actual corner scales are often very different from internet weights.  A basic spec 2.4T was IIRC 1050kg and a more optioned 2.4S was 1080kg.  More or less.  A 2.7RS Touring was about the same as a 2.4S.  Those are the Porsche Redbook weights, so real world.  Any 911 that is 1000-1050kg in the real world feels light.  Much lighter than that is hard and you are then into the territory of a basic race car - which is fine if that is what you want.  I think the reality is that most who build that sub-1000kg level and don't do a lot of track work start putting weight back in to make the cars more touring friendly.  Or have multiple cars to pick from.  But it all depends what you want to use the car for.  And if I was building a track car, it wouldn't look like a narrow early car.

On the where the weight is saved question, I am happy to be an outlier vs the consensus.  On a road car, where you don't chase lap times, then there is almost no benefit in trying to move that centre of balance forwards within the realms of what you can save without completely redesigning the car.  Just save weight wherever you can as you honestly won't notice the difference.  In the late 1960s, the peak of road tyre tech was what, a Pirelli CN36?  A truly dreadful tyre which I have driven on.  And also worth remembering that a 2.0/S was on 165 section tyres and even a 2.4 was 185s IIRC.  So, in the 60s/70s you certainly did have a real sensitivity to centre of balance, but now I think not so much.  On a race car, completely different.  You can see the recent RSR evolution moving to a much squarer set up with weight moving forwards and larger and larger front tyres right up to the move to mid-engine.  I was perfectly happy taking all the weight I could off the front of my old car - Daisy - and I think it has been universally praised by everyone who ever drove it as an exceptional handling 911.

My thinking on power was largely around tyre size.  If you are narrow body, then you are pretty much limited to a 205 rear tyre.  You can only fit a 6x15 Fuchs in the rear unless you find 911R offset 7s.  Custom offset you can run 7s all round, but a 225 still rubs above the wheelarch and a 205 works better on a 7 anyway.  And as good as some of the modern Michelin et al road tyres are, they are no better than R compound tyres from 20 years ago - which is where I have experience of these narrow cars.  Maybe you are of the school that you can't have too much power.  For me, I would think that a 2.7RS-ish 200hp would be just about perfect.  A 165hp 2.4E is another wonderful package, where the MFI + E cams just seems to work brilliantly.  The 2.4S less so for me as it seemed slower in the midrange and only a little faster at high revs.  On the other hand a 2.7RS on S cams is a brilliant engine - rightly loved by so many over the years.  Similarly, a 2.9 on mod-S cams is a wonderful thing and should be good for 240-250hp.  But you start to want/need a 225 rear tyre at those levels.

Of course you can just stuff a massive engine in the back   

$0.02 

[8bucksagallon]

@Richard Bernau Again, thanks for your input. Actually I am from the 289/427 Cobra school of thought, and one of the few who has owned both "real" ones (whatever that means in Cobra circles!) and several continuation, and replicas, the aim in that club seems to be as much power as can be bought. I don't, they have a sweet spot , and 650 at the wheels is somewhat above it! Your comments about use, absolutely a road/tourer, it will never see a track, not my thing. Car is to be used for exploring new roads. The 3.8 was because the feedback I have been getting was from ( is suspect) people without hands on experience, this forum is the only one Im a member of, due in no small part to the fact its got people on here that actually drive the darn things, not just polish them. Weight, thank you, you have confirmed my thoughts, build it comfortable, and enjoy, so steel all round it is! Engine really struggling here,  I want power, and am concious of the 205/15 issue, and don't want to overwhelm them, but will 200 BHP do it? I drove an RS rep and frankly was underwhelmed, not looking for a stupid missile, as I am not that good, but do want quick, agh its a problem........

[16vjay]

"Real" Cobras were made by AC in Thames Ditton or Brooklands. 

[8bucksagallon]

@16vjay. Yup, I have one of the 30/40 RHD 289 cars built there (TD) in the '60's. Lovely thing, and restored about 20 yrs ago by Brian Angliss. Have also had an Aluminium CSX 4000 car, fantastic iteration of a 427 sc, with alloy FE and 650 at the wheels, lovely but too powerful. I now have  nice pair (brace?) 289 and an Angliss built 427 rep, not a MK4, stunning build quality. The current Brooklands cars are lovely but spendy, glad I bought all mine a few yrs ago!

Edited January 7, 2021 by 8bucksagallon
Missed a salient point

[johndglynn]

I agree with RB - 200 bhp in 1050 kilos is about perfect. Jack O has 270 bhp in his black car and on street tyres around Willow he will match a 450bhp GT3 Cup on R tyres to within a second or so. I don't want to work an old car that hard. 2.4 is a sweet spot in early cars IMHO - I would leave it on Webers with nice cams and some SSIs. It all depends where you're going to drive it and where it sits versus the "usability envelopes" of your other cars.

