(first posted 12/9/2016) Whereas almost every car sold in the US struggled with serious performance drops as a result of tightening emission controls during the 1970s, there was one powerful exception: the Porsche 911. Well, yes, there were some impacts, but I can’t think of another car that mostly kept performance intact, and began to improve performance again so quickly and steadily. The secret: keep making the engines bigger! Well, that wasn’t a good option for American cars with their already-too large engines, but it worked like a charm for the 911.
probably one of the greatest cars ever built in the 70’s. it looks better today than it did in 75. god i wish i bought one ten years ago.
Oh yeah, I’d give anything to own a 70 just like Steve McQueen’s in LeMans. Gorgeous cars. And they have indeed aged very well. Shame they are water cooled now. I don’t want a new one simply because of that.
Probably my favorite 911s, naturally aspirated? Check. Narrow body? Check. Whale tail? Check. Carrara script? Check. Plush but purposeful interiors? Check. Full width taillight panel and the most well integrated bumpers of the 70s? Check (I actually vastly prefer the 74+ design to the 73-prior). Peak Porsche. The 70s was their decade.
Except that the 2.7 engine turned out to have some pretty serious durability issues, due to the excessive heat generated by the emission controls/thermal reactors. The 3.0 that came in ’78 (IIRC) switched to aluminum from magnesium, and was much more solid.
Regarding the issues of the magnesium case 911s, especially the “G” series 1974-1977 2.7 litre engines, there are interesting issues at hand.
The original magnesium case engines 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4 litre variants were very successful, and Porsche was very proud of the weight savings relative to aluminum cases. These cases came about due to the Engineering reign of Piech who was obsessed with stripping weight from the racing and also from the road going Porsches in the late 1960s and early 1970’s.
The 2.7 Mag case engines came about during the time when Porsche engineering was directed to all of the issues of completing the engineering of the 928 and preparing the 928 for production in 1978. The 911 at this time was like an essentially neglected stepchild, getting engineering support to keep it in production as an interim cash generating project until replacement by the 928 supplemented by the take over the of 924 from VW/Audi as a 914 replacement. A very busy time limiting 911 engineering time with obvious consequences.
There were expedient engineering decisions regarding the 911 then. To comply with emission standards especially in California, displacement was increased to 2.7 liters and hot, very hot thermal reactors, essentially combustion chambers with air injection were tacked onto the exhaust tracts adjacent to the cylinder heads. This resulted in added, large thermal stresses on the cylinder heads and cases, especially the bronze exhaust valve guides giving a life of about 30,000 miles in California. The thermal stresses on the cases resulted in mag case warping, heat related engine stud breakage, and engine case thread failure with pulled threads and studs. This resulted in cylinder head loosening and engine failures.
Porsche made a fatal decision with theses thermally challenged engines by not having a supplementary oil cooler on the standard 911S. The 1975 911 Carrera described in this article did have a standard, but inadequate “trombone” style supplementary oil cooler. If air conditioning was ordered on a factory prepared 911S a trombone oil cooler was added. Most 911s didn’t come with factory installed A/C. Most commonly A/C was added to 911S in California and the Southwest as dealer installed kits but without supplementary oil coolers. This had the unfortunate consequence of adding to the thermal stresses of these engines, a virtual suicide for these engines especially in LA traffic.
Imagine the thermal stresses on these engines in summertime LA rush hour traffic jams, Magnesium case 2,7 failures were endemic in California. The engines just cooked. Then in 1976 and 1977 Porsche further exacerbated the problem by reducing the cooling capacity of the engines by dropping the number of cooling fan blades from the 10 blade to the new 5 blade fan, supposedly allowed by increasing the fan rotational speed. Fine for cool Germany, but not in hot Southern California where most 911s were sold. What were they thinking at Porsche? Obviously not. Engine failures continued, even worsened.
To eliminate customer concerns, Porsche eliminated the listed temperatures
on the oil temperature gauges, replacing the graduated numbers with color bands. Eliminate the numbers, so you can eliminate customer worry about overheating. An amazing solution worthy of GM.
For 1976 in the USA, the California 1975 2.7 litre 152 hp Magnesium case 911 Carrera was replaced with the 1976 3.0 Aluminum case 240 hp 911 Turbo Carrera which introduced a very important thermal management multiple brass tube supplementary oil cooler in the right front wheel well and had a 10 blade engine cooling fan spinning at a higher rotational speed.
