Check out what my buddy picked up yesterday

Sub 5 is realistic, 2800# car, 282.00 Ft-Lbs torque. It moves.

There was an old saying of which I don't remember exactly, but it goes something like this "...fastest 930 driver is a fearless idiot..." because snap oversteer in the older swing arms cars, you gotta keep your foot planted on the go pedal when it gets a little loose

[SC986]

All I can say is WOW What a beast!

yeah, i really dont think that can do 4.6 sec, my merc does that and it has 500 hp and 600tq, with only 300hp i dont think so

[dmenn]

Originally Posted by blkboxster

yeah, i really dont think that can do 4.6 sec, my merc does that and it has 500 hp and 600tq, with only 300hp i dont think so

Based on the Wikipedia stats it can do 4.6 seconds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_930

The 930 weights ~2800 lbs with 300 hp, ~9.3 lbs/hp Approx 4.6 seconds 0-60
The S600 weights ~4400 lbs with 500 hp, ~8.8 lbs/hp Approx 4.5 seconds 0-60

Not a significant difference there - I could believe the times ..

[FrayAdjacent]

Originally Posted by pteam

Sorry but I hate to say this but with only 300 hp theres NO WAY that thing goes 0-60 in 4.6 seconds. A new boxster S has 295 hp and its not anywhere close to 4.6 secs. It has 20 year old technology. Not to mention its only a 4 speed.

You apparently didn't take into account that the 911/930 is quite a bit LIGHTER than a Boxster. I'd guess at least 500lb, if not more.

My 71 911 Coupe weighed in at about 2200lb. Pretty light.


Speed isn't about simply how much horsepower a car has, it's about the power to weight ratio. It's pretty high in the old air cooled 911s!

[blue2000s]

"Year Make & Model (0-60) (1/4 Mile)"
" 1986 Porsche 911 Turbo 5.0 13.4"

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

I'd wonder why the bumpers and the tail lights are from a 964.

[Sammy]

Daaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnn... that's sexy!!!



That is an awesome looking car!!!

[Grizzly]

Seeing the classic 930 evokes very different emotions for me than for most of you. Like you, I had the posters of slantnoses all over the walls in my room back home.

Then in 1985 a friend and hero of mine bought one. Red. Really Red. Not fast enough for him, he sent it back to Europe for some major work by one of the big tuners. God, it was beautiful...slant nose, vented quarters, boxed rockers, color keyed BBS wheels, the whole package. In all, he had more than $130,000 wrapped up in the car. It was wicked fast! I used to see it every day at work, always spotless, parked in his reserved spot.

On November 9, 1985 he went out with a group of co-workers. He left a South Jersey club at 5:00 in the morning with a friend and a young lady (apparently straddling the console). He slammed into a retaining wall at more than 80 miles an hour. They kept him on life support for a few days, but let him go on November 11, 1985.

It is hard to find pictures of the car. This one appeared in all of the papers, taken at the garage where the car was held after the crash. It was quickly removed and never seen again.



He was an incredible talent and his loss was unbearable. It was hard for me to even consider owning a Porsche after he died. If he could speak to me however, I think he'd tell me that it wasn't the car, but his lack of respect for the car that caused his death.

[NickCats]

pteam, dmenn hit it on the nose, I pulled the stats from wikipedia...

blue, not sure what you mean regarding the 964 ?

Sammy, he will probably join us on the next autocross. That should be interesting !

Grizzly, so sorry to hear about your loss.

Nick

Grizzly,



Sorry to hear that. I can't help but wonder (forgive me if it is morbid curiousity or what, and if you don't want to answer I understand...). But, did the the 2 passengers fair any better?

[Grizzly]

Both passengers lived. The female wasn't terribly injured and made a full recovery. The male passenger was initially critical, but made a full recovery as well. My friend caught the whole left front of the car in the head and suffered a massive brain stem injury. He was brain dead at the scene. The doctors kept him on life support for a couple of days, but there was really no hope from the start.

It was all surreal. We had a terrible time getting our heads around the fact that this could really be happening. He was larger than life, a rising superstar, and only 26 years old. At 21 years old, it was a hell of a wake up call for me. At that age we all thought we were invincible. We weren't.

