Poor man's Porche

[Oiluj]

Alan,

I think Porsches to be well engineered vehicles and as a mechanical engineer have great respect for their design. However, I'm not counted amoung the cadre that "worship" them. Neither do I think that our classic Z's are more than what they are.

The 914, 914-6, 912 & 911T were indeed "Porsche" vehicles that the early, less expensive Z did trounce within it's class for several years running. That's not Porsche bashing, it's history.

Without any supporting data or documentation, whether this had an impact on Porsche's design or not is a matter of truely unqualified opinion. I think it probably did, you don't. I have no problem with that.

If anything, your comments disasscoiating the 914-6 as a Porsche product sounds a little bit like 911 snobbery to me... However, as you pointed out, Porsche is often considered to be a "benchmark" sports car brand. That's why it was pointed out in the M&S article that the Z beat the Porsches. To be compared against a superior product is actually a compliment to the Porsche brand.

My posts have obviously hit a raw nerve for you. Sorry about that.

This simple difference of opinion has taken-up too much bandwidth already, so this is my last post on the subject.

[HS30-H]

Julio,

I wouldn't worry about the bandwidth. It's discussion that makes a forum a forum. And I wouldn't say that you'd hit a raw nerve. More a case of piquing my interest....

However, I'm not counted amoung the cadre that "worship" them. Neither do I think that our classic Z's are more than what they are.

I hope you don't think that I "worship" the Porsche marque ( or any other marque ). Far from it. However, I do have an enormous amount of respect for Porsche's history and their dedication to motorsport. I am ex Porsche owner too, of course. I am just as embarrassed to see blind 'fan boy' style brand worship of Porsche as I am to see Porsche bashing.

The 914, 914-6, 912 & 911T were indeed "Porsche" vehicles that the early, less expensive Z did trounce within it's class for several years running. That's not Porsche bashing, it's history.

If anything, your comments disasscoiating the 914-6 as a Porsche product sounds a little bit like 911 snobbery to me... However, as you pointed out, Porsche is often considered to be a "benchmark" sports car brand. That's why it was pointed out in the M&S article that the Z beat the Porsches. To be compared against a superior product is actually a compliment to the Porsche brand.

I think you'll find that the 914 was called a Porsche in the USA market, but a VW-Porsche elsewhere - reflecting the source of its 1679cc engine. The 912 was 1582cc, and the 914-6 was 2 litre - yes? 1969 year 911T was 2 litre, with '70 and '71 year 911T being 2.2 litre. The 240Z had an engine capacity advantage over all of these, obviously.

Was the 911T running in SCCA C Production, head-to-head with the Datsun 240Z? I'm certainly no expert on SCCA racing history, but I do recall a certain amount of controversy over the fact that the 240Z was able to race in the C Production class. I believe many competitors wanted to see it bumped up to B Production, where it might have had a bigger fight on its hands.

Sorry to see that you won't post on the subject any more.

Cheers,

Alan T.

[gnosez]

I think a moment of reflection is needed. None of the cars, whether they be Porsche or Datsun, running in B or C Production were stock in any stretch of the word "stock". These were purpose built RACE cars, not some showroom car version.

It would be helpful to show perhaps the race results from a large number of SCCA stock car races where a 240 ran against a 911 (and no, a 914 doesn't count).

The public might have been fooled by the marketing department's ad campaign that Zs were out beating Porsche's when they failed to mention which model Porsche, but we shouldn't be.

In David G. Styles (Alan stop grinding your teeth) book he noted that the BSR 240 race car had a 1/4 mile time the same as a stock 2.7L Carrera.

[HS30-H]

I think a moment of reflection is needed. None of the cars, whether they be Porsche or Datsun, running in B or C Production were stock in any stretch of the word "stock". These were purpose built RACE cars, not some showroom car version.

The public might have been fooled by the marketing department's ad campaign that Zs were out beating Porsche's when they failed to mention which model Porsche, but we shouldn't be.