The 1978 911 Carrera had the Turbo’s 3.0 aluminum case, the Turbo’s multitube supplementary oil cooler, and the 10 blade engine cooling fan. Engine cooling, engine reliability and engine survival markedly improved.
The non California, non thermal reactor 2.7 magnesium case 157 hp engines typically needed valve guide replacements at 60,000 miles , double the California guide life, and had far reduced engine case stud pull-outs or stud fractures especially compared to the California engines.
The predominant cause of the magnesium case 2.7 engine failures was thermal overload, especially in California.
It is not unheard of to see the aluminum 3.0 case engines reach 200,000 to 300,000 miles before needing rebuilds. Non California 2.7 magnesium case engines have been seen to live to 60,000 to 150,000 miles before rebuild, if maintained and if large capacity supplementary oil coolers have been added..
Outstanding info. Knew about the 2.7 mag case thermal reactor heat issues but not about the fan blade or aluminum case for the CA 911 in ’76. Also did not know the reason for replacing numbers with hashes on the oil temp gauge. If you look into the gauge at the base of the needle you can see little tiny numbers there for oil temp. I guess they figured they needed that for the sharper customers. That front oil cooler went from trombone, to brass tube and then in ’87 got a small electric fan too.
Your point about the 928 draining resources from the 911 seems obvious to read but it is rarely talked about and I hadn’t thought of that. I would challenge you a bit there though… what about the ’76 911 Turbo? That took some doing.
The only aluminum case engine in the USA both in California and for the 49 State non-California cars was the 1976 Turbo Carrera.
The non Turbo 911S in California as well as the 49 State version in 1976 and 1977 was the 5 bladed engine cooling fan magnesium case engine.
The first non turbo aluminum case USA 911 engine was the 1978 Carrera engine. There was no non Turbo 911 aluminum case 911 engine for California in 1976 and 1977, or for the rest of the USA.
The engineering necessary for the Turbo Carrera, first introduced in Europe in 1975 and then in the USA in 1976 was significant but in no way as intensive in scale compared to engineering the new 928 and preparing it for production. Remember the 928 was an entirely new clean sheet car project, a bet the company/bet the ranch new car, believed at the time vital to the future survival of Porsche–an ultimate replacement for the 911. No-one, at that time, foresaw that the 928 would ultimately fail as the 911 replacement
When he managed the company in the 1980’s, Peter Schultz, an American, ordered the continual development of the 911, effectively resurrecting and revitalizing the 911, and likely saving the company until the 986 Boxster and the co-developed 996 saved the company again in the mid nineties.
As an aside, the 928 actually lives in the newer 911s which are dimensionally similar in size and luxury to what was predicted by the 928. Compare the measurements of the current 911 to the 928, you may start smiling due to the similarities.
The Porsche SUVs are another chapter in the fiscal survival of Porsche, and that should be discussed at some other time.
Thanks for clarifying on the aluminum case and fan, you really know your Porsches. Until about 10 years ago anyone shopping for an old 911 was told to skip the 2.7 “mid-years”. Then it went to they are OK because any still running would have had corrective work done. What’s your opinion on a reworked 2.7 as a hobby Porsche?
My favorite body too. Can’t believe how few have commented on the beautiful shot in Paul’s lead pic. In ’78 that body went standard and stayed until ’89. I like it even more than the longhoods and much more than the 964 or even 993. The wider Turbo and Turbo-look body needed that flat front wheel opening and that made it look heavy to me.
The least attractive was the non-flared, non-Carrera body from 74-76 which didn’t look right with the impact bumpers.
On the snap oversteer issue. It seems that every road test of a 911 I have read says that, to paraphrase, It used to be an issue but this years changes finally put it to rest. Is there any consensus all these years later when it was actually solved 1974, 1989,1998?
You took the words right out of my mouth. Every Australian road test used to claim “the traditional Porsche oversteer is virtually eliminated” The claim was made so often I wondered if they’d become understeerers.
I feel that really came down to two words, relative to their times; Tire technology.
Two different words, actually: STABILITY CONTROL.
