Some things never change -- '72 vs. '66

Here are some quotes from an article by RT Anderson in the Nov. 1972 Pano:

The '72 did not have the same quality as the '66 -- the '66 had more uniform panel gaps that were also "better matched." The tire pressure guage, sun visor mirrors and lug nut socket with teflon inserts was missing from the '72. The trunk "rugs" in the '66 had a better finish and were better fitted than in the '72. The oil dipstick and gauge were not in synch on the '72.

The '72 (an S) was a "much quieter car" and had a "more solid feeling." But that was not necessarily a benefit as "some of the 'man and machine' relationship" was lost.

The handling was greatly imporved, and he attributes that to the front spoiler. He like d the bigger displacement engine a lot more, but doesn't talk much about the "S" cam curve or other engine characteristics.

- anything sound familiar to Porsche buyers in this newer century?

You trying to pick a fight? ;) It's bad enough that the latest EXCELLENCE published a pic of a gorgeous black '66 911 and tried to pass it off as a 2.2-2.4 911S. :D

Nah - just thought it was interesting to see how Porsche owners are never satisfied. Of course, PAG was never satisfied, and that's how the car got improved so much over the years.

Yes, interesting parallel.

And here I thought the "man and machine" relationship started to degrade in MY 1974.

I have a BMW X5 - fantastic vehicle, handles like a sport sedan, do anything, go anywhere in grand comfort (heated steering wheel HIGHLY recommended this time of year :) ). But every input feels like it goes through Mission Control for processing and approval before feedback is felt, just like most modern computers - I mean cars. I haven't driven a 996, but sure hope they don't exhibit this trait.

Subsequently, driving the '73 feels like I'm holding each wheel spindle with my friggin' hand. :D

Good enough for me!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RandyWebb
Nah - just thought it was interesting to see how Porsche owners are never satisfied. Of course, PAG was never satisfied, and that's how the car got improved so much over the years.

---

One could make the argument that Porsche kept making them better, and then 1974 came, and it wasn't until 1990 that the company actually started making meaningful improvements to the 911 again. The oil crisis, safety and emissions legislation, and hard economic times all conspired to create a 'one step forward, two steps back' era for Porsche's flagship in its classic years.

And the odd thing is, it's this middle era that most people (although not most of us) regard as the defining years of the 911. :rolleyes:

I agree, Jack. But there are some improvements even during those years (most of which have found there way into the suspension, brakes, and engine compartment of my '73). It wasn't all smog equipment and dead-luxo weight.

I don't think PAG reached the 'quality and feel' of the early 911 cars again until the 993's (then lost it again). The similarities are uncanny. I've driven a bunch of the mid-late 80's cars, and a handfull of 996 types, and they are just so different (mid-80's read: med quality, poor feel)(996's read: cheap quality, detached feel).

The new cars aren't bad, just a sign of the times to stay competitive w/other high tech sports cars. That said, the Ferarri 360 is high tech but still has the 'feel' of earlier cars. Wish I knew someone who has a new GT3 (anyone? anyone? Beuler?) that I could try.

Just my humble opinion (not to start fights)!

I went for a ride as a passenger on the track in an '04 GT3 last week. I'm not as much of a fan of the styling of the car as I am of the early 911's, but it was a pretty phenomenal ride, nonetheless. 380 hp, and very close to 3000 pounds, combined with a much more sophisticated suspension -- it's a potent combination, and it made me think that the reports of Porsche's death as a producer of great sports cars may be somewhat exaggerated. If I had 100K for a performance car, and I was looking for a car that could out-handle just about anything else on the road -- the GT3 would have more appeal to me than anything Porsche made in 1973.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. To expect the RS to still be a benchmark of performance 30+ years later is to deny the engineering progress that's taken place. It was a phenomenal moment in the 911 history, where agility, purpose, and power came together in an almost poetic way. But time marches on, and the GT3 Cup car, at 2400 pounds and 430 hp (going by memory on these stats) would certainly destroy a 73 RSR on any track out there.

The GT3 I rode in was certainly capable of better lap times than my RSR (sorta) clone.

I still like the vintage look and feel of the early cars, and that's still where my heart lies. But I was very impressed with the GT3.

Jack,

On the track, no doubt the newer car's have 30+ years of superiority in technology. On the road, you have to drive 'stupid' speeds in the newer cars to get the feel (PSM off of course) as an early car. Also, no matter thespeed, I think you summed it up nicely, still missing the poetry.

There was an Excellence article about 18 mos ago of the new GT2 vs. the '73 RS. It was pretty much in line w/your thoughts above (and mine as well). That said, $150K for an original RS vs. $100K for a new GT3, makes one pause for sure. Unfortunately I don't have that dilemna.