short wheelbase performance?

[james]

I have a 2.4S at the moment and feel the need to add a short wheelbase car to my garage

I'm looking at a '65 & a '68 . Am i going to be underwelmed by the performance of these cars ? What would be a sensible motor upgrade to these cars to give a bit of extra perfomance without loosing the character of an early car?

[gruen911]

James,
If you are used to driving a 73S,then you will probably be a little underwhelmed by the 65-68 normale. However, it is a very nice riding car and has lots of character and smooth acceleration especially once you get to 2nd,3rd and 4th gears. If you are looking for the ultimate gokart experience which only the SWB's can give you, then a 65-68 2.0S will be more than sufficient to give you the thrill you are probably looking for. True, it is not as torquey as the 2.4 and larger displacement motors that followed, but the high strung, high rev'ing 2.0S in a SWB has a unique feeling all it's own.
In between rebuilding my 2.0 normale engine to 2.0S spec 2 years ago, I swapped in a 2.4s engine that had been ported to 38mm and had 911E cams.
I always thought that the best of all worlds would be a bigger displacement engine in a SWB. Sure, it was fast and powerful, definitely more powerful than my 2.0S engine, but the extra power and torque seemed to make the car feel a little sloppy thru tight corners and a little unstable at high speeds.
Once I finished the rebuild and put the new rebuilt 2.0S engine in, I realized after a few days of feeling the new engine out that although I had given up a little hp across the board, the high strung 2.0S engine had a character all its own. It drove almost like an old race car - which is more or less what Porsche intended it to be...
George K told me last Spring when we met down in St Gottahrd for our infamous day trip together, that the reason he thought the 911RS was so popular was that the lightweight LWB 73 911 body seemed to be the perfect size and weight for the higher dispacement 2.7 engine. Things just came together fortuitously for Porsche, and that's the main reason why everyone still talks about the RS 32 years later.
I have been thinking about George's idea alot as I drive thru Switzerland in my 67 911S, and I must say that while the 2.7 motor was the perfect engine for the early LWB models, the little 2.0S 160+ DIN motor is to me the perfect engine for the SWB. Despite the smaller 2.0 displacement, the car holds its own off the line with most sportscars out there today or back in the day. But give it a chance to wind up the rev range, and it will bite most any other sportscar right on the ass. And talk about quick handling - with a 350mm Prototipo in your hands, this car feels like its on a rail.
If you make it down to Zurich, feel free to look me up and feel it for yourself.
Good luck.

[sithot]

I personally like the feel of a SWB car. It does not suffer fools but then again it "speaks" to my rear end very well to the point I know what it's up to in turns. Trailing throttle oversteer or worse yet "chickening out" in a turn is an interesting foilble that is completely manageable by using common sense and better driving technique.
As far as power goes, they have all they need to make them interesting.

Funny thing about power; it will get you into more trouble than it will get you out of.
The small cc bikes that I ride TEACH you to carry speed into a turn vs. slowing down to a snails pace and then ramming the throttle wide open to catch up. The best of these are the 50cc bikes with 7 or more speed transmissions. If you can't carry the speed through the turn you spend what seems like an enternity getting it back up to speed!

All of that said, I'd do a nice 2.0 liter with higher compression, mild porting and perhaps a broader based cam than say a 67-S type.
Also, wider wheels and tires go a long ways toward curing some of the aforementioned "character" traits.

SWB's are the closest thing to a 356 but with more power. That alone makes them a lot of fun.

Best of luck,

Tom

[gruen911]

Tom,
If you ever think of pumping up Shorty's power plant, I have an extra set of 2.2S P&C's I bought from Rick Cabell earlier this year. They are sitting on the shelf for when I stumble into a good deal on a 2.4 911T Targa in a funky color that needs a rebuild. Because it's you, and I have a "thing" for Shorty, I would consider handing em off to you. You already have the perfect cams (early solex grind). The only thing left would be to pick up a set of 2.2/2.4S heads and re-jet your Webers.
Don't expect me to race you for pink slips.....

