Guest
New member
When I was recently on holiday, I was able to drive my best mates 1985 930. It was an interesting comparison to a 3.2 and a difficult one as well. Difficult, because the gearing (4 speed) is so tall that it is a little hard to guage just how fast you are accellerating. First is good for at least 30 or 40mph and second for 80mph. Fourth is theoretically good for about 190mph!
When people talk about turbo lag I think they are thinking of 930s. There is virtually nothing below 2500rpm and very little below 3500rpm. If a 930 driver is caught in the wrong gear, the 3.2 driver will be long gone. Bury it in second at 2000rpm and you wait, and wait some more and then at about 3500rpm you hear the turbo spooling up and then - only then - does every start to happen. Once on boost it is, too be fair, very rapid. I think only after 90 or 100mph though would a 930 leave a 3.2 behind. If memory serves me correctly, the performance figures back this up. I think that in 0-60mph and standing quarter mile times the 3.2 is only just behind the 930. I remember R&T's first test of a US Carrera and their comment that the 3.2 virtually made the 930 redundant. Well that may be going a little far...
Other impressions are of good brakes with a very firm pedal and good modulation. Steering is no heavier (even though this 930 had big 17 inch wheels). The car feels heavier, although this is mostly just a feeling created, I think, by the widely spaced gears and the turbo lag. Clutch is also fairly heavy, much more so than my G50. Handling feels much like our 3.2s but I didn't really have occasion to push hard. I get the feeling that pushing a 930 really hard requires a bigger set of cajones than a 3.2. Timing when the boost comes on is not easy and having only 4 very tall gears makes keeping it on boost tricky. My friend swears that once on boost there is very little that can stay even remotely close though.
Anyhow, I thought you might like to know my impressions.
Richard
When people talk about turbo lag I think they are thinking of 930s. There is virtually nothing below 2500rpm and very little below 3500rpm. If a 930 driver is caught in the wrong gear, the 3.2 driver will be long gone. Bury it in second at 2000rpm and you wait, and wait some more and then at about 3500rpm you hear the turbo spooling up and then - only then - does every start to happen. Once on boost it is, too be fair, very rapid. I think only after 90 or 100mph though would a 930 leave a 3.2 behind. If memory serves me correctly, the performance figures back this up. I think that in 0-60mph and standing quarter mile times the 3.2 is only just behind the 930. I remember R&T's first test of a US Carrera and their comment that the 3.2 virtually made the 930 redundant. Well that may be going a little far...
Other impressions are of good brakes with a very firm pedal and good modulation. Steering is no heavier (even though this 930 had big 17 inch wheels). The car feels heavier, although this is mostly just a feeling created, I think, by the widely spaced gears and the turbo lag. Clutch is also fairly heavy, much more so than my G50. Handling feels much like our 3.2s but I didn't really have occasion to push hard. I get the feeling that pushing a 930 really hard requires a bigger set of cajones than a 3.2. Timing when the boost comes on is not easy and having only 4 very tall gears makes keeping it on boost tricky. My friend swears that once on boost there is very little that can stay even remotely close though.
Anyhow, I thought you might like to know my impressions.
Richard
Speedster had normally aspirated 3.2 engine
