2.0T vs 2.2T driving/performance difference - have you driven both?

[Blink]

I am very curious to hear your thoughts on the difference in driving experience between a 2.0T and 2.2T - however you define that.. low end or top end torque.. general fun.. other considerations.

Have you driven both and is there a significant difference?

Do most with a 2.0 (or even 2.2) upgrade? costs & considerations? Thanks!

[Greg D.]

Not an expert like a lot of folks here... I've driven a 68 2.0 T (euro I believe? US did not have Ts in 68 if I recall correctly) and as I recall, it was less than impressive. It sounded good, like a 911, but I wanna say it only made 110 hp or something unlike the Us models... both its owner and I concurred that my big Bore 912 of the same vintage might be pretty damn close on a twisty road. The car was supposedly tuned OK, but ran hot though, so who knows how perfect that was... I'd have to think a 2.2 would be better. I love my 2.4 most of all Ts I've tried ( know earlier S are supposed to have more character than the last of the series, but for Ts, the last 2.4 are sweet) .

[rattlecan]

I'm also interested in those than have opinions based on actual experiences.

Rich

[NeunElf]

If it's any help, you can read archived Car and Driver tests of the 1969 (2.0) and 1972 (2.4) 911s:

• 1969 Porsche 912 vs. 911T Targa, 911E, 911S
• 1972 Porsche 911 T Coupe vs. 911 E Targa, 911 S Coupe

[Greg D.]

That second one is a fun read (hadn't seen it before). They prefer the T. The 911s are too heavy. 2 of the 3 have bad brakes.... Ironic, after 40+ years, where all of that is reversed...
I did not know the car came with aluminum lug nuts!

[Harvey Weidman]

Greg,
Come by EASY this Saturday and you'll get some opinions
H

[Greg D.]

Oh I'm coming, but I think it's the OP that wanted opinions... I'm debating bringing the 911 or 912 ;-)

[Harvey Weidman]

Oh I'm coming, but I think it's the OP that wanted opinions... I'm debating bringing the 911 or 912 ;-)

Sorry, I meant for Blink to come over the Bay.....I know you wouldn't have to be asked.
H

[john rice]

Since no one with this experience has chimed in.. I will give it a shot. Warning: my impressions are from a long time ago. [I went through a long period when early 911s were cheap and plentiful of buying and trying virtually every spec long hood 911. I had concluded that it wasn't possible to really get to know a car via a relatively brief drive of a friend's car, so.. I enjoyed buying a bunch of them. Unfortunately I needed to sell them down the line for space/$$ reasons.] I will also mention that I wouldn't be surprised if my impressions conflict with published accounts relating to specific performance. So be it.

Also, forget buying a good example and upgrading the performance. The present cost structure makes this a dead end. However, it is easy to find examples with good 3.0 or similar engine, etc. swaps. Changing anything on one of these cars will devalue it these days so you are vastly better off finding a good one that has been nicely upgraded and paying less for it.
I am suspecting that you may not be that familiar with all the specs and potential upgrades you could encounter. This makes a careful PPI, preferably by whomever you would trust to work on it, very important. Some dislike any mods. As long as they are well done and you understand how they relate to value and what you want in a car, I have always felt that there are enough dead stock examples that owning an enthusiast's 911 [hot rod] is merely following the example set by the factory of upgrading as desired.

Back to stock 2.0T vs 2.2T:

The 2.0 is a bit lighter, has less suspension, shorter wheelbase, and usually fewer options. I believe these also had smaller tires. Guarantee it will feel livelier and either "more fun" or "kinda scary" if you drive it fast. Brakes? What brakes? Suspension and shift action feel decidedly sloppy compared to later cars.

In terms of low vs top end power and torque; they didn't feel much different. The added bits on the 2.2 diminished whatever increase in power it might have had. To me it is a wash.

The 2.2- same but- a bit heavier, longer wheelbase is immediately noticeable, better brakes, slightly plusher, and probably a few options the early car won't have. This changes the driving experience into... much less twitchy, decent brakes, still considerable lean in hard corners but much more predictable. My recollection is that the 2.2T was that they were rather boring. Not at all quick feeling, rather slow to respond to inputs, but much more comfortable to cruise around in- especially at highway speeds. [I particularly remember the 2.2 as feeling very sedate, almost like driving Porsche's version of a "granny car".]

The comparisons mentioned above jumps from 2.0 to 2.4. The 2.4T is a very different in feel and performance from the 2.2 [it feels heavier, plusher, much stronger performance, and a lot more common options that will affect feel and performance].

You also need to understand that over the life of the 2.0 the early 911 evolved into the T vs S, and then included a T, E and S.. all within this 2.0 engine run. There were a lot of differences between these individual 2.0T models, although their real world performance didn't differ significantly. Drive an early example and you are struck by how much like an advanced 356 they feel and are more similar in build. Drive a later one and they feel much closer overall to a 2.2. Also, I also have noticed that it is rare to see genuine, as delivered, examples of these cars on the market. Many owners have little idea of the actual specs and most of these cars have been rebuilt more than once at this point, usually with whatever a given owner wanted or what was on the shelf as "stock".

I hope this is helpful to you. It is the best I can do with the considerable time period since I owned examples of both.

[Greg D.]

I'm surprised nobody else chimed in. John, was it a 2.0T for sure or a 2.0 US (L?) - as the 68T was never imported if I remember right...
Because the one I drove, a 68 T "real" european car, was...i'm gonna regret this... "a dog"... (sorry, so sorry, but that's how it felt). The US 2.0 L was stronger... Wasn't the 2.0 euro T a 110 hp only engine? It sounded better but did not feel much stronger than my big bore 912....worth more though ;-)