Having driven 911’s for the past forty years, this comment about “the snap oversteer issue” merits discussion. In this statement, I believe that there is confusion and some misunderstanding between two separate issues: tire wall rigidity and Throttle-Lift oversteer.
First let’s discuss tire wall rigidity and tire break-away. In the early days of radial tires ( Michelin X) the sidewalls were very flexible allowing significant side wall deflection of several inches until the tread would final abrupt lift footprint reduction resulting in abrupt terminal understeer in front engined cars and abrupt terminal oversteer in rear engined cars. The high performance Michelin XWX tires series addressed this issue with significantly increased sidewall rigidity making this the ideal tire for high performance cars like the Ferrari 275 GTB in the 1960’s.
Later Michelin developed its TRX ( see Paul Niedermeyer’s article on the TRX in the CC blog) line of “performance” tires in the late 1970s and 1980, with significantly increased sidewall flexibility/ reduced sidewall rigidity unfortunately increasing sudden footprint breakaway characteristics combined with less than optimal tread patterns and less than optimal compound “stickiness”. The sidewall flexibility breakaway characteristics of the TRX tires ( up to 2-3 inches sidewall deflection during cornering) fundamentally contributed to the poor reputation of the Ferrari 512BBi Boxer for “snap oversteer” at the limit. This was a characteristic that occurred when the TRX tires were adopted for the 512BBi in distinction to the XWX tires used on the 512BB and the earlier 365 BB. The TRX tire flexible sidewalls with abrupt breakaway oversteer no doubt contributed to this poor reputation, but was a point missed by most auto writers attributing the snap oversteer to the higher position of the crankshaft which we will address later. The later Testarossa and TR 512 dealt with this issue by dumping the TRX tires/wheels using conventional non metric tires/wheels with markedly increased specified sidewall stiffness with a resultant improved linear response at the limit.
The flat 12 Ferrari Boxer and Testarossa series of cars are called mid engine cars but in actuality they are in fact a composite design, a partial mid engine and partial rear engine design, designed for packaging reasons. Several of the rear cylinders of these engines actually hang out behind the axle midline above the transaxle which wraps under the engine. This results in a greater rearward mass balance compared to the classic mid engine design of the F40 and more like a 911 but with a fundamentally heavier 12 cylinder engine, Think of a Boxer as a heavy 911 with essentially the mass of two 911 engines in the rear, more challenging to drive, but great fun when mastered.
So what does rear engine mass do to contribute to ultimate oversteer in the 911 and the Flat 12 Ferraris which have similar driving characteristics.
When snap tire breakaway is controlled by increased sidewall stiffness, driving the 911 and the Flat 12 engined Ferraris is very controllable, predictable and incredible fun–contributing to the addictive charm of the 911 and the Boxer,etc.
Now lets talk about throttle lift oversteer. Tire adhesion can be controlled by the throttle position. With increased on-throttle in a rear engine car, there is a relative weight transfer to the rear resulting in increased rear tire adhesion until the compound adhesion limit is reached. Varying on throttle makes the rear end of the 911 stick better in a corner limiting oversteer, virtually eliminating it until the tire adhesion limit is reached.
If you lift the accelerator in a corner there is reduced weight pressure on the 911’s rear tires reducing rear tire adhesion and with reduced adhesion, the rear tires then start to drift outward increasing oversteer, pivoting the rear out compared to the front tires. If you completely lift the throttle in a corner and stay off throttle during high speed cornering, the rear of the 911 will become completely loose, pirouetting outward, rotating forward, swapping ends with the front of the 911, a classic spin-out. This is throttle lift oversteer, not snap oversteer. The throttle ultimately is an additional steering device in the 911 and the flat 12 Ferraris depending upon throttle pressure during cornering. Learning to control this throttle induced weight transfer ultimately allows changing a race line mid corner on a race track or in mid corner during spirited driving on challenging roads. Mastery of throttle control contributes to the unique driving joy of the 911 and the flat 12 Ferraris .
So snap oversteer is not an inherent characteristic of the 911 or the flat 12 Ferraris. The snap, or sudden breakaway characteristic, of a car is typically related to tire sidewall flexibility.
