You had to remember that when the 911 came out, the Porsche faithful were complaining that it was to big, fat and lux. to be a real sports car. They were bemoaning the fact that Porsche were walking away from their sports car roots with the 356 to make an overweight GT car with the 911. Times change but the arguments stay the same.
The Stutz Bearcat was quite a sports car in its day. How many of the cars in your workplace parking lot today couldn't outrun it?
"The Stutz Bearcat, designed to meet the needs of the customer desiring a car built along the lines of a racing car with a slightly higher gear ratio than out normal torpedo roadster, has met with great favor with motor car owners and meets the demand for a car of this class."
Oh and the new Vs old comparison was a 70's WRC Escort (Not a Cossie) Vs a Focus RS and an 80's Quattro (Group 4 not Group B version from memory) Vs a new Evo. One of the biggest factors not considered was tire technology in that. Put the old cars on new tires and it would have been a lot closer. But no matter what, technology has come so far that even at 50% more weight there is no doubt that new cars are faster and safer, if not more fun.
slantvaliant wrote: The Stutz Bearcat was quite a sports car in its day. How many of the cars in your workplace parking lot today couldn't outrun it?
No, I'd say the Stuz was the American Super Car of it's day, not just a sports car! Think C6 ZR1, cheaper than the average Euro import, but still 4 times the price of a model T
Just to give some comparison, a buddy auto-x's a 69 911S, and I use my 71 MGB GT. His 911 has a few handling mods but the engine is stock. My GT is bored .60 over, has a cam, polyeurethane bushes, a bigger sway bar, 15" wheels, and modern tires in 195.
His times are typically better than mine by around 8 seconds. 8 seconds in autocross is like hours. He may be a better driver than me, but not by 8 seconds.
It was definitely a sports car, although a very practical one. I can't wait to have one. I'll even take a Targa, but no whale tail please.
Several years ago GRM ran performance comparisons between an E-type Jag and a Honda Minivan. My recollection is that the Van won, but tires played a big part. Better rubber, and the Jag would have - by a little. Now consider the performance of Jaguar's current flagship model..... it was a differnt world.
mattmacklind wrote: Just to give some comparison, a buddy auto-x's a 69 911S, and I use my 71 MGB GT. His 911 has a few handling mods but the engine is stock. My GT is bored .60 over, has a cam, polyeurethane bushes, a bigger sway bar, 15" wheels, and modern tires in 195. His times are typically better than mine by around 8 seconds. 8 seconds in autocross is like hours. He may be a better driver than me, but not by 8 seconds. It was definitely a sports car, although a very practical one. I can't wait to have one. I'll even take a Targa, but no whale tail please.
Both of these pictures make me all happy inside.
I think that all the posts that focus on the distinction between Sports and GT cars are right on. Although nowaways it is hard to even define what the difference is, in the early Sixties this was a huge change in direction for sporty cars.
In the early sixties the sports car market was flooded with what we now fondly recall as “traditional” sports cars – Triumphs, MG’s, Alfa’s, Fiat, Lotus, Jaguar, Healy, etc., etc. And like everything else, people get bored after a while and start looking for the next new thing.
That is when the idea of the “European GT” started catching on. The idea of a comfortable, non-leaky car that can cover lots of miles was very appealing to a lot of people who loved the idea of a TR3 or an MGA but found them a little hard to live with on a daily basis. And, like lots of other things, this started trickling down from the more expensive brands like Ferrari and Maserati who had already been making cars that fit this definition for a while.
So in 1962-63 you started seeing cars like the Porsche 911, C2 Corvette, Volvo 1800, Jaguar E-type coming out. These were cars that were designed from the beginning as coupes, and the convertible was either an option or not even available. If you look at the early ads, you can see that these were being actively marketed as GT cars with the implication that they were a “step up” from more common sports cars. It didn’t take long for the traditional sports car makers to see the writing on the wall and bring out GT’s of their own such as the MGB-GT and GT-6.
