Which 911S?

[rhart]

If a guy wanted to acquire a 911S (early), which one to buy? I want to get opinions from the regulars here.

1967 thru 1973...is there any of these that are UNDESIRABLE?

Thanks

[Chuck Miller]

I've been asked this a number of times.....

ALL the Early S's between '67 and '73 are uniquely significant ... the '70 and '71 2.2 S's are very similar, but even between those there is uniqueness..

It' all about condition.....
A good running example of any of the Early S's will bring a thrill to both the heart, and the seat of the pants, of its owner......

Sorry, not much help

[Macroni]

I've been asked this a number of times.....

ALL the Early S's between '67 and '73 are uniquely significant ... the '70 and '71 2.2 S's are very similar, but even between those there is uniqueness..

It' all about condition.....
A good running example of any of the Early S's will bring a thrill to both the heart, and the seat of the pants, of its owner......

Sorry, not much help

I agree w/ Chuck. Hard to help except to echo.......

For me the early short wheel base cars get my blood stirring. If I were to start over again I think I would study the differences between the model years. Then I would determine configuration, Coupe [w/ or w/o Sunroof] or Targa. Then it would be all about condition.....

[sithot]

All are great choices but I like the lighter cars. You can hardly go wrong with any of them.

Good luck,

Tom

[jaudette3]

The others who have already posted are more knowledgeable than me - which doesn't stop me from being more opinionated than them. There are real differences between these four groups. Here are some of my impressions from an average enthusiast driver point of view:

1967-68
--------
The short wheel bases. I'm a great fan of 356's. The SWB 911's are a bit like a cross between a 356 and later 911's: somewhat primitive while at the same time with high quality parts; light; twitchy! As you know, early 911's are, umm, prone to over-steer and are therefore unsafe at any speed. SWB's are much twitchier than the later cars - which makes them great fun to drive. If you had to win races for a living, having to drive a SWB at 10/10 all the time would probably wear you out, but as pure fun they are hard to beat.

1969
-----
Now we get to the long wheel base era. But everything is relative. It's not like you're suddenly into a limo. '69's, with their 2.0 engines, are a bit more refined than the SWB's, but you still live on the revs and marvel at what an idiot Nader was every time you drive one.

1970-1971
----------
Favored by many for their relatively narrow power bands which occur at high RPM's. It's no accident that many of these have the tachometer rotated about 90 degrees to the left. Anything below 4,000 is irrelevant. Your dedication to driving these in the proper RPM range is rewarded by immediate response with snap - and the sound of that amazing engine. A requirement with these cars is that the quarter windows must be left open. They don't have anything to do with ventilation - they are there to enhance listening to that sweet engine. These are visceral cars that pump adrenaline. Less over-steer than the SWB's - but still not a good idea to get complacent.

1972-1973
----------
Moving on to the 2.4's. While the earlier cars make a bit of a fuss about things, the 2.4's are stating to make the difficult look easy - they're (almost) smooth. More torque with a wider power band means that you don't *have to* live at high revs - but it's still more fun there. You can actually maintain a little decorum in your neighborhood in one of these. 2.4's have always reminded me of the perfect wife - the rare lady/slut hybrid.

There's one other component I forgot to mention. The transmission. Up until 1972 the cars were equipped with the 901 5-speed, which has the somewhat unique dogleg first gear. Some love them, some hate them. Starting in 1972, they were equipped with the 915 5-speed with the more conventional shift pattern. If you tend to rowdiness it's hard to beat an earlier car with a short-gear 901.

They're all great!

Cheers,
JohnA

[Edwin Ek]

I think John covered it very nicely. The only things I'd add are that the '72 cars have external oil filler flaps, which I think is cool, that injected cars ('69 - '73) are different than carbureted ones, and that higher compression motors ('67-'71) are nice.

Additionally, coming from a guy who owns a Targa, get a coupe.

[a911s]

Great synopsis by John!

The difference in handling between a SWB and a LWB is not that significant in my opinion - as long as they both have good working similar suspensions under them (tires/wheels, shocks, torsion bars, sway bars). However, a good stock SWB can be great fun to drive at the limit because of the simpler suspension, the small tire size and that motor - the speeds are lower and the car requires more car control awareness from the driver. I really had a great time driving Kenik Hassel's '66 at SOW racetrack last fall. I drove something like seven 911s that day, including a '70 with 2.2L MFI, '71 with 2.5L, '71 with 2.8L MFI and '72 w/ 3.0L MFI. Kenik's was the last one, and the only essentially stock SWB. I had a blast, and it was the perfect ending to a great day!

No S is undesirable. They are all great cars. My fave stock 911S from a pureness viewpoint is probably a '67: the original S, very narrow body, lots of vintage touches, a 901, a little lighter weight and that screamer 2 liter motor with carbs. My favorite driver 911S is a '72, especially if it's been upgraded with a 2.7RS MFI motor and R wheels. The '72 also has a narrow body and chrome trim, plus it has a 915, that funky oil door and retractable seat belts.

[Gburner]

Is this normal body roll for a stock 911?

[Alan B]

I know much less than everyone who has responded to this thread, but I'll add my $.02. That's the great thing about this board, everyone agrees that my $.02 is worth that.

This is the early S registry, so it's heresy to think about other 911s, except the 64-66 when the S wasn't available yet. That said, there are reasons to think about the other cars.

The 911S is designed to get the most out of the cc's available. As John wrote, everything happens about 4000 RPM. What he didn't mention is that it happens fast. Those who don't know the car, or aren't great drivers, can get surprised easily. Stomp on the accelerator at 3000 RPM coming out of a turn and you'd better be on the straight part of the road when you get to 4500. Keeping the car in the power band is great fun, and there is nothing like the sound of an early car as it comes "on song" as the British say.

In 1972 Car and Driver compared the T, E, and S. They found that that at Riverside Raceway they preferred the T because it was more predictable. Much more low end torque and a much more progressive (vs on/off) power curve. It was much less expensive then and it's much less expensive now. Scott Turnbull recently wrote me that the 72T is one of the best daily drivers of the early cars. 2.4 for some extra power, MFI (US cars) and the oil tank moved forward with the 911R-like external oil filler.

The S is special, and the T is a turtle, but there is a place for turtles as well as hares.

Alan

[Macroni]

They're all great!

Cheers,
JohnA

John,
That was great; eductational.
Luke