In 1965 Porsche introduced the 901, the 2-plus-2 successor to the 356. The car, designed by Butzi Porsche in 1963, wasn’t a clean sheet or revolutionary design. Even so, Porsche later changed the name to the iconic 911 due to a dispute with Peugeot, which claimed ownership to all cars with “0” as the middle digit.The early 911s were under-powered and gasp… underdeveloped until they lengthened the wheelbase in 1969, and gave it more power.The extra grunt arrived in 1970 via increased displacement, in the form of the 2.2-liter engine.
Around town, the vintage 911 is sluggish below 3K rpm; to get anywhere quickly the flat-six’s revs must be maintained at a higher volume. The seating position is superb, with plenty of both headroom and glass with which to view the outside world. All early Porsches come alive on a twisty back road. Banging around the bends, 3rd gear is your friend. Keep her in the sweet spot, with occasional forrays to the 7200rpm redline, and you couldn’t ask for a willing engine– or exhilerating work out. The air-cooled engine’s seductive rasp turns into a wail. The 911’s steering becomes delicate but precise. Adrenalin flows as you blast along, unsafe in the knowledge that an overcooked cornered will feed the scenery the German sports car’s rear end.
Yes, there is that. The early 911s can leave the enthusiastic driver a little… fatigued. And although the car’s ergonomics say daily driver, there is no sense in which you could call the 911 a luxury GT. It’s really a plain old-fashioned visceral sports cars– albeit one with a sting in the tail and no Nanny to save your bacon. If you can get behind the wheel, adjust your driving accordingly. And wipe that damn grin off your face.
Beautiful cars. The current water cooled versions just don’t compare in terms of capturing the essence of a sports car in a compact, taut package.
yup, an early 911 is lots of fun. The S version clearly loves the higher revs. The lowly low-HP T version, is probably more fun around town as it has a bit more low end grunt. No matter what, it is pretty intoxicating when compared to the highly competent cars of today.
I think that the 911 is the best vintage car for daily use as they are relatively simple but dependable. You make up for the lack of ABS and traction control, along with the odd handling at the limits with more attentive driving.
As they used to say for Packard: “ask the man who owns one” .. or in my case, 2 or 3 of them.
You’re right in saying that the 901 became the 911 because of Peugeot claiming all X0X car names, but what a lot of people don’t know is that it was a very debatable claim, and even if legitimate applied only in France. Porsche was such a small company that they basically caved.
I doubt that would happen today. They’d buy Peugeot and launch the entire company into near-earth orbit.
..ok …enough car enthusiast stuff. …back to the politics.
@Stephan,
It’s not that Porsche was such a small company, it’s the fact that France (at the time was such a large market for Porsche.) In fact, it was their second largest market after Germany.
Another interesting factoid in the name change was that Porsche had already raced the 904GTS in France with no complaints and the 804 Forumla One car had raced and won at Rheims with no comment from Peugeot!!
I don’t think that Porsche really cared that much if the new model was to be called 901 or 911 really.
Personally I always liked the styling from the 73-89 model, but that’s just me. The early ones are awesome too though, definitely more light and svelte, but they lack a little grunt.
The new ‘neunelfers’ are nice too, but the ones who stand closest to the original (GT3/GT3RS) will unfortunately eventually perish on the altar of safety, cost-cutting and ‘the environment’.
I bought a “dead” 1981 911, then I read a book “Gold Plated Porsche” by some guy named Wilkinson, that book make my wife cry….but I digress. It took a while and some cash, but I got the 1981 running. I am now working on a 1988 Targa.
ANYWAY, At least these two cars are the worst piece of shits you can imagine compared to any modern sports car. More or less 200HP, crappy smelly heat, A/C typically removed, almost certainly doesn’t work. Noisy, the windshield feels like it is going to touch your face. Sloppy shifting, even with the short throw kit. Oil spots (puddles) on the garage floor.
BUT, park it in a parking lot, and EVERY guy that walks past looks it over with that “I really want one of those” faces.
AND, I LOVE mine!!!!
1981.911.SC, couldn’t have said it better, except the part about loving it. Not sure about that…
One thing that has always amused me about these things is that there are probably 200 park-it-and-walk problems that inevitably are traceable to “a bad ground.” A BAD GROUND??? Didn’t Porsche’s EEs go to college?
