1974 Carrera USA Info Thread

[CurtEgerer]

My #136, 11/73 build has the factory crush tubes.

I also remember reading something indicating that there is a difference in how much the bumpers extend outward based upon bumper shock mounting or crush tube mounting. Seems like it would be the same since the bellows is the same for both. Can anyone address this?

[M_deJong]

here is a nice S discussed here before

raj

http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...ervation-Class

Interesting no one noticed that car is a "T" or normal, not an "S" by the VIN plate. 9114102369.

[M_deJong]

Agreed on all point except the slow part. I don't think a '74 911 is any slower than a '73 T and I doubt a '74S is much slower than a '73S. Heresy, I know.

[Flat Six, inc.]

SCs are great but I do top-ends on them constantly because of broken head studs. I had an '81 SC in here with 14,000 miles on it....the car was PERFECT...except for the 8 broken head studs....:/

[CurtEgerer]

'74's are not bad cars. They are slow but not bad.

Obviously, I've failed miserably ....

C&D Performance Testing.jpg

[M_deJong]

Re-reading the Feb '74 C&D test, they comment that the 74 911 and 911S are about as fast as the '73 T & S. They also say (as does R&T Jan 74) that the bumper shocks are a mandatory $138 option (but as we now know not all cars got them!). Also Bobby Allison thinks they handle uniquely/poorly and are not suited for novice drivers.

I have both these mags and would be happy to scan them if anyone is interested.

[RSTarga]

I don't know how the magazines do their road tests, but those numbers for the 74 are the same as for a Carrera RS. IMHO not really possible. I think the 75 numbers are more credible. I thought they shortened the gears a bit to get close to the 0-60 numbers but the top speed was affected as shown in the 75 numbers.

[oemexp]

The "Road Test" Magazine reprint I have lists 8.6 to 60 for the Carrera in '75. Frére lists it as 7.3 which is realistic. He (Frére) also timed the Carrera RS at 5.5 seconds to 60. So a car ('74 Carrera) that weighed about +/-200 kg more (approximately 400+ pounds) and had 50 or so less horsepower did the sprint in 5.8 seconds. BS. I drove one of these when it was relatively new and it was no rocket. If you've ever had the thrill of driving a car that would bury the speedometer at redline and go through the paces at low 13's in the quarter you know what a real sub "6" 0-60 run feels like. The '74 Carrera was not that car.

All the 0 to 60 mph times are so noisy and depend on launch, surface traction, motor characteristics etc. that they are basically nonsense as a comparison tool. 0 to 100mph or even better to use passing speed times such as 40 - 100 are much more telling. I think the published 0 - 60 times for my 1977 930 are around 5.5 sec also because of the basic characteristics of the motor. But I'll be happy to drag race an RS in the 1/4 mile any time. I've owned and driven lots of 2.7L MFI cars and I currently own the 74 Carrera shown on my thread on this site and they behave completely differently. The MFI cars don't get going off the line and the CIS cars don't transition well during shifts (no throttle response after lifting). I think it's really hard to say I've driven them so I know what the 0 - 60 time should have been when they tested them. Unless you want to flatly state that the tests results are totally purchased to sell cars? If that's the case, maybe the RS specs are a little off also.

Also, Maybe I've been living under a rock for the past 30 years while buying and selling all of these Porsche cars but I would love to see scale data showing a 400 lb difference between a 73 RS and a 74 Carrera. The curb weight difference between the 73 S and 74 C is 5 lbs according to the Porsche spec books. I know the RS is a light weight but I challenge anybody to show actual scale data to prove this. I base this on race car builds I've done where we remove so much metal and parts to make the car almost useless and still have a hard time getting 400 lbs out of a 911.

Mark

[CurtEgerer]

Tom, my paper explains the many variables in testing and why there are huge descrepancies in 0-60 and 1/4 mile times amongst testers. Clearly, one can't compare Road Test to Frere to C&D to R&T to Porsche factory - apples and oranges. The C&D numbers are the best (only?) comparative numbers available. Unless C&D made a decision in 1965 to cook the numbers to make the 74 Carrera look good 9 years later, the data in the chart is logical and progressive as displacement/HP increased. Its the comparison between the numbers that counts, not the numbers themselves.

Using 1/4 mile times and 0-60 numbers don't mean much with this type of car - that's why I stated that in the paper. But it's the only objective comparison available. Karl Ludvigsen, Road & Track and Car & Driver all independently described the 74 Carrera as having a performance increase versus the 73 911S (it only became a "slow car" 10 years ago or so, coinciding with the rise in values of early 911s, i.e. my $75,000 73S must be faster than a $20,000 74 Carrera ). All 3 were critical of the 75 Carrera in describing its weight increase, long gearing, and decrease in torque and HP. 75 was the year it all started to go to hell, not 74.

It's really a simple equation: weight-gearing-power = performance.

74 Carrera vs 73 911S:

Weight increased 1% (25 pounds, worst case scenario) - 400 pounds?! Urban legend, listed right after Bigfoot.

Gearing is the same

Displacement increased a massive 15% (same % increase as going from a 327 to a 396 big block Chevy!).

Torque increased 9.5%

Horsepower decreased 8%


How could the 2 cars not have very similar performance? Answer: they do.

[rynoshark]

What is the actual weight differences between 1974 and 1975 Carreras? What contributed to the weight increase between those two years? The mirrors hadn't changed yet, the interior was the same, the body was the same (except change from ducktail to whaletail), so what caused the weight change?