Yes, but they were of course limited by the rule book. The word 'Production' did actually imply something. My point being that anyone buying a new Datsun 240Z in 1970 and thinking he had a 'Porsche-beater' would have been, er, slightly misinformed.....

It would be helpful to show perhaps the race results from a large number of SCCA stock car races where a 240 ran against a 911 (and no, a 914 doesn't count).

I'm all ears!

In David G. Styles (Alan stop grinding your teeth) book he noted that the BSR 240 race car had a 1/4 mile time the same as a stock 2.7L Carrera.

Dreadful book, full of mistakes. Quite a lot of the 'history' seems to have been simply made up. Just last month we had another instance of a UK-based magazine journalist - despite being forewarned - using crock data from the Style book in an article he was writing. Now it's been repeated and therefore reinforced, with no retraction / correction or - seemingly - any regret. Hopeless.

But what do you make of the BSR 240 race car / stock Carrera 2.7 1/4 mile time comparison?

Alan T.

[gnosez]

I can personally attest that the BSR 240/280 was/is a bear to get off the line from a dead stop due to the gearing and engine rpm issues.

The Carrera was a love to take down the 1/4 in comparison.

[TomoHawk]

Car X is a "Poor man's" car Y.... 240Z is a poor man's Corvette/Porsche/whatever. Implied to be derogatory, as it suggests the owners of the "poor man's" car can't afford the ultimate...

I just smile to those people, as they are probably coming from a different perspective as I am (with my 280Z.) My Z is NOT a Porsche, so I wouldn't even compare it, just as a Sunfish isn't a sailing-yacht, bit it's just as fun (to me.)

BTW- I think Katz's English is getting better? the first time I know of some improving their English by typing things on an Internet discussion forum. :laugh:

Edited December 22, 2010 by TomoHawk

[Z Speed]

Well, if I was to replace all my tires (19") with what is currently on there now it would cost me 1600+ all most $1700 (over $1700 if you add in mount/balance). The rears alone (285/30/19's), quoted from Tirerack, are $449 a piece. Granted I will not be going with these this time around, but it will still cost me over $1100-1200 for all four....

BMW M's use only Castrol 10W-60 synthetic oil (BMW HIGHLY recommends not to use any other), which is over $11 a quart; I need 6 quarts. Oil Filter will run me $20, Cabin Filter $60, etc...

The dealer quoted (granted I will not be buying these parts from the dealer, but the auto stores aren't much better on price) $29 a piece for spark plugs (6 needed) :cross-eye

I have at least 2 coils that have gone bad, which the dealer quoted me $70. I may need 2-3 or more. Not sure until I open it up and test all (6 total). BMW had a Service Bulletin on these too. I may need to change them all. O'Reilly Auto Parts has them for almost $40 a piece. So, 40x2,3,6 = $$$ or 70x2,3,6 =$$$$$ Yikes!

My BMW will cost me an arm and a leg to upkeep, but I knew that going in. I've owned this car for almost 9 years, which just last year the warranty ran out. Under warranty even oil changes/wiper blades were covered. They even replaced my $150 battery for free when it went bad last year, so for the first 9 years the car didn't cost me much at all besides new tires etc... After warranty it’s a whole different animal….

P.S. BMW want over $2000 to do a Service II (2nd major service) for the M. Good lord!! I’ll be doing most of the work myself. The only thing I may need help with (BMW or friend) is the valve adjustment, which requires a shim kit and BMW magnetic tool. Peeps on the BMW forums are selling their USED kits for $350 this includes replacing any shims that were used. My head hurts now!!

Edited December 22, 2010 by Z Speed

[Carl Beck]

Hi Guys:

Interesting discussion. A little history...

356 and 911 Porsches had been racing in SCCA's C-Production Class and were wining Championships each year at the SCCA's American Road Race Of Champions {ARRC} in the C-Production Class 1966 thru 1969.

The reason it was called the ARRC - is because SCCA Divisional and Regional Champions and as I recall the first runner-ups from across the nation - were invited to the ARRC at the end of the season, to determine what was in effect the National Champions in the various SCCA Classes.

There may have been two or three drivers from each division invited... it was a long time ago..

