Best 1970s 911 to go for?

[Guest]

Hi all,

I am currently selling my 1974 Lotus Elan to try something different - I've decided "something" will be a 1970s Porsche 911. Next obvious question is which model?? The Elan is very quick off the mark, so I want to make sure I'm not disappointed in the 0-60 stakes, but then I don't want to find myself spending too much time in the petrol station... my girlfriend's brother has a coupé and he reckons the 2.4 T engine is the best. What do you guys think? Any recommendations gratefully received...!

Cheers,

G

 

[Helen Goff]

it really depends on your budget, and if you want RHD/LHD

the Best(fastest) would be an S or even a RS but your going to need deep pockets

 

[Alex Postan]

1974 carrera 2.7. BUT all Porsches rust badly, particularly the early cars. Pay for a professional inspection.

 

[Helen Goff]

ORIGINAL: Alex Postan

1974 carrera 2.7. BUT all Porsches rust badly, particularly the early cars. Pay for a professional inspection.

yes agreed impact bumpers are much better value for money at the moment.

 

[Guest]

I suppose this is the sort of car/money I'm thinking of:
http://atsearch.autotrader.co.uk/www/CARS_popup.jsp?searchform=&modelexact=1&lid=search_used_cars_full&photo=1&state=none&sort=3&hassearched=Y&make=PORSCHE&min_pr=8000&source=0&model=911&max_pr=10000&miles=1500&agerange=4&mileage=&postcode=cm16+5dn&variant=&bodyid=0&trim=&fuelid=0&colour=&transmissionid=0&keywords=&ukcarsearch_full.x=37&ukcarsearch_full.y=14&start=5&distance=450&adcategory=CARS&channel=CARS&id=200731292558232

There seem to be quite a few about at the moment.

I definitely want RHD and will be looking for something restored reasonably recently, as at that sort of age if it hasn't been done already it will need doing soon - I did the same with the Lotus (buying one that someone else restored a few years prior).

What's the difference between, say, a 1974 2.7 and a 1980 2.7? Is there any, or is it the same engine?

Cheers,

G

 

[Helen Goff]

ah your looking for a impact bumper.. not a early 911[:-]

well( they have their own forum www.impactbumpers.com ) with porsche its not so much the engine as the progression of the gadgets and comfort of the rest of the car.

 

[Nick Moss]

Go for a 1987 - 1989 Carrera 3.2. Get it checked by a specialist as they ALL have rust issues, there is no such thing as a rust free 20 year old 911. impactbumpers.com is the forum to be on.

 

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: Helen Goff

ah your looking for a impact bumper.. not a early 911[:-]

well( they have their own forum www.impactbumpers.com ) with porsche its not so much the engine as the progression of the gadgets and comfort of the rest of the car.

LOL. I don't really know what I'm looking for. Actually, an early 911 would be just as nice, if not nicer, but I don't know if I can afford one...?

 

[Nick Moss]

RHD early 911s (that is up to and including the 1973 model year, after that we call them impact bumper car) are at an enormous premium. They never sold many in this country originally, and most that they did sell have been crashed or rusted away. The ones that remain have either have been recently restored or need restoration. Restoration of these cars is a complex and expensive process costing upwards of £30K.

There are several models from 1965 - 1968, these are the SWB cars and are great fun to drive, and have great (challenging) handling. Prices for RHD cars from £20K - £50K.

From 1969 -1973 we have the long wheel base cars.

1969: 2 litre T (carbs) E and S (fuel injection)
1970 - 1971: 2.2 litre T (carbs) E and S (fuel injection)
1972 - 1973: 2.4 litre T (carbs) E , S (fuel injection) and 2.7 RS (fuel injection)

Prices are very dependent on condition, but the range for LWB cars is from £20K (2.0T) - £120K for the RS

Your friend's opinion of the 2.4T (carburetted) does not correspond with mine []. IMHO the best engines (in descending order) are the carbed 2.0 motors, the injected 2.2S and the 2.4S

If you are really serious about an early 911 there are a couple of books that you should equip yourself with. They will detail all the different models.

Porsche 911 Redbook by Patrick C. Paternie

Original Porsche 911 by Peter Morgan

 

[wblackw9]

If its a 70's car your after i recommend a 2.7. Nice amount of power and great fun to drive also as you can see from mine ther is lots you can do dependi9ng on if you want originality or not? Click the car domain link below

 

[911Smonster]

You'll need a budget of at least £20K for a good 1970's 911T and more like £40-50K for the most sought after early 70's 'S' models. Any of these early cars you may see priced at £10K or less will be in need of a full restoration, costing a further £20-30K. Targas are considerably cheaper than equivalent Coupes if that helps your budget. Good 70's cars in RHD are very thin on the ground due to low initial numbers and the ravages of life in the UK!