[bob tilton]

excellent topic! the SWB cars are often overlooked but i think are FINALLY getting some recognition.
so many times you read/hear "if you're looking for an early 911 then buy a LWB, the SWB cars are reserved for vintage racing".
i've only driven one LWB car and that was around the block a couple times. it's not fair for me to offer any performance reviews. however in that short drive i could tell it was different. the owner of this same car drove my after the 2.7 transplant and walked away saying my car was much more "raw". it was a car that required you're full attention.
my initial plans in installing a new engine in the car was to punch out my non-original 2.2T to S specs. it seems the short stroke 2.2 has a cult following. then a ready to run rebuilt 2.7S came along and a price i could not pass on so i went with that and i have not been disappointed.
a larger displacement engine is great fun in a SWB.

[sithot]

i've only driven one LWB car and that was around the block a couple times. it's not fair for me to offer any performance reviews. however in that short drive i could tell it was different.

The difference between a "SWB" and a "LWB" is almost as different as a "LWB" compared to a "SHC" (short hood car ) beginning in 1974.

It's very noticeable. The LWB and SHC cars differences are mostly due to increasing weight (and bumpers hanging out at the ends of the car).

Best,

Tom

[roblav]

There are some very good comments and descriptions above. I've driven and owned many "non-bumper" 911's, and the SWB cars are much more raw. The front end and feedback to the steering wheel feels very like driving my formula car at the track. But you'll need to get rid of that massive steering wheel and add width to the rims/tires. I'd recommend something like a 2.2S engine with webers for them. My 66 car needs rebuilt at the top end, and I was going to punch out the cylinders a few millimeters, install S heads, and keep the solex cams. I also have a Nardi wood steering wheel which seems to fit in well with the wood dash and 16 X 6 polished Fuchs. Decent wheels, tires, and a smaller steering wheel transform the car incredibly. The SWB cars are the best car out there where you actually feel like you are part of the car.

[Richard]

James,
I'm lucky to have a '73S that I've owned for over 20 years and a '67S that I purchased three years ago and did a home restoration on. The LWB car drives a little better and feels a little more modern. The stock 2.4S MFI motor is very strong, especially when it gets up on the S cams about 5,000 RPM. The '67S feels a little different because of it's short wheelbase. The car is tight as a drum but still feels a little older than my LWB car. I think the SWB pitches the car around a little more. The motor in my '67S was upgraded to a 2.2L by the PO. He was short on money and replaced the worn S cams with Solex cams when the motor was rebuilt. Although the Weber IDS carb motor is very strong and makes excellent power from 3,000 to 7,000 RPM it doesn't have the explosiveness of my 2.4S. The Solex cams may be great for all around driving but IMHO the S cams are the way to go with this car...and I plan to change my '67S back to original S cams in the future. If you are looking for a strong engine for a SWB car that still retains the character of the early car I'd vote for a 2.2S spec. engine or a 2.5 short stroke motor...with either Solex or S cams. If you build a 2.2S motor with S cams, stock 9.9:1 compression and do some head port work and put it in a SWB car youwill be blown away by the performance. One other thought is that there are some very good aftermarket cams out there that you can also consider. Camshaft design has come a long way in the past 40 years and some aftermarket cams offer the performance of the S cams and more torque too. Check the message boards here and on Pelican for recommendations. Finally, a SWB car has a different personality than a LWB car so I think it makes a terrific companion car to your LWB car. Your only problem will be chosing which one to drive. Good Luck

[John Fusco]

Mine has the solex's with 2.2E pistons and will go to the S's when the time comes. My venturis are the orig. 30's so there is room to move up there too.
- Is it true that the L or T heads are a very good base for bigger valves ? Think I read that on Pelican. Would it be sacreligeous to sacrifice them ?

The biggest think I notice with my car is that it takes a bit of time to get it going, it doesn't like to be rushed into second gear but once it catches in second it really jumps.
The only thing that might concern me about going to a bigger engine are the brakes, but they stop my car pretty good as it is.
The other, HUGE thing - It really is shocking the diff going from 7's (the PO's phone dials) to flat 6's - both on the PO's 185's - Must take some serious skills to drive it hard on the orig 41/2's !
Be interesting to see how she handles when I get my new wheels/tires on.

Oh, and this is not a perf. thing, but the sound of the car on a downshift - kind of an evil whining howl, is something that sends chills down your spine every time.

John

[james]

thanks for the detailed replies

I drove a friends all stock 66/67 'S' on 4.5" fuchs and loved it, especially the delicate handling. What a wonderfull little car, and more importantly the wife loved it too

The problem will be trying to find an 'S'

I assume the '65 I am considering with 130bhp will give me the same feel as the 'S' but without the top end power ?