Sorry for the diatribe, but as an owner of a 68 BGT, I often get questions from people who just don’t understand why anyone would want a NON-convertible version of a car that typically came as a convertible – or why they even made such a thing. So I have gone over this in my head a number of time over the years.
kreb wrote: Several years ago GRM ran performance comparisons between an E-type Jag and a Honda Minivan. My recollection is that the Van won, but tires played a big part. Better rubber, and the Jag would have - by a little. Now consider the performance of Jaguar's current flagship model..... it was a differnt world.
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/soccer-moms-revenge/
HiTempGuy, I checked it out. The suspension I'm thinking of is the "Magnetic Selective Ride Control". It was introduced in 2002 - earlier than I thought. And the real term is "Magnetorheological".
EricM wrote: .....But, just looking at an old school 911, it appears they were just trying to make a car that would move 4 (small) people around.
Park a 64 Buick next to it (better yet, drive both) and you will see how much of a performance car it really is!
I once had a '64 Buick Wildcat with a 401 motor. Not bad in a straight line, but my cornering technique was to grab the bottom of the seat with my left hand, dial in full lock with my right, and wait 2 or 3 seconds for the body to stop rolling and the tires to stop scrubbing before it would actually change direction.
David S. Wallens wrote: What everyone else said. You really need to look back at the class of 1965 to put the original 911 into context. The Jaguar XKE was relatively new, the MGB had only been out for a few years, and the Camaro hadn't yet been released. For its day, the 911 actually contained some pretty cutting-edge technology, including overhead cams, five-speed transmission, four-wheel-disc brakes, radial tires, forged engine internals and fully independent suspension.
The Camaro? Sheesh. The Corvette was already doing battle with the 911 in 1965(and beating it like a drum at that point in time). Also equipped with 4wdb, IRS, short wheelbase, F.I., alloy knock-offs and dead sexy, baby. The E-Type had already been out for four years(yet, still a hell of a sportscar). The MG? Negative, not much cross shopping there.
Let's not forget the Cobra. Same basic price, but in another league altogether in performance(at the expense of street manners). Ferrari was also producing a pretty neat piece-OHC V12s, 5 speeds, etc.
"For its day?" The 911 is an icon. Early 911s are still reserved by those in the know. Sportscar goodness if there ever was such a thing and still tearing up tracks around the country on a regular basis(all they need is modern rubber and a few tweaks).
kreb wrote: Several years ago GRM ran performance comparisons between an E-type Jag and a Honda Minivan. My recollection is that the Van won, but tires played a big part. Better rubber, and the Jag would have - by a little. Now consider the performance of Jaguar's current flagship model..... it was a differnt world.
I thought that comparo involved a Porsche? Either way it was silly fun and quite meaningless as the P-car was rolling on relic tires.
wcelliot wrote: Even my 912 had a 5 speed... and that was a bargin basement Porsche. All 914's I've owned or driven were 5 speeds. The G50 _was_ a huge improvement (in both strength and driveability) The UK and Sweden (into the 80's!) tended to use an electric overdrive instead of a 5sp...
That car used a 901 box. A wonderful device. The later cars used the 915 box. Stout but notchy. The newer gen 911s used the G50-decent(although I prefer my 901) and able to handle the ever increasing power/torque ratings.
forzav12 wrote:David S. Wallens wrote: What everyone else said. You really need to look back at the class of 1965 to put the original 911 into context. The Jaguar XKE was relatively new, the MGB had only been out for a few years, and the Camaro hadn't yet been released. For its day, the 911 actually contained some pretty cutting-edge technology, including overhead cams, five-speed transmission, four-wheel-disc brakes, radial tires, forged engine internals and fully independent suspension.The Camaro? Sheesh. The Corvette was already doing battle with the 911 in 1965(and beating it like a drum at that point in time). Also equipped with 4wdb, IRS, short wheelbase, F.I., alloy knock-offs and dead sexy, baby. The E-Type had already been out for four years(yet, still a hell of a sportscar). The MG? Negative, not much cross shopping there.
