991? Heck no! 1989 RUF CTR TWIN TURBO YELLOWBIRD

[The Radium King]

i've often thought about building a poor man's yellowbird. it's 'just' a modified 964 (currently second cheapest of the 911's after the 996). you could do all the standard lightening mods (seats, RS carpet and door cards, sound insulation, lexan, etc.) safety mods (cage, harness, etc.) suspension (964 already has coil-overs) and brakes easily enough, and can buy knock-off ruf front bumpers, etc., everywhere (note the yellowbird didn't have flares to reduce aerodynamic drag and maximise top speed).

regarding the engine, i am of the understanding there were two versions; a ctr 1 and ctr 2. one had a completely built engine, but the other was built on a stock engine. this is cool, as the higher compression of a n/a engine gives you more lower rpm torque and smooths-out the lag from a big turbo(s). i think they tucked the intercoolers in the rear wheel wells like the 959. anyways, there's lots of threads on the pelican turbo forum on how to turbo a n/a aircooled engine on the cheap, so do-able.

ok, now get back to arguing about something that has no right/wrong answer.

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by The Radium King

i've often thought about building a poor man's yellowbird. it's 'just' a modified 964 (currently second cheapest of the 911's after the 996). you could do all the standard lightening mods (seats, RS carpet and door cards, sound insulation, lexan, etc.) safety mods (cage, harness, etc.) suspension (964 already has coil-overs) and brakes easily enough, and can buy knock-off ruf front bumpers, etc., everywhere (note the yellowbird didn't have flares to reduce aerodynamic drag and maximise top speed).

regarding the engine, i am of the understanding there were two versions; a ctr 1 and ctr 2. one had a completely built engine, but the other was built on a stock engine. this is cool, as the higher compression of a n/a engine gives you more lower rpm torque and smooths-out the lag from a big turbo(s). i think they tucked the intercoolers in the rear wheel wells like the 959. anyways, there's lots of threads on the pelican turbo forum on how to turbo a n/a aircooled engine on the cheap, so do-able.

The CTR (1) is based on the pre 964 chassis. You can visually tell by the long, floor mounted shift lever.

[The Radium King]

ok, and makes sense as the 911 chassis is fundamentally lighter than the 964 (no transmission tunnel for the awd). that also helps with my vague remembrance that the stock engine ruf turbo'd was a 3.2, but again i was being lazy and didn't refresh my memory (uhh ... wiki is still down, right ...?). personally, i find the 964 (and ruf) body style (bumpers) 'heavy' and would rather start with a pre-89 base car. in fact, one of my dream cars is a 3.2 carrera with the wide body option, sunroof delete and turbo charger with mild boost - what a car!!!

[jaykay]

Originally Posted by The Radium King

ok, and makes sense as the 911 chassis is fundamentally lighter than the 964 (no transmission tunnel for the awd). that also helps with my vague remembrance that the stock engine ruf turbo'd was a 3.2, but again i was being lazy and didn't refresh my memory (uhh ... wiki is still down, right ...?). personally, i find the 964 (and ruf) body style (bumpers) 'heavy' and would rather start with a pre-89 base car. in fact, one of my dream cars is a 3.2 carrera with the wide body option, sunroof delete and turbo charger with mild boost - what a car!!!

I am with you on the pre 89.....classic Porsche lines right in the middle of old and new. Almost had one long before the box...just missed it!