As someone who is well and truly marinaded in the pros and cons of owning several projects, each needing 100+ hours, and trying to keep a lid on every other thing at a fairly challenging time in human evolution, I increasingly feel that project cars are overrated. Time is precious, so make sure you are being honest with yourself as to what you're getting into. It is not just buying parts: there is a huge opportunity cost. Sometimes it is worth passing and letting someone else take the strain!

[8bucksagallon]

5 minutes ago, johndglynn said:

I agree with RB - 200 bhp in 1050 kilos is about perfect. Jack O has 270 bhp in his black car and on street tyres around Willow he will match a 450bhp GT3 Cup on R tyres to within a second or so. I don't want to work an old car that hard. 2.4 is a sweet spot in early cars IMHO - I would leave it on Webers with nice cams and some SSIs. It all depends where you're going to drive it and where it sits versus the "usability envelopes" of your other cars.

As someone who is well and truly marinaded in the pros and cons of owning several projects, each needing 100+ hours, and trying to keep a lid on every other thing at a fairly challenging time in human evolution, I increasingly feel that project cars are overrated. Time is precious, so make sure you are being honest with yourself as to what you're getting into. It is not just buying parts: there is a huge opportunity cost. Sometimes it is worth passing and letting someone else take the strain!

@johndglynn I agree with the project car comment wholeheartedly, I always have a couple on the go, and then get them, sort them, and then they seem to languish at the back of the shed! I think this will be a restoration, with some seam welding and decent modern (TB) suspension my interior chap can do mild to wild, but knows I prefer mild, so think I will stick with standard, but put some nicer touch points in it. I suppose the confusing part about all this is what does this thing actually weigh? There seems to be no consensus in any publication, and when there is an 80KG difference on a 1000KG car, that is almost 10% so big my any standard. I think my confusion is coming from the fact my only real experience is a 300BHP SC, but what does it weigh? If its a 1500KG car and this is 500KG lighter, no wonder I don't need a 3.8! I really want to be sensitive on this one and build a delicate car, but want some poke when I want it. I find the 3.8 not quite as "zingy" as I would like (in the SC) so was favouring a smaller motor to get that. So realistically 2.4/2.7 nice responsive motor 230 BHP+/- sounds to be the consensus. Silly engine question. This thing will be romping around Europe at varying altitudes and I know you guys have experience, any feeling issues with carbs? Again all input welcome on the car, Im going to go down the 2.4/2.7 rabbit hole today and see where I end up.

[Busybee]

18 hours ago, Richard Bernau said:

I was perfectly happy taking all the weight I could off the front of my old car - Daisy - and I think it has been universally praised by everyone who ever drove it as an exceptional handling 911.

Its the best handling car I've driven to be fair Rich and that includes a brand spanking 420hp Spyder. (And I'm so pleased you've adopted the Daisy name. Makes me smile)

On the power issue, Daisy is just under 270hp and about 1050kg. 90% of the time, that's brilliant and sufficient. But for 10% of the time, you want more shove. In a stock SC or 3.2 with 180-230hp, that margin swings the other way for a fast road driver. They are still incredibly fun but when you're out with bigger cars, you know you're the underdog in that fight. 

I've not driven an old school 2.0, 2.4 or 2.7 but I'm guessing based on power output, they'd be very similar. Maybe the SC zing with a 3.2 shove? So you'd have a narrow body car with SC performance. If you want an original feeling/handling car, perfect. If you want a wolf in sheep's clothing, with serious attitude (and you have a 3.8 already) there's no substitute for CC, hot parts and shedding pounds. 

Addendum - says the man screwing back together a 90hp SWB 912 😂

Edited January 8, 2021 by Busybee

[SilverWT]

2 hours ago, 8bucksagallon said:

I suppose the confusing part about all this is what does this thing actually weigh?

You have to put it on a certified weighbridge.

Most of the people who quote weights on their cars just guess based on wrongly published numbers derived from base model cars.

The weight you can live with depends on your "comfort tolerance". If your SC has not been substantially lightened (partly striped interior, fibre glass and/or carbon fibre panels etc.) I would guess it is nearer to 1,500kg than 1,000kg. Drive it down to the nearest weighbridge and get it confirmed and you will have the perfect benchmark for the power to weight you would want.

I have a early 3.2 with a lot of weight reduction and it comes in on the weighbridge at 1,040kg. It is fine for me to use on long journeys (with ear plugs in!), but most passengers would not be unhappy. I could squeeze out another 50kg and still be OK with it on the road, but after that it would be track only.