Just making a point that the 911 is from a long time ago--like when the earth was just cooling and some of our other favorites were just emerging or hadn't even been born yet.
carguy123 wrote: Someone said it was drop dead sexy but there hasn't ever been a 911 variant that could even remotely be considered sexy. Tarted up beetle it was and it feels like it. I've driven numerous examples of the older ones and they never felt like anything but a Beetle, but they really were sports cars back in the day. My very first experience with sports cars was at a job I had as a kid where older people drove a TR3, Jag XK120 and a 356 Porsche. All 3 were raced and I got to drive all three. I had zero respect for the Porsche when compared to the other 2 cars. Now keep in mind I was under the legal driving age and had no concept of $$$ so maybe had I known it was expensive then I might have given it more cred. But since when is the cost one of the criteria for performance? I built a ton of VW based dune buggies and they felt just like the Porsche except they were faster cause they weighed less. Compare the 356 or a 911 to our 1961 Plymouth station wagon that weighed a ton and had a sub 100 HP 6 cylinder and yes it most definitely was a sports car.
Don't even know where to begin with this one. I've owned beetles and 911s. No resemblance what so ever to me-build quality maybe. But, the 911 is much more powerful, has a completely different suspension, brakes and drivetrain(except for the air cooled part).
Woody wrote: It was intended to be a GT.
Very true. Technically, a "sports car" partially means that you can make the roof go away.
David S. Wallens wrote:forzav12 wrote:Just making a point that the 911 is from a long time ago--like when the earth was just cooling and some of our other favorites were just emerging or hadn't even been born yet.David S. Wallens wrote: What everyone else said. You really need to look back at the class of 1965 to put the original 911 into context. The Jaguar XKE was relatively new, the MGB had only been out for a few years, and the Camaro hadn't yet been released. For its day, the 911 actually contained some pretty cutting-edge technology, including overhead cams, five-speed transmission, four-wheel-disc brakes, radial tires, forged engine internals and fully independent suspension.The Camaro? Sheesh. The Corvette was already doing battle with the 911 in 1965(and beating it like a drum at that point in time). Also equipped with 4wdb, IRS, short wheelbase, F.I., alloy knock-offs and dead sexy, baby. The E-Type had already been out for four years(yet, still a hell of a sportscar). The MG? Negative, not much cross shopping there.
Understood, junior. Your beloved Miata was still years away.
forzav12 wrote:wcelliot wrote: Even my 912 had a 5 speed... and that was a bargin basement Porsche. All 914's I've owned or driven were 5 speeds. The G50 _was_ a huge improvement (in both strength and driveability) The UK and Sweden (into the 80's!) tended to use an electric overdrive instead of a 5sp...That car used a 901 box. A wonderful device. The later cars used the 915 box. Stout but notchy. The newer gen 911s used the G50-decent(although I prefer my 901) and able to handle the ever increasing power/torque ratings.
I liked the 901 in my 914.. most people could never find 1st gear.. I liked it down and to the left
Whenever I drive a 914, first is always in the middle of my right thigh...yeah, I'm kinda a big dude.
mad_machine wrote: I liked the 901 in my 914.. most people could never find 1st gear.. I liked it down and to the left
That is, in fact, where First belongs.
That's why, one of these days, my summer car will be a 1980 924. Only year for the Porsche 5-speed.
I didn't mind the position of first in my 914 (or for that matter the Jensen, it was the same) but man oh man the shift 'quality' sucked mightily. The original rearshift box was completely awful, the sideshift box was better but that's not really saying much.
I don't think there's much hope for the rear shift 901 box. There is some possibility of improvement for the sideshift box, but I think it would involve a complete revamp of the original 'low bidder' setup.
well. the "916" box was a LOT better than the 901.. The 916 being the 915 box flipped around and used on a handful of Porche 916s before they pulled the plug on the whole 914 thing
DILYSI Dave wrote: It's a tarted up beetle.
Yep, it even had a beetle pedal cluster and window crank handles.
When comparing then and now. How's this.In April 1957 at Lime Rock, Walt Hansgen in a D Jag set a time of 1:10.4. In 2007 in my ZX2SR I turned a 1:08.68
You'll need to log in to post.