Rear tire adhesion in a rear engined car is very much controlled by throttle position and describes Throttle Controlled Oversteer. If you come into a corner too hot in a 911, counterintuitive increased throttle is needed to keep you out of trouble. Most people in this situation, think ” Oh, sh.t” , then lift the throttle, and experience the rear end swapping with the front. Drive a 911 and you will learn that unintuitively more throttle is your friend and more likely keeping you out of trouble.
I hope this short little explanation helps eliminate the misconception of 911 “snap oversteer” and introduce you to the additive fun of throttle controlled oversteer inherent in rear engined cars.
Yr Lyl & Fthfl Srvnt, GeelongVic
.
Thank you for your thorough explanation as to the issues inherent with rear-heavy cars. Throttle lift oversteer is of course a fundamental reality with all rear-engined cars, and one I quickly learned to appreciate in my first car, a ’63 Corvair, and my subsequent VW Beetles. Both of these cars were of course very prone to throttle lift oversteer, exacerbated by their swing axles, which of course only exaggerated the issue once they started to jack up.
Despite lots of very spirited driving in both the Corvair and Beetles, I never experienced serious throttle lift oversteer on them, because I had read about the issue and did not lift off the throttle in fast curves. It was counter-intuitive perhaps, but essential. And I still drive like that today. Better to let the tires scrub off too much speed than the brakes.
I was also aware of the snap oversteer issue on these cars. The Corvair had bias-ply tires, so it wasn’t a direct issue. But when I sprung for my first ste of radials for my VW, I had read that Michelin X tires were not the preferred choice due their more sudden break-away characteristics, which could really create a more difficult situation on a swing axle rear engined car. VW owner in the know avoided Michelin Xs for that reason; the tire to put on them was the Semperit, which had fabric belts (rather than steel) and were known to not have such a sudden breakaway. They improved the ride and adhesion very substantially, and I could take corners significantly faster, and never felt any sudden breakaway from them.
Tire technology was still emerging, and it wasn’t until the mid-late 70s or so that it started to mature, with tires like the Pirelli P7 and such.
I had two 1965 Corvairs, a Monza 2DR coupe with bias-ply tires and my second one was my sister’s 500 4DR hardtop with the 140HP engine and 3-on-the-floor. I was an avid reader of all the car mags of the day (1976), and bought a set of Semperit M401 Hi-Life radials via mail order after reading one rapturous review after another about them. I couldn’t wait to get those tires on the car, and was I ever rewarded with a completely different ride! The ’65 and later Corvairs had a fully-articulated IRS and the radials absolutely transformed the way that car handled. It already was superior to anything else made in the USA; the radials let me do things that would have been suicidal with bias-ply tires. BTW, I did adhere to the seemingly-weird inflation pressures of 15psi up front and 32psi in the rear.
That innocuous little 4DR kept up with most anything else on the road, and rarely had to slow down for anything. I wish I still had it.
Thanks for this informative explanation. I learned a lot. I dare say so could more than a few 911 road testers if they read it.
Excellent explanation. I think when some people say snap they really mean lift-throttle oversteer. I felt snap before in Mom’s old swing-axle 280SE. I felt lift before in my aunt’s ’74 Super Beetle. Now that I think of it there may have been some snap in there too, it had bias-ply tires. Never felt lift in a 911 with 225 or wider rear tires. With those you need to be going pretty fast to even feel lift oversteer, let alone lose control of the car. That is less likely the case on a 60s 911 with the narrower rear tires.
A point worth adding to this superb explanation is that to some extent, the lift-throttle oversteer characteristics are dictated by rear roll stiffness, not simply the mass of the rear or rear-mid engine location.
The two tend to go together, for a variety of practical reasons: If the engine is mounted amidships, over, or behind the rear axle line, the rear springs will generally have to be stiffer to carry to mass of the engine. (There are some exceptions, such as the use of a transverse leaf spring or other auxiliary spring medium that’s arranged to support the mass of the powertrain vertically without contributing to roll stiffness.) Additionally, if the rear suspension uses the halfshafts as locating members, as is the case with a swing-axle suspension or some early three-link designs, the location of the differential will raise the rear roll center, which also has the effect of increasing roll stiffness.
