So on our lunch time walk today we came across this car. Looking at it closely and in person I couldn't help but wonder, "was this intended to be a sports car"?
Now maybe I am spoiled by current renditions of sports cars with wide tires, high horsepower and technological advancements in control management.
But, just looking at an old school 911, it appears they were just trying to make a car that would move 4 (small) people around.
Eh?
You have to keep in mind what a sports car was in 1964. They were small, low-output, skinny-tire-shod affairs.
It was a helluva car for its time.
Yes it was a sports car. Think of the other cars produced at that time. How many of them had brakes that were as strong as the 911? How many could corner as well as the 911? And do it with the german refinement (such as it is) Very few could and they were higher priced more limited production cars.
honestly.. what people call sports cars today.. were supercars 10 or so years ago.
mad_machine wrote: honestly.. what people call sports cars today.. were supercars 10 or so years ago.
Maybe a pinch more than 10 years ago, but sure.
The new 911 turbo is going to do 0-60 in 3 sec flat. That's obscene.
5-sec 0-60 is sports car territory, it was indeed supercar territory not so long ago.
Hell, my lowly 99 Civic Si could outrun a bunch of 70's-era Ferraris (not that a Ferrari owner would or should care about that)
It's the modern 4000lb mini-SUV's with their wide tires, high horsepower and technological advancements in control management that are no longer "traditional" sports cars...
But the other change is that technological advancements like independent suspensions, 4 wheel disc brakes, dual overhead cams, 5 speed transmissions, etc... that were once the sole province of sports cars and sporting GT's... and what set them apart from "normal" cars are now found in basic economy cars... so the only modern differentiation is high power and suspensions calibrated for performance rather than comfort.
It was intended to be a GT.
Whether you consider that a sports car or not, that thing is drop dead sexy.
wcelliot wrote: But the other change is that technological advancements like independent suspensions, 4 wheel disc brakes, dual overhead cams, 5 speed transmissions, etc... that were once the sole province of sports cars and sporting GT's... and what set them apart from "normal" cars are now found in basic economy cars... so the only modern differentiation is high power and suspensions calibrated for performance rather than comfort.
They're still pushing technology. The ZR1's magnetosomethingsomething suspension, for example. The 911's variable vane turbo. Heck, even things like displacement on demand shows up in sports cars first so those ridiculously powerful engines get decent mileage.
The cheap ones for The People aren't, but they never really did. The MGB wasn't exactly a triumph of modern technology, neither is the Miata.
And yes, there was a step change in performance recently. A completely bonkers one.
Keith wrote: And yes, there was a step change in performance recently. A completely bonkers one.
Yep.
A recent exchange on one of the rally boards had somebody asking how we managed to get through the 70's with no more safety gear than a rudimentary roll bar, and nowadays we need a zillion-tube cage and personal safety gear that costs as much as the car and belting and webbing and this and that...
The counter point was, in the 70's, people were running 70hp crapboxes. In 2010, you can buy cheap economy cars that will do 150 right off of the dealer lot.
Personally, my "sports car rule" can be condensed down to this: 195. If the car has or needs 195 width tires, it's too big/heavy/powerful to be a sports car, it's a performance car.
PS - That minivan in the background will probably outperform the 911 in any objective test you could care to subject them to. Sick, idn't it?
It's a tarted up beetle. 
Marty! wrote: Whether you consider that a sports car or not, that thing is drop dead sexy.
yes, few, very few cars would cause me to stop and take a (crappy cellphone) picture.
DILYSI Dave wrote: It's a tarted up beetle.
I'd still hit it despite it's faults 
I don't care. That is one of my dream cars, in one of my favorite colors. Giggity.
What everyone else said. You really need to look back at the class of 1965 to put the original 911 into context. The Jaguar XKE was relatively new, the MGB had only been out for a few years, and the Camaro hadn't yet been released. For its day, the 911 actually contained some pretty cutting-edge technology, including overhead cams, five-speed transmission, four-wheel-disc brakes, radial tires, forged engine internals and fully independent suspension.
Didn't Top Gear do a segment where the early 70's WRC-winning Cosworth Escort got beaten around the test track by a stock EVO???
Today's street cars are faster than yesterday's racecars to a decent degree.
I think it's also partly to do with that 'German refinement' thing. Place the 911 next to an Alfa of the same year, and the Italian car would seem more outlandish and overtly 'sporty', while the Porsche is quite understated, (but no slower.)
gamby wrote: Didn't Top Gear do a segment where the early 70's WRC-winning Cosworth Escort got beaten around the test track by a stock EVO??? Today's street cars are faster than yesterday's racecars to a decent degree.
I'd take a 70's WRC Cossie-anything over a new EVO any day of the week and twice on Sunday...
David S. Wallens wrote: ... the 911 actually contained some pretty cutting-edge technology, including overhead cams, five-speed transmission...
Actually it had the 4 speed out of a farm tractor until the mid-80s.
Actually it had the 4 speed out of a farm tractor until the mid-80s.
No, a 5 speed was optional.
the 911 had a 5 speed.. the 911 Turbo had a 4 speed.
My favourite older car.. the Fiat 124 Spider.. WAS technologically advanced when it came out in 68. Four wheel disc brakes, 5 speed transmission, Dual Overhead cams, electrically triggered fan (electric clutch), 2 speed wipers with delay, and a top that is still one of the easiest to use and still very weathertight.
all with a tiny 1.4 litre engine that produced 90hp
parker wrote: Actually it had the 4 speed out of a farm tractor until the mid-80s. No, a 5 speed was optional.
Huh. I didn't know that. Every one I'd driven either had a 4 cog or a G50 5 or 6 speed. I thought all 914 transmission were 4 speeds. See, I learn something new every day.
Even my 912 had a 5 speed... and that was a bargin basement Porsche. All 914's I've owned or driven were 5 speeds.
The G50 was a huge improvement (in both strength and driveability)
The UK and Sweden (into the 80's!) tended to use an electric overdrive instead of a 5sp...
The ZR1's magnetosomethingsomething suspension, for example.
They've had new-fangled-widget suspension like that since the late 80's :P Unless its a NEW magnetosomethingsomething suspension
Someone said it was drop dead sexy but there hasn't ever been a 911 variant that could even remotely be considered sexy.
Tarted up beetle it was and it feels like it.
I've driven numerous examples of the older ones and they never felt like anything but a Beetle, but they really were sports cars back in the day.
My very first experience with sports cars was at a job I had as a kid where older people drove a TR3, Jag XK120 and a 356 Porsche. All 3 were raced and I got to drive all three. I had zero respect for the Porsche when compared to the other 2 cars. Now keep in mind I was under the legal driving age and had no concept of $$$ so maybe had I known it was expensive then I might have given it more cred. But since when is the cost one of the criteria for performance? I built a ton of VW based dune buggies and they felt just like the Porsche except they were faster cause they weighed less.
Compare the 356 or a 911 to our 1961 Plymouth station wagon that weighed a ton and had a sub 100 HP 6 cylinder and yes it most definitely was a sports car.
You'll need to log in to post.