 

Mark

[8bucksagallon]

@SilverWT Good points all, thank you. Your correct about knowing what it weighs and the solution is a good one. After a discussion today, I think I am going to buy a drive train from a 3.2, decent exhaust, chip it and that should get me 230/250 in a light package, with plenty of potential if I do need more power later.(cams/ITB's, etc) Weight reduction, @Richard Bernau and @johndglynn raised some interesting, and valid points about weight and balance, so I am going to heed those good words which sort of confirmed my thoughts. So car to be, Seam welded, steel panels, bumpers not sure, Torsion bars, with modern damping, if @Jonny Hart has his rear cooling system up and running then that, and his lovely A/C, smart interior, and paint it Green. As for weight loss, the gym beckons!

One last point, are there any mechanical differences between a USA v Euro motor? again lots of conflicting info, and can a USA motor be brought to Euro spec without tearing it to bits? The reason for this question is that 30 BHP is expensive to buy unless its already in there.

 

 

[Richard Bernau]

This might be a long post - but only because I frickin love this kind of discussion.

 

Some more thoughts.  And not just my experience.  Starting with a friend.  

I have a colleague with a junior McLaren (540S) who does alps trips like me.  On his last trip with various junior exotica as well as some ordinary stuff, he reckoned that the quickest stuff up the alpine roads were 2 guys in Boxster S's.   His words not mine.  There is only so much that power adds once you are on typical, fun European roads.

So, the reality is that on the road, its more the driver than anything else.  Up to a point anyway.  I think you need about a minimum of 205hp/ton for "fun".  How do a get to that?  Super scientific.  I reckon my Boxster S was about that number.  It does depend a bit, because that rear tyre size is a real determinant.  And some cars are just punchier than others.  Don't ask me why.  The only time you really need hp on the alps roads is overtaking and then its more about that punch/throttle response and gearing than it is hp to weight. 

The point that Haith makes re Daisy is right.  I ran that car from standard to where it is (more or less) now.  It was on the scales at 1320kg (qtr tank) and 230 hp and was still great fun.  I have good stories from that time.  It was giant killer.  It ended up exactly as Haith described and was even more fun.  Its weakness IMHO was that the G50 gearbox has very widely spaced ratios.  They work reasonably well on track, but point it at a hill and you have to use every last rev and drive like your hair is on fire.  That car still has equivalent punch in gear for overtakes to a 330hp 3.0RSR.  I know, I have spent a week in close company with 2 of them in the Alps.  So I get why Haith is doing a bigger, higher tq motor now.  It is the same rationale why I went 964 intake in order to fill the midrange tq curve a bit.  I would have done gears next if I still had the car.  And in hindsight a 3.6 swap would have been a better fit, but I would have missed all the fun of getting to where I ended up.

Anyway, long story short, that car with 270hp/1040kg could keep up with or indeed walk away from, pretty much anything once you were up in the mountains.  But that's not even the important part.  The last couple of trips, with 3.2+, 964C4+, 993C4, 997TT, it just did't matter who leads or follows.  We were all on the same page and anyone could set a pace that was fun and challenging while staying in the bounds of being vaguely considerate to other road users.  Point being, I don't think the fun factor goes up by having an extra 100hp each.  We all had a ton of fun.  If anything - and speaking out of turn for a second - if anyone was having less of a good time, it was the 997TT.  The joke was, he never had to change out of 4th - which was only partly true.  However, the number of times he was really on it and going for it was a very small handful.  You just can't on public, narrow roads.  Big hp cars have to stay on a tight leash.  That's not to say that there is nothing fun about hp.  I get that as well.  I really enjoyed the time I had my 996TT on a trip, but the best bits were the big sweeping roads.  Some motorways at highly illegal speeds and the German sub-alpine bits where just occasionally you could absolutely annihilate some big, sweeping, well-sighted hairpins with a dab of oppo on the exit.  Of course, a 165hp skinny tyred old 911 will let you have the same sensations, just a lot more accessible and at much more socially tolerable speeds.

So, I don't pretend to have the right answer.  I started my Porsche journey in a 130hp 911T, spent a lot of time in a 165hp 911E, tried std IB cars, modified IBs, tried transaxle turbo, went water cooled turbo and water cooled mid engine, with a piece of air cooled turbo nutter thrown in for good measure.  And ended in a BMW of all things.  They all have a place - a fond place in the heart.  I have owned some of my hero cars and driven others.  The 3.6 turbo was as close to a 993GT2 as I will ever get to own.  I thought that was my lottery win car.  It wasn't and isn't.  And at this point, I am actually working my way backwards to slower and purer cars (if there is such a thing as a pure car).  If I have a revelation, its probably this.  Once you throw out the track usage, the really important stuff is the feel, the sound and the ability to just use it.  Regularly.  And that is where I think so much of the Porsche scene is just plain wrong.  Chasing big sales figure cheques and instagram likes means that the cars inevitably get faster, wilder, more extreme, more perfect, more expensive and less and less usable.  I blame the Americans to some extent, but its more the guys all over the place with big chequebooks who believe that more is better.  Sometimes it just isn't.  I have thought a lot about what my ideal spec 911 would be and it doesn't start or end with a 3.8.  And its nothing like a Singer.  But that is just me.  