However, a front-engine car can also have some aggressive trailing throttle oversteer, depending on the suspension design and how roll stiffness is distributed, for substantially the same reasons geelongvic describes. In fact, even a FWD car can develop some eye-opening lift-throttle oversteer if the suspension is tuned that way, a classic example being the Peugeot 205 GTi of the ’80s. (The difference there, of course, is that you can’t bring the tail out with the throttle because the rear wheels aren’t powered.)
Unlike most front-engine cars, a car with a rearward-mounted powertrain (MR or RR) also shifts its longitudinal center of gravity toward the rear and reduces the polar moment of inertia, which means that the car is more willing to rotate around its center of gravity.
(One of the reasons Porsche adopted a front-engine/rear-transaxle layout for the 928 and 924/944/968 was that it increases the polar moment of inertia while keeping the center of gravity closer to the middle of the car — very different than the characteristics of the 911.)
The 996 redesign, with the liquid-cooled engine & stability control. All 911s had the knife in the back snap oversteer until then.
The VW bug did the same.
The whale tail would suggest performance that would exceed that of my Elantra. It would suggest it, but not actually do it. 0-60 in 8.2 and 16.5 1/4 at 89 are figures that Pacifica would clobber. It would also out brake the Porsche, and I’m not sure it wouldn’t be close in the slalom. Nobody was immune to malaise.
That’s not so much an issue of Malaise; that’s just progress.
The 89 Mazda Miata did 0-60 in 8.1 seconds and cost the same..Progress.. in just 14 years.
It was my understanding that the whale tail is designed for top speed stability. As the early Audi TT’s showed, triple digit speeds can quite easily destabilize cars with a fast back shape.
Of course the 911 is rear-engined and so tail lightness would be less of a concern than for any number of front wheel drive, sloping tail cars, including the Audi TT and Saab 900 turbo, as well as for front engine, rear drive cars like the BMW Z8, all of which required spoilers.
Nonetheless, a fastback shape that continues all the way down to mid tire without a kick-up is quite similar to an airplane wing in that it accelerates the velocity of air over the top surface, leading to significant lift. I can’t cite any sources, but it’s my understanding that the whale tail and duck tail were quite functional and alleviated the problem effectively.
Further research reveals that the additional engine venting offered by the whale tail may have been just as important for racing variants of the 911 as the downforce. Given that the stock shape of the 911 creates a significant low pressure area above the engine vent at speed, using the spoiler to lower the air pressure differential would allow greater venting of engine heat, and improved performance, especially in turbo models.
Top speed of the ’75 Carrera is 132 mph. I expect that would exceed the performance of the Elantra.
Malaise comes in different flavors.
Only because the Elantra is governed.
Note that a 440-powered police Monaco would touch 135 even in 1978.
A 440-powered Monaco would probably have to stop to refuel on the way to 135… 🙂
By 1978 Porsche had the Turbo which would comfortably exceed whatever a Monaco’s Vmax is. I cannot imagine trying to negotiate any kind of bend or long sweeper in a Monaco, police package or not, at 135.
They would take a 30mph corner at 60. (Imagine that in an ad today!)
The 75 wasn’t any slower.
And the Elantra is governered because the tires would pop. I love how closing the gap between quarter mile times somehow means family cars = old supercars in all dynamics. They don’t. And there were dozens of lesser cars in 1975 that could match those figures, even more so a few years before. Sports cars aren’t about straight line performance.
I still bet money a set of today’s high end summer tires on each would show the Elantra to be equal, keeping wheel size stock. Still would kill for the Porsche, and walk vs. an Elantra, but there you go. You may have to strong arm the Porsche a bit to not spin out and die (which is preferable), yet I’d think the Hyundai would just turn and steer, relativity, until your ass went wayyy too far.
I think the missing element so may people remember cars then to be as agile but don’t recognize anymore today is weight. To keep apples to apples, that Elantra is over 500 pounds heavier, or in other words, 20% heavier. Goilath ain’t gonna feel nimble throwing all that weigh around regardless if his ass can run.
What surprises me is that it seems no faster than my 3.5 non-malaise 107 Merc of the same vintage. (I’m not US) Strangely, even though I’m not a fan of 911s, I think this not so fast one’s pretty cool. As a – comparatively – low cost sports car, the concept rocks. As a tasteless, expensive, super car competitor, not so sure.