[AZ UFO]

Originally Posted by pteam

Sorry but I hate to say this but with only 300 hp theres NO WAY that thing goes 0-60 in 4.6 seconds. A new boxster S has 295 hp and its not anywhere close to 4.6 secs. It has 20 year old technology. Not to mention its only a 4 speed.

Common now the new boxster s is 0 to 60 in 5.1 with the manual tranny hehe its a 1/2 sec common "not anywhere close" I would have to say thats pretty close.

[Perfectlap]

I think people are not fully getting/believing the effect of weight on the 930.
I would have thought very low 5's but the more I think about it the more high 4's sounds right.

Excellence recently had a head to head between the 2.7 (not the S) Cayman vs. the 1973 RS also a 2.7
They put both on the scales and the old 911 LeMans winner with barely 220hp barely tipped the 2 ton mark. A 5.5 second car.
While the nearly option-less 245hp Cayman was still almost half a ton heavier than the RS. But still the Cayman with all that weight was a 5'ish second car. I'm sure the 930, way lighter than a Cayman, with more power than a Cayman would go at least half a second(a blink) faster.

The Lotus Exige with not even 250hp but also well south of the 3 ton mark gets from 0-60 in under 4 seconds. You can beat anyone off the line if you go on a diet!

Get your weights correct, a ton is 2000 pounds, not 1,000.

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

I think people are not fully getting/believing the effect of weight on the 930.
I would have thought very low 5's but the more I think about it the more high 4's sounds right.

Excellence recently had a head to head between the 2.7 (not the S) Cayman vs. the 1973 RS also a 2.7
They put both on the scales and the old 911 LeMans winner with barely 220hp barely tipped the 2 ton mark. A 5.5 second car.
While the nearly option-less 245hp Cayman was still almost a full ton heavier than the RS. But still the Cayman with all that weight was a 5'ish second car. I'm sure the 930, way lighter than a Cayman, with more power than a Cayman would go at least half a second(a blink) faster.

The Lotus Exige with not even 250hp but also well south of the 3 ton mark gets from 0-60 in under 4 seconds. You can beat anyone off the line if you go on a diet!

[Perfectlap]

correction made.

[pteam]

First of all wiki is edited by people like you and me. I can go and edit that right now and make it say 3.5 seconds. Some owner can go and make that say anything he wants.

The numbers dont look right at all:

1978 930 300 hp 0-60: 5.0 s
1984 930 300 hp 0-60: 4.6 s

hmmm look funny there? Somebody fudge a number there?


1983 930 330 hp Flachbau 0-60: 4.7 s

I like how the special version with MORE horsepower is SLOWER!

Point taken about Wikipedia, but for those who've been around, the 930 was a benchmark car for a LONG time, and as foggy as my memory is, all the auto raggs pegged it in the 4's. Also the Guinness book of world records used to list it as the fastest production vehicle. That's what I remember and believe.


For all intents and purposes, the 930 is a sub 5 sec. car PERIOD. Who wants to split hairs?


Driver, testing conditions, body changes, emissions, would certainly account for discrepencies of a few tenths.

ive got a better idea, tell your friend to take it to his local strip so he can get the 0-60 and the quarter. problem solved.

[idheaton]

I'm not entirely sure but I would say that 0-60 times would fall more under a cars torque specs as opposed to its hp rating so maybe someone should factor those as well... i'm too lazy too..

There are multiple factors involved in any 0 to x# run other than just hp/torque... i.e. driver, elevation, temperatures, weight, tires...the list can probably go on and on.

Regardless, the highest has been 5.0 and the lowest 4.6. Actual is probably somewhere between them which is still sub 5 and pretty respectable in that time and age. Either way the 911's weren't drag cars so who cares what it's 0-60 time was. Even if it had been 10 secs, it's looks and other performance aspects for the day were killer. It's simply a desirable car..then and now

blue....in regards to the 964 bumpers, I would have to say it was for weight saving and/or maybe simple aethestics to updates it's look. Those old 911 bumper are pretty heavy...just getting rid of the huge 911 rear bumperettes probably saved 20-30 lbs in weight savings alone.

[pteam]

the other thing is its 2007. That car is close to or over 30 years old. Do you think it performs as good as it did 30 years ago? My guess would be 5 secs at the absolute fastest, with a really good driver. Which I agree is VERY fast for a car from that era. Thats if the car is in perfect running order and maybe even went through a restoration.