And on that note.  I don't pretend to have an answer for you.  Just fancied riffing a bit about cars. 

And if you do want to stick a 3.8 in a narrow early car - then I really want to see a lot of video of it  

[Richard Bernau]

2 hours ago, 8bucksagallon said:

@SilverWT Good points all, thank you. Your correct about knowing what it weighs and the solution is a good one. After a discussion today, I think I am going to buy a drive train from a 3.2, decent exhaust, chip it and that should get me 230/250 in a light package, with plenty of potential if I do need more power later.(cams/ITB's, etc) Weight reduction, @Richard Bernau and @johndglynn raised some interesting, and valid points about weight and balance, so I am going to heed those good words which sort of confirmed my thoughts. So car to be, Seam welded, steel panels, bumpers not sure, Torsion bars, with modern damping, if @Jonny Hart has his rear cooling system up and running then that, and his lovely A/C, smart interior, and paint it Green. As for weight loss, the gym beckons!

One last point, are there any mechanical differences between a USA v Euro motor? again lots of conflicting info, and can a USA motor be brought to Euro spec without tearing it to bits? The reason for this question is that 30 BHP is expensive to buy unless its already in there.

 

 

Euro 3.2 vs US?  Compression ratio is different, so no easy fix.  Never driven a US 3.2, but I hear that the difference in feel is much less than what you might expect.

I like where you are coming out on this though.  3.2 into a narrow shell is a tried and proven hot rod recipe.  What can feel lazy in a 1300+kg car feels positively athletic in a 1050kg car on skinny tyres.  

[SilverWT]

9 minutes ago, Richard Bernau said:

Euro 3.2 vs US?  Compression ratio is different, so no easy fix

This^.

Plus US cars had a restrictive Cat, UK cars did not, some Euro cars did, some didn't depending on market, but easy to get rid of it.

There was a slight difference in the Motronic map, but a re-chip/live re-map gets rid of that.

So most expensive thing to change are the low compression pistons, so you might as well go 3.4 barrels and pistons!

Mark

[8bucksagallon]

@SilverWT@SilverWT Good points all, thank you. Your correct about knowing what it weighs and the solution is a good one. After a discussion today, I think I am going to buy a drive train from a 3.2, decent exhaust, chip it and that should get me 230/250 in a light package, with plenty of potential if I do need more power later.(cams/ITB's, etc) Weight reduction, @Richard Bernau and @johndglynn raised some interesting, and valid points about weight and balance, so I am going to heed those good words which sort of confirmed my thoughts. So car to be, Seam welded, steel panels, bumpers not sure, Torsion bars, with modern damping, if @Jonny Hart has his rear cooling system up and running then that, and his lovely A/C, smart interior, and paint it Green. As for weight loss, the gym beckons!

One last point, are there any mechanical differences between a USA v Euro motor? again lots of conflicting info, and can a USA motor be brought to Euro spec without tearing it to bits? The reason for this question is that 30 BHP is expensive to buy unless its already in there.

 

 

@SilverWT. apologies, not sure quite what happened above.....Yes, 3.4 was the next logical step, more of everything really. Got offered another 964 motor about an hr ago......damn!

Oh well.

So the difference with the ROW/USA cars is compression? as said, then, no easy fix. Going to come down to price and the work required to make it solid.

[8bucksagallon]

@Richard Bernau  

Richard, I really like these discussions as well, particularly with people that have done it. Interesting your comments about purity, I am on the same kick, believe it or not, and trying my hardest with this thing, despite what it sounds like. Interestingly, I have just bought and E46 M3, already modified to CSL spec, but manual, its lovely, and might possibly be my trans European, get there missile. It just does everything, only done a few Cali miles on it but I am really enamoured with it. T is at the builder now so should be sand blasted over the weekend, at which point I will know what's what. Worst case scenario, (yes really!) 3.6 964 motor with LWF on a 915. If too much, pull it and go the 3.2/3.4 route if motor doesnt "work", assuming 3.6 arrives first. Haith, sent me the link to Daisy build which I am chewing through, as I don't want to reinvent the wheel, and your car journey was built on usage, not theory. I have a 1/2 share in a 997 GT2 and have driven it once, ballistic, and frankly too fast for me, so I think my friend will buy me out of it. Thanks again, and please IB'ers any input more than welcome.