Read my comment below about what may have contributed to that 8.2 time. Peace.
This car was faster than a European automatic 350SL, although not by a huge margin, and was probably about evenly matched with a manually shifted 350SL or SLC. Given that the European 107 had 45 more horsepower than a California 911 Carrera, that doesn’t strike me as too terribly scandalous.
Fairly limited comment in the article on the whale tail. Personally am not a fan, and fairly controversial on non turbo. R/T probably made a political decision not to stick their editorial head in that bee hive.
The whale tail predates the turbo though, introduced on the 1974 Carrara RS(replacing the previous years ducktail), so what makes it controversial? It functioned just the same, and it wasn’t until the 80s the turbo housed an intercooler inside.
Anyone read to the obligatory comments about Porsche having tamed the snap oversteer of previous models with the new 1975 edition? Some things never change.
I was guessing the 0-60 would be about 7.2. 8.2 seconds for a Porsche 911 is not very impressive, when you consider the three year later ’78 911SC did it in about 6.0 flat. Wonder how close Porsche was on a percentage basis improvement to something domestic like the ’75 Mustang II 302 -> ’79 Fox 302. I bet it’s pretty close. If you ask me everyone was doing poorly in ’75.
The 1975 BMW and Porsches were all kinda fucked up and the Bimmers were prone to overheating too thermal reactors ugh. That 8.2 naught-60 time was lame too but it was really quicker than that, R&T times were slow or perhaps they had to shift to third at 58 or 59mph — whatever the case 1975 was the worst of the worst.
But still fun.
The shift points are in the data table — 2-3 at 64 mph, on the limiter at 6,400 rpm — so it wasn’t a matter of short-shifting. Also, the quarter-mile ET is where I’d expect it to be given the 0-60 time; generally, if there’s a shortfall in the latter due to an inconveniently placed shift point, it will be made up in the former.
What’s most interesting about the data and says a lot about the Carrera’s actual performance is the trap speed and 0-100 time. The trap speed is a good 3-4 mph faster than the elapsed time would normally suggest. The 0-100 mph time is significantly shorter than some other contemporary cars with similar 0-60 times, such as the Datsun 280Z. It’s a full second quicker to 100 mph than Road & Track‘s early U.S. Jaguar XJ-S, which had 244 hp!
The test data suggests a fairly soft launch (0-30 in 3.4 seconds isn’t dreadful, but it’s not that quick either) for which the engine made up pretty assertively at higher speeds. A possible explanation is that this car had quite a bit of rear tire for its weight and a strong rear weight bias. While generally that’s good for acceleration, you can end up with such good drive wheel traction that getting a strong dragstrip launch is tricky unless you’re willing to really deep-fry the clutch — or if your acceleration times omit the first 1-foot rollout.
There’s also the tall gearing, which R&T notes in the text.
The time-to-distance figures are interesting: The quarter mile ET is 16.5 seconds, but it took nearly one-quarter of that time (3.9 seconds) to travel the first 100 feet. That’s indicative of a car that was quite quick, but not easy to set up for an effective dragstrip launch, and explains why the trap speed is significantly higher than you’d expect from the ET.
Oh man, the 911 has such a place in my life. Picked up a 74 in 2010 for beer and cigarette money. I wanted something to tinker with and was bored with reliable Japanese cars. I had worked in vintage car service years ago and had some basic 911 maintenance knowledge. But nothing surprised me more than the exploding interest a few years later. Before you know it I was picking up some side work on other 911s. The local dealership’s service manager found about me from another 911 owner and before I knew it I was “riding for the brand.” In middle age I became a tech servicing classic P-cars. The young service guys are whip smart but have their hands full with newer Porsches. And when it’s slow they let me work on the new ones. No 918s but plenty of work on GT3, GT2, turbos etc. They are still building fantastic cars today.
Back to my 74. It reminds me of before I could drive and the local who looked like Barry Gibb tearing around our corner in a similar model at unbelievable speed. Surely a sight in a town full of American muscle. Now my son gets to share in the fun.
The 74 didn’t have the reactors and avoided the pulled headstud issue that plagued later years if kept from running to hot. I have receipts back to 76 or so and only the exhaust valve guides being replaced seems to have been the most expensive repair. Valve guides were made from an inferior metal but this also affected 911s up to through the 80s. I don’t mind the mag 2.7 as it helps get weight down to 2300 lbs.
