911S with wrong Transmission. should I change?

[Sunbeam47]

My 1970 911S has a 915 transmission bolted up to a non-standard 2.2 MFI motor. Obviously this is the wrong motor and transmission for my car so it will never be a "numbers-matching" car. My question to the group is should I seek out a 911 transmission for this car (I think it should have a 911) or stick with the 915 box. Not sure of the pros and cons of the two other than the fact that the 915 weighs more. Are the ratios of the 901 better suited to the 2.2MFI? Seems to drive ok but this is the only 911S I have ever driven.
Thanks

[edmayo]

I can think of no good reason to change.

[LongRanger]

I'm One o' Those Guys

6 years ago, when I first set out to look for an Early 911 . . .

. . . I specifically wanted a car with the 901/911 'dog-leg' 'box

Why?

'Cause that's how Porsche first conceived of the car. 5-speed gearboxes were pretty darn exotic when the 911 was first spec'd. And Porsche chose a configuration that lined-up w/ then-contemporary race-car practice --- ie. 1st gear was for 'moving-off' . . . nothing more. (Think about it . . . how often + when are you in first gear?) So --- they stuck 1st out somewhere where it was out-of-the-way of the gears that drivers mostly use. Practical

But when the 915 came along --- the pattern changed. Don't know if any reason was given, at the time. It was just Porsche's choice, right?

But the Other Side of that choice is . . .

. . . why did they change? I mean . . . the 915 could've been stronger/better/etc --- and still kept the 'dog-leg' pattern

But Porsche didn't do that --- did they?


IMO? . . .

. . . that subtle change --- like low-compression, and bigger displacement, and seat-belt buzzers, and all the other 'conveniences'+ 'safety features' that 911s took on . . .

. . . represent a watering-down of the original concept of the car . . .

. . . a compromising of what a Sports Car is supposed to be . . .

. . . a catering/bowing-down to the Customer . . .



. . . just to sell more cars



Easier to use --- just like 'other' cars

And that's business. And Porsche never built cars for 'fun' or 'principles.' They know what sells and that's what they build. Fine



Well -------- I'm no 'consumer' . . . and I have zero interest in convenience, ease-of-use, utility, etc. And I d@mn-sure didn't buy an Early 911 'cause it's like 'other' cars . . . or anything else

I bought an Early 911 because there's nothing else like it. Period


Really. If I wanted 'convenience' or 'ease-of-use' . . . then I'd buy a big/stupid pick-up. Or a nice Camry. Maybe a van. Practical



So. Before you plunk-down your Hard-earned on anything that goes into your car --- ask yourself . . .


. . . why did I buy an Early 911, anyway?



And One More Thing --- something to think about . . .

IMO . . . the only difference between a 'matching numbers' car and one that isn't? . . .


. . . is the price.

In other words --------------------------- the experience is the same . . . minus a coupla 'squiggles,' here + there . . .

. . . and maybe the money in your pocket


So . . .

Enjoy your choices . . .



. . . especially the Bad Ones

[raspy2point2]

Hi LongRanger-- the factory changed the 915 pattern for stop and go traffic ease of shifting. Yes another step away from the original concept. Chris

[csbush]

I drive 911s with both transmissions regularly. In my opinion the 915 is easier to live with. Depending on how original your car is, if it were me, I would find a 901 transmission and parts, and just hang on to them. Even without matching numbers, if you were ever to sell the car it would be more appealing to a future buyer if you had the correct transmission available. And hey, if the 915 ever crunches itself, you have a spare

[Greg D.]

>In my opinion the 915 is easier to live with

I'm siding with with Chuck, despite LongRanger's convincing formatting and font colors ;-) Joke aside, I have a dogleg and a 915 and I really don't see any positives to the dogleg either, other than the historical aspect - which in your case is kinda moot ? Even that is interesting, 356s only had 4 gears and therefore a standard H pattern, so it's an early 911 thing only and you could view it as a failed experiment just as your could view it as a" holy 901 thing"... Either way it was correct for that year.

To me it comes down to every day ease of use: If you own a 901 and an automatic daily driver, no problem. If you own a collection of old cars and 2 modern daily drivers at your house, and all except the 901 car are standard H pattern stickshifts, the 901 car will drive you insane.

For me driving the dogleg is a pain in the a$$ because I have 25y of muscle memory of standard H-pattern gearboxes - if it wasn't matching # I'd have replaced it with a 4 speed or something (on my 912). If I ever convert one of my 912s to a flat 6 I'll put a 915 as well. Honestly one of the primary reasons I chose a 1972 when I bought my early 911 was the 915 (and the oil door)... Again I'm not saying the dogleg is "worse", it's correct for your car and has a cool history (although I prefer the shift feel of my 915 but that could be the condition of it). I'm just saying *it depends on what else is in your garage* ;-) Given that your car is already not matching #, why bother, enjoy your 915, even buying a 901 will not restore your matching numbers so why bother...

PS: Wasn't the 915 "stronger" in terms of torque it could withstand before blowing up ?

[Flieger]

I like the 911. I've never driven a 915 though. I've heard 915s shift worse and a friend who has driven both said my 911 shifter felt better so maybe I'm spoiled. I learned to drive on a normal pattern (BMW 320i) but switching to the 911 never bothered me. Maybe since the cars felt so different (911 lacking all creature comforts and being louder and more raw) there was never any confusion as to which car I was in. Maybe it is because I learned switching early on.

I do like having 2 and 3 in the same plane since the roads I like are very twisty and so top of 3rd gear is as fast as is prudent (mostly because of the fuzz).

That said, I don't think I would go through the trouble of swapping the transaxle of a car that otherwise runs fine just to save a few pounds and get a better shift pattern.

The thing I have the hardest time with is shifting my dad's Westy. That lever is so long and with all the linkage to the back of the car I can't tell at all what gear I'm in. And the pushing down for reverse thing baffled me.

[Gearby]

"The thing I have the hardest time with is shifting my dad's Westy. That lever is so long and with all the linkage to the back of the car I can't tell at all what gear I'm in."

Reading that totally takes me back to driving a tailshifter 914. Yikes!!!

[Richardnew]

As far as the original 911 concept goes keep in mind that one requirement was that 2 golf bags could fit in the front compartment.

Richard Newton

[Jay Laifman]

I regularly switch back and forth between both. Emotionally, I like the 911 box. It is smoother and lighter. I get a kick out of the dog leg 1st. I also like the mushroom shift knob - but which requires a different hand/finger position to feel right. When I was growing up, there was a ad in the 60's Christophorus that was a picture of the stick shift with a hand and driving glove - and a feather. Somehow that image always comes back to me when I shift the 911 box. But, I'd never ever take my 915 out of my 73 - and I similarly never liked the '87+ for its G50 tranny.