Peter M Posted 1September, 2014 Report Share Posted 1September, 2014 I bought this edition of Car & Driver because of this test and was expecting it to be straight laced and even a bit dour. To my surprise they couldn't have been more excited about the then new Carrera 3.2. Sure they don't excuse the inexcusable but I think their assessment is on the money and it's well worth a read and even a bit wacky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
911oclock Posted 1September, 2014 Report Share Posted 1September, 2014 Thanks for posting this Peter. I don't know anyone who test drove or bought a new Carrera in the 80s so, this was for me a great insight and comparison on how they drive today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB911 Posted 1September, 2014 Report Share Posted 1September, 2014 I want one, thanks for posting the test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smule Posted 1September, 2014 Report Share Posted 1September, 2014 Not clear on whether the car tested is running a US 200hp engine or ROW 231hp which we had in our market ...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clutch-monkey Posted 1September, 2014 Report Share Posted 1September, 2014 says 200hp in the appendix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter M Posted 1September, 2014 Author Report Share Posted 1September, 2014 The test car ran the 200hp low compression motor but did 13.9 second quarter miles. Amazing!At first I thought it must of been running a shorter diff ratio but they still got 149mph out of it compared to the usually quoted 151mph top speed so it appears to have the same gearing as the ROW cars.I've been finding the comparisons with the other performance cars of this era and earlier interesting with the reality of the test results of the time often not matching the "legend" particularly with regard to a number of muscle cars that I've long aspired to own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clutch-monkey Posted 1September, 2014 Report Share Posted 1September, 2014 muscle cars back then used sae gross hp right? basically stuck the engine on an engine dyno with tuned length headers and used that as the claimed hp for the production car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted 1September, 2014 Report Share Posted 1September, 2014 Nice find, thanks for posting. I too find a sub 6sec 0-100kmh and sub 14sec quarter impressive. I must be used to power these days as they dont feel that fast. Be interested to see the launch and gear changes in the test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazzieman Posted 1September, 2014 Report Share Posted 1September, 2014 I love the wimple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted 2September, 2014 Report Share Posted 2September, 2014 good read, although i was a bit perplexed with the nun lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazzieman Posted 2September, 2014 Report Share Posted 2September, 2014 good read, although i was a bit perplexed with the nun lol Most would be nunplussed by her presence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coastr Posted 2September, 2014 Report Share Posted 2September, 2014 Nice find, thanks for posting. I too find a sub 6sec 0-100kmh and sub 14sec quarter impressive. I must be used to power these days as they dont feel that fast. Be interested to see the launch and gear changes in the test Most would be down a bit on factory power due to age (unless freshly rebuilt), and it's unlikely that any owner out there thrashes their Porsche as hard as a bunch of road testers with someone else paying for the tyres. If you ask me, the reason they don't feel that fast is that a lot of newer cars these days have instant torque off the line - this is also one of the Porsches treats, but drive a 4.0 commodore with an auto and they positively leap off the line. So a lot of new cars feel much faster. And more so with a lot of smaller cars now running turbo 4s with a pancake flat torque curve right off the line. You also have to remember that the 200 vs 231 (and the US was already on unleaded) might come later in the range, and the lower part of the power/torque curve might be similar. You have to go back to the USA in the 1980s as alluded to in this piece - factory 'muscle' cars like the Corvette were a joke - lucky to push 200 HP out of a 350 ci V8, and weighing more and built with terrible build quality. The national speed limit was 55 mph. There were no fast benzes, no fast BMWs, and all the Detroit stuff was either oversized FWD V8s or wheezy carburettered economy cars. In OZ in 1984 you could just get the last of the Ford V8s, Holden was selling a wheezy 5.0 Commodore with about 160hp and the flood of turbo'd Jap cars was yet to really start. The 911s were the lifeline for anyone wanting a serious drive in the USA and that is why Porsche sold so many - they really didn't have a lot of competition and were nearly the only ones left even bothering with the market. Even here - cast your mind back before the WRX dropped and think what you could buy that had some real performance. It's easy to forget in the age of 500 hp HSVs and Turbo Falcons and AMG Benzes how few true performance cars were around for a long period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.