In 75 they changed the ring and pinion from 7:31 to 8:31. That and a more restrictive exhaust in USA made a big difference.
Hi There. All great info. I just picked up this Silver 75 911S with blue Houndstooth interior. I am trying to figure out if it’s a 25th Anniversary as it looks exactly like one but there’s no badge on the face of the glove box. I need to look closer to see if it was removed but does anyone know if the Anniversary edition only came in this option? I purchased from the second owner who has had it since 1978. Runs like a top. The white one in the foreground is an all original 70 911T with 108,000 miles. Super fun to tool around in.
Another look at the 75 911S
Sorry, but there is a very incorrect statement buried above. In 1976 the California 911 cars had magnesium cases, not aluminum. All 911s of that vintage sold here were mag case with all the terrible, engine destroying, smog equipment. 1976 as also the year that the US 930 3.0 was introduced and sold in California alongside the 911. IT had the 3.0 aluminun case engine… and terrible smog equipment also.
Now that the Collector-Investors have started to drive the market on these cars I see a lot of noise about total originality [$$$] and they even want inept German engineered thermal reactors! Just amazing. Then again, they probably won’t drive them anyway, so at least they won’t ruin the engines.
Otherwise, some good info.
BTW, one more thing about oversteer: Compared to the early 356 and 911s [I have a lot of time in both] before they ran larger tires on the rear, the transistion to oversteer was much more pronounced and sudden. No matter how good an older 911 Carrera is set up and how sticky the tires are, the absolute limit of adhesion dictates that it’s the rear that is going to let loose if you are driving at serious speed.
In the 80s I was convinced that a ’73 RS I owned and had a uprated suspension from it’s racing days might finally tame final oversteer. Wrong. No matter what, when you have so much weight in the rear of the car it is the ability of the rear to retain traction and that dictates how fast you are going to make it through a given corner. Various other performance cars- Ferrari, Corvette, etc can be set up so that you can really “dance” with them in the high speed stuff. It’s fantastic to be able to enter a corner at speed and with a small adjustment to throttle, steerting angle, or gentle touch of brakes to make a car go from understeer, to oversteer, and then neutral – all in the same corner! This is one game you simply cannot play with 911s. Having said that, I still love and play with various forms of 911s.
I have a Car and Driver test of an identical model. CandD got to 60 mph in two less seconds and completed the quarter mile in less than 15 seconds at more than 92 miles per hour. The curb weight of the CandD test car was a bit higher, and it was rated at 157 horsepower at 5,800 rpm instead of 152 horsepower at 5,800 rpm, perhaps due to California emissions. The torque peak level and engine speed were the same.
This was one of the least desirable 901-chassis 911s ever sold. The 2.7s had crank issues and emissions control issues that sent many to the scrap yard. This was the last year for Porsches that rusted out in six years while being garaged in unsalted states, and the second year with ungainly bumpers; no matter how much class warfare afflicted Europeans liked them. The ‘long hood’ Porsches are loved for their purity and aesthetics, while the 911S/C and Carrera 3.2 are loved for their durability and accommodations. The bumper cars before the S/C are the unloved middle-children of the 901 family.
Yeah, I like 911’s. Lots of euro car fans do. As in pretty much all.
But what I’m really wow’d with in this is geelongvic’s long treatise on tires. TRX’s especially.
Yes, that was a good point about sidewall stiffness. Today’s tires are so much more improved that high drama moments in mine are a non-issue.
The mid-years, especially the 74, have really come into their own. Only a little heavier than the long hoods I find they have a crisp look which makes the earlier cars look like “old man cars”. Also, the later aluminum case added some 25 additional pounds right where you didn’t want it.
My 2.7 has never had the case split but does leak a bit. It’s currently on a pallet in the garage awaiting a reseal. Now powered by a 210hp 73S MFI engine built to RS spec, right down to correct fuel injection pump. These really transform a light 911, mine scales at 2200 lbs.
Hoping the pic attaches….
You can see I was out measuring my AFR with a wide band oxygen sensor last summer! A customer GAVE me the set of wheels seen here compared to my earlier pic posted above….