80's cars are considerably cheaper and you should get a really nice RHD SC or Carrera 3.2 for well under £20K. But beware there are more dogs than good cars out there. Make sure you get a full inspection by a Porsche specialist before buying.

As a starting point, buy yourself a copy of the Peter Morgan book mentioned in the previous post. It covers all the models in detail from the 60's to the 90's. There are so many model variations, you really need to know what's what before buying.

 

[Guest]

I'm just beginning my search for an early 911 as well and have ordered the books you suggested. Nick or anyone else who has an opinion on this, why do you prefer the carbed 2.0 motor?

 

[mark piper]

ORIGINAL: hineygate

I'm just beginning my search for an early 911 as well and have ordered the books you suggested. Nick or anyone else who has an opinion on this, why do you prefer the carbed 2.0 motor?

yes Nick, why do you prefer the carb'd 2 litres - to me they are old, slow and being carb'd a PITA. The best engine has to be the 2.4 in E or S guise surely? More torque but still revvy...

I'm also intrigued as to why people should recommend the 2.7? It wasn't recognised as a good engine back in the '70s, let alone now. This excepts the Carrera 2.7 of course.

I calso do not see why the Carrera 2.7 is perceived as good value. These have risen rapidly on the back of their more illustrious cousin and at the thick end of £40k are just too expensive for what they are, which is a "bitsa" designed to use up the supply of the 207 engine

All IMHO of course

Back to the original OP - buy a G50 car with as few owners as you can find and sub 100k mileage.

 

[Helen Goff]

this thread is very interesting as it just highlights that we all choose diffrent cars for very diffrent reasons (just as well i guess).

it all comes down to what YOU like and want, but, just to add to the confussion i have also found two identical cars can, drive/feel very very diffrent too, so it really is worth driving a few before you make up your mind.

i adore the pre 1970 cars with no drivers aids or gadgets and my husband loves the tiptronic 993 with trip/systems computor and upgraded stereo system [8|]( for me..yawn)

basically all porsches are fantastic IMHO and if a car dosn't feel right very often it worth checking the tyre pressure, and tread wear as very often there is a simple fix for the problem.

 

[38F3E1]

That's a really big question you are asking. The answers to the following questions would help a lot in giving a good answer.

1/ How much do you want to spend?
2/ Are you hugely influenced by whether the car has a pre-impact bumber look or an impact bumper look?
3/ What do you want to use the car for?

The 70s is one of the decades the 911 changed more than any other with the major visual change from non impact to impact bumper stuck right in the middle for good measure. Plus there is also a wide range of models from the relatively sedate to petrol guzzling snorters.

Ian.

PS I'm with you on the RHD choice but probably unusual amongst early owners with that preference as they are much rarer and difficult to find and it's not so important for a car with occasional use only.

 

[Nick Moss]

yes Nick, why do you prefer the carb'd 2 litres - to me they are old, slow and being carb'd a PITA. The best engine has to be the 2.4 in E or S guise surely? More torque but still revvy...

Mark, you don't say what cars you have driven or own, but as you recommend the 3.2 it's obvious that torque is more imprtant to you than revs and an exciting power delivery. If you want to experience the 911 in it's purest form I suggest you try an 67/68 2.0 S. Great engine, good brakes and handling in one of the lightest chassis. These cars are now very rare and don't come to the market very often, are very expensive to buy and are probably not what most people used to modern cars would want to drive. The 2.4s feel rough and slow witted in comparison despite having a similar rev limit.

 

[mark piper]

Nick, I have owned 2 3.2s, one SC, one F Series 2.4E (that I restored way back in the late '80s...so I now all about rust!) and a 964RS. I came very close to buying a 2.0 S back in the '90s too but it disappointed me in its perfornance when comparing it to the E. Nothing to do with torque - I also own a Caterham R500 and totally standard Mercedes 2.3-16, and thus am a clear fan of revvers!

 

[Nick Moss]

Mark, nice collection of cars! I am not saying that the 2.0S has the performance of the bigger engined cars, but it's not far off, it's the way it performs and the noise and feedback.

 

[911Smonster]

ORIGINAL: Nick Moss
The 2.4s feel rough and slow witted in comparison despite having a similar rev limit.

Ain't nothin' rough or slow witted about my 2.4S.
All I can say is that those 2.0 carb motors must be quite something if that's true!

 

[jamescharnley]

having had a 1967 2.0 & driven a 1967 2.0S , my personal preference is the later 2.4S motor.

Then again I also prefer LWB cars to the SWB , which is why I sold the '67