Check out what my buddy picked up yesterday

[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.