@1981 911
Why would you compare them to a modern sports car?
Wilkinson’s book or, more to the point, the one story in the book about his experience with Porsche can be very typical of these cars if your not careful in choosing what you buy. Let’s not forget that once a restoration is started, it’s a pretty slippery slope.
I know you say you “love yours” so why call them pieces of shit? For their time, especially your ’88 930, these were incredible performing cars. Your ’88 should have the G50 gear box and shifting should not be a problem (unless the tranny itself has issues.) As for the windshield and noise, I’ve always felt the 911 has one of the best driving positions/orientations of any car ever built (including today’s supercars.) Noise??? The louder the better!!! :-)
Good review.
I am currently lusting after an Intermeccanica Roadster, a custom built high quality 1959 Porsche 356-A Convertible “D” reproduction .
“One thing that has always amused me about these things is that there are probably 200 park-it-and-walk problems that inevitably are traceable to “a bad ground.””
Bad grounds in a new car warrant this criticism. Bad grounds in 25+ year old cars are just a fact of life. Corrosion of the terminal/connector is usually the #1 factor.
no mention of the abysmal 915 gearbox?
The 915 was pretty much state of the art in its day, and remember that it’s not just a transmission, it’s a transaxle. Incredibly light and compact for what it accomplished. Put a good shifter on it–a WEVO, in my case–and it totally puts a new face on it.
As for bad grounds in 25-year-old cars, I’m not aware of 1983 Toyotas, Buicks, Saabs or the like having constant bad-ground problems. And no, corrosion of the primary battery terminal is not usually the 911 problem, though it’s of course always a good thing to check.
@ Stephan,
I’m not aware of all that many 1983 toyotas, buicks or saabs still on the road. At least not as compared to Porsche. :-)
I know of half a dozen early-’80s Saabs in my small town alone, and as far as I know, mine is the only early-’80s Porsche. Anyway, what’s your point?
@Stephan,
Not exactly sure what my point is. I guess in reading your comment I took it as a dig on Porsche and felt the need to defend. :-)
Actually, upon further review, your comment doesn’t seem like an apples to apples comparison (25 year old Porsches vs. Saabs, Buicks and Toyotas.) I would have to look at production numbers to be sure, but you’re comparing three mass produced, every day, marques and their potential reliability to what was, for all intents and purposes a limited production specialty vehicle.
So people who build “everyday marques” have no trouble getting the most basic electrics right, but the specialists who build a limited-production vehicle can’t figure out how to get the electrons to flow consistently? Works for me.
@Stephan,
That’s quite a leap you’ve made from my comment on your comparison being apples to oranges. If it works for you, great!
Electrical or mechanical problems in any brand car are not uncommon in older vehicles. You are suggesting that “bad grounds” are a result of poor engineering or design on Porsche’s part vs. time. Is there empirical data to back this up? Can you point me to it? I would be interested in reading it. I’ve always been of the opinion that both the 911 SC and the 930 (normally aspirated) were/are two of the best and most reliable Porsche ever built.
I’m trying to find production data, but can’t find historical info on Toyota, Buick and Saab…
However, I do know that in 1981 there were 1573 911 coupes and 1407 911 targas imported into the US, less than 3000 cars in total. I would hazard a guess that at least 50% of those cars (if not more) are still on the road today and being enjoyed.
Do you think those same percentages hold true for Saab, Toyota or Buick?
This is a stupid and unwinnable/unloseable argument, and as somebody who has owned numerous Porsches since 1957, I suspect way more than you have, it’s a statistical garden path down which I decline to go. I’m not going to data-mine, and if you feel the vaunted Porsche brand has never had major and mystifying electrical problems, so be it. 993s are _way_ beyond my area of interest in the marque.
Not being a cubicle Dilbert but a working freelancer, I really don’t have time to do the arcane Internet research that seems so important to the statisticians among us.
Wow, did I strike a nerve? I didn’t realize we were arguing? I guess that’s the problem with electronic communication, there’s no inflection outside of emoticons. I thought we were having a discussion and a good one at that.
As for assumptions, you can make whatever ones you want.