carrera rs v 70 911 s

[denson]

David:

Well said, and I think your thoughts are dead on. That is pretty much how this story goes. The rs is much better at low rpm's and pulls in all gears. It is true, that the s needs to be in a certain range to be effective.

Perhaps, I have become very used to the S after seven years. I need to get the rs out of more open roads and open her up a bit. Chances are I may feel a lot different about this. They are very different cars. I bet you had a blast with that 1100 cc motor. I have a 356 s and those 4 cylinders cars are a great deal of fun.

John

[pmjt]

I've been thinking about this since I posted earlier - and there is a different 'feel' i get in my 2.0S vs. the RS - then again there's a different 'feel' I get in the 356A to the 2.0S - all are, as an earlier poster pointed out, pivotal points in Porsche history.

With a 2.0 / 2.2S you can have a lot of laughs at low speeds, revving the nuts off them - yet the RS can get into dangerous speed territory and still feel remarkably competent.

My driving now tends to be: short, local trip = 356A and longer higher speed trip = RS.

I love the RS's behaviour so much, the 2.0S is going soon

Philip

[Flunder]

Hello John,

This is an interesting thread, eliciting a great deal of passionate discussion!

And, you are not alone in your assessment.

Here is an interesting excerpt from Jim Schrager's excellent book Buying Driving and Enjoying the Porsche 911 and 912 1965-1973 that expresses a sentiment similar to you own:

"The 2.2 911S has some very unusual characteristics, felt clearly when driving the car, but often overlooked in favor of the bigger displacement of the final early car, the 2.4 S. The 2.2 S has a torque curve unlike most other 911s, including the 2.4 S and even the 2.7 RS, in that the torque remains very high from 5,000 rpm to the redline. Because of this, driving a 2.2 S is a very special experience. The low-end torque is way up from the 2.0 S, and the top end is up as well. A good 2.2 S feels very much like a turbocharged car, with a giant power band high in the rpm range that simply won't quit."

Jim supports this statement with graphs depicting the torque curves of all the factory engine types. It is also worth noting that among his many cars, Mr. Schrager owns a 2.7 RS. Note that he is describing the characteristics of the engine, not the fact that the 2.7 RS makes more torque at every rpm on the graph, but does start falling off from its peak earlier on the curve. My guess is that the high compression 2.2 S pistons work better in maintaining torque with the long duration (more valve overlap) of the S camshaft. If so, a set of 9.5 or 10.0 pistons in a 2.7 RS may well extend the torque further out on the power band.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to hear more from the 2.2 S crowd!

[RSwannabe]

I agree that the 2.2S motor is a very special little beast. I have driven 2.7RS's and they are great, but I really like the short stroke, high comperssion, big cam motors like the 2.2S. It is not always all about power and torque, but the character of the motor. When I wanted more power in my 911 I stuck a 2.8 short stroke motor in it, which is like a 2.2S on steroids. It is a very different experieince from a 2.7RS. You have to work harder to get everything out of it, but I find that VERY rewarding.

So no, I do not think you are crazy to prefer your 2.2S over the RS. They are both great, but I feel motors like the 2.2S are more engaging.

[denson]

Flunder to the rescue!!.

I agree completely with the Schrager quote. I have that book and will be looking for it shortly. I am finding the smaller displacement, higher compression motor a very special motor. I love the rs, but have been finding the s more engaging.

Flunder/rswannabee, thanks for jumping in for a fellow s guy.

John

[raspy2point2]

Hi Brooke-- Your 2.8, now a 92mm piston with a 66mm crank comes out to a 2.6 engine I think, so is yours a 95mm piston and 66 crank? so it ends up being a 2.8 displacement ? thanks Chris 1970 2.2 911S

[fryardds]

Hello John,

This is an interesting thread, eliciting a great deal of passionate discussion!

And, you are not alone in your assessment.

Here is an interesting excerpt from Jim Schrager's excellent book Buying Driving and Enjoying the Porsche 911 and 912 1965-1973 that expresses a sentiment similar to you own:

"The 2.2 911S has some very unusual characteristics, felt clearly when driving the car, but often overlooked in favor of the bigger displacement of the final early car, the 2.4 S. The 2.2 S has a torque curve unlike most other 911s, including the 2.4 S and even the 2.7 RS, in that the torque remains very high from 5,000 rpm to the redline. Because of this, driving a 2.2 S is a very special experience. The low-end torque is way up from the 2.0 S, and the top end is up as well. A good 2.2 S feels very much like a turbocharged car, with a giant power band high in the rpm range that simply won't quit."

Jim supports this statement with graphs depicting the torque curves of all the factory engine types. It is also worth noting that among his many cars, Mr. Schrager owns a 2.7 RS. Note that he is describing the characteristics of the engine, not the fact that the 2.7 RS makes more torque at every rpm on the graph, but does start falling off from its peak earlier on the curve. My guess is that the high compression 2.2 S pistons work better in maintaining torque with the long duration (more valve overlap) of the S camshaft. If so, a set of 9.5 or 10.0 pistons in a 2.7 RS may well extend the torque further out on the power band.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to hear more from the 2.2 S crowd!

Yes, I think Jim has it right with this comment about the 2.2S engine. Some interesting background, to my knowledge Jim doesn't own a proper 2.2S model but instead has an absolutely spectacular, never rebuilt, correct serial # 2.2S engine transplanted into a 911T coupe with a very nice 901 box. Many years ago he let me drive this car and it really opened my eyes to the 'magic' of this engine and set me on a course to own one. Now that I have a nice example I would like to get back over to his place with Patrick and drive these cars side-by-side. That would be fun for sure.

I too share the same thoughts as others about the joy of driving the 2.2S cars but for me the RS is still the pick of the two in my garage. This model is simply brilliant as some of you know. It's sure fun to finally have a couple of cars that are done (for now) and ready to enjoy.

And yes a bump to 9.5-10.0 for the RS engine does very nice things.

[69Sman]

All these opinions boil down to one VERY simple fact: OBVIOUSLY you need more then ONE car...!

[denson]

Hey Stacy:

Perfect. I could live in a tiny house with a 20 car garage!

[RSwannabe]

Hi Brooke-- Your 2.8, now a 92mm piston with a 66mm crank comes out to a 2.6 engine I think, so is yours a 95mm piston and 66 crank? so it ends up being a 2.8 displacement ? thanks Chris 1970 2.2 911S

Chris,

Yes, a 2.8SS is a 66mm crank with 95mm pistons. The early 3.0 turbo case allows you to run the early 66mm crank with later 95mm cylanders, and heads. Throw in a set of custom pistons with 10.5:1 compression and you get a really fun combination.