In reply to acoupe’s comment about the 6 x 15 steelies , I previously owned a 1972 911T & it had its original steel 6 x 15 wheels. Which confirms what Jim said!:D
Printable View
In reply to acoupe’s comment about the 6 x 15 steelies , I previously owned a 1972 911T & it had its original steel 6 x 15 wheels. Which confirms what Jim said!:D
Torque always wins on road and track and this is why I mentioned the easy upgrade to the 2.7RS engine you can modify a 72/73 to.Quote:
Originally Posted by raspy2point2
You point out the new rear suspension crossmember - from what I understand with this change the angle of the shock increased (became less vertical) to improve the geometry/articulation of the trailing arm. An interesting change indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OliveR
I also prefer the early 915 mag gearbox with the 7:31 R&P in the '72 (not that this distinguishes the '72 from the '73).
. . . '72s are where --- IMO --- the S just sorta goes 'off'
Sure-sure --- bigger displacement = more power . . . but lower compression, too. And seems everybody bumps up to 2.7 . . . or wants to. Wonder why?
For me? . . .
. . . I prefer the zing of the shorter stroke/66 mm crank motors vs the 70.4 mm from '72-on
Then there's all the other stuff that just goes missing
No more dog-leg gearbox
No more oil lines inside the rocker
No more 'proper' oil cooler (A trombone? --- in the wheel well? . . . really?)
No more deep 6s
And then there's all the alu body bits that start disappearing
Feels to me like the car 's character changes, feels de-contented, easier to live with + use, maybe . . . but less special
And I do like the idea of the re-positioned oil tank w/ the cool external oil-fill door . . .
. . . but I miss all the other stuff
..
72 did not have the trombone oil cooler it used the larger fittings Behr cooler.
My 72 did come with aluminum engine lid and license panel.
The gearbox debate will go on forever. I'll have a 901 in my new 914-6 GT I'm building so one of each.
Torque matters more in street driving. I like the 2.7RS as it has great torque and revs plenty high enough. I'm obviously a HP guy as my 72 now has a 3.5L with a GT3 crank and it's magical. You've seen the thread.
Deep 6's are cool but I like it the 7 and 9's or 8 and 9's more as used on the flared cars. As I said before 2.5L ST the best of all 72 except for my new 72 build!:D
+ 1 on Long Ranger. Plus the rush to the red line is not the same on a 2.4 as it is on a 2.2 S The 2.2 explodes with power from 4800 rpm to red line where as the 2.4 just gets there on a different wave length. In another words the 2.2S scream where the 2.4 do not. The sound of a 2.2S is not that far off from the sound of a 917. Also the 2.0 liter S cars have the same qualities.
I'll take a well built 2.5L over 2.2S. My Uncles ST had one. Talk about a engine that rips/screams whatever.
yes and that is why my next car is going to be a 2.6 short stroke (66x92) high compression twin plug. with original Mahle RSR P/C on a aluminum case. not sure yet on which cam.
Sounds great! The reason I love the twin plug high compression 3.5L is it revs to the moon and has torque the whole way and is still a light engine. I see the 3.6L swaps all the time and it's not even in the same ball park. You have to drive both to understand the difference. I only started this thread to explain why I prefer the 72 but I knew at some point it would turn into a debate. I could start a whole other debate on why you need short gears. You have to drive it to experience the difference. The 2.2S vs the 2.4S is the real debate until the 2.4E guys chime in about torque. You see it never ends and then the SWB 67S guys will join the party!:D
you missed out the 2.7E conversions for torque............:D:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Longballa