NP Northern Pacific

SP Southern Pacific

RM Rocky Mountain

SW South West

MW Mid-West

C Central

GL Great Lakes

NE North East

SW South East

Porsche drivers dominated the ARRC C-Production Class in 1966, 67, 68 and 69. As you can see from the results from the various years {URL below} - 356's, 911's, 911T's and 911S's were all in the running across the US. They competed against the Triumph TR 4/6, Lotus Elan, Alfa TZ and Datsun 2000's during those years.

See: http://zhome.com/ARRC1966:1973.jpg

All attempts to level the playing field in terms of equipment within each SCCA Competition Classes were made; because the SCCA was all about the club racers aka DRIVERS. The SCCA had always been filled with Engineers and they came up with all manor of "equalizing formulas" so that no marque or specific model, held any real advantage over any other in any competition class. At least that was the Goal. {forumlas and rules were always argued and politic'ed about - usually changed year by year to some extent}

Of course the various Manufacturers had other desires. By 1970 SCCA's C-Production Class was all-but an all-out war between the Manufactures. It was GREAT RACING if you were a spectator, but not so much if you were a competitor not heavily supported by a manufacturer or their distributors.

Why then were the Porsche 914/6's representing Porsche at the 1970 ARRC? Because drivers driving them had won the most Regional Championships or accumulated the most points - beating the local 911's and all others for top regional honors. Many if not most, would argue that was because Porsche-Audi of North America funded and fielded teams of 914/6's - MONEY!!! The end result was the 914/6's were the fastest Porsches in that class going into the 1970 ARRC.

See: http://classicmotorsports.net/articles/porsche-914/ Scroll down to "Competition History" The "Ad People" were just as busy at Porsche-Audi USA as our friends at Datsun - just not as successful.

Anyway I look at it - for Datsun to take the top three positions on the podium first time out with the 240Z was an amazing accomplishment. Followed for many years there after as well.

FWIW,

Carl B.

[xs10shl]

I've got an early Z and a '73 911, and just based on my impressions, the two cars offer quite different driving experiences. It's probably more accurate to say that these are two cars borne from entirely different engineering philosophies, and perhaps even catering to entirely different market segments.

If pressed to make a comparison, I'd be more inclined to say that the Z is the poor man's XKE. Or perhaps better, the Z is the smart man's MG.

[HS30-H]

I can personally attest that the BSR 240/280 was/is a bear to get off the line from a dead stop due to the gearing and engine rpm issues.

The Carrera was a love to take down the 1/4 in comparison.

Whatever the result, it's a strange comparison for Styles to make. Circuit race car with unsuitable gearing for a 1/4 mile standing start, and a showroom stock (?) Carrera with a 300cc capacity difference. Apples and oranges.

I'm interested in comparing cars with similar swept volumes, and/or in the same racing class. Anyone want to comment?

Interesting discussion. A little history...

356 and 911 Porsches had been racing in SCCA's C-Production Class and were wining Championships each year at the SCCA's American Road Race Of Champions {ARRC} in the C-Production Class 1966 thru 1969.

--------

Porsche drivers dominated the ARRC C-Production Class in 1966, 67, 68 and 69. As you can see from the results from the various years {URL below} - 356's, 911's, 911T's and 911S's were all in the running across the US. They competed against the Triumph TR 4/6, Lotus Elan, Alfa TZ and Datsun 2000's during those years.

---------

Of course the various Manufacturers had other desires. By 1970 SCCA's C-Production Class was all-but an all-out war between the Manufactures.

---------

Anyway I look at it - for Datsun to take the top three positions on the podium first time out with the 240Z was an amazing accomplishment. Followed for many years there after as well.

Carl,

That's all well and good, but it seems - looking at it from this side of the Atlantic at least - more than a little bit tweaked.

It seems to me that things were a little fairer when there were 2-litre cars racing against 2-litre cars. A 2.4 litre 240Z beating a 2.0 914-6 or 911 is 'Dog Bites Man', whilst a 2.4 litre 240Z beating a 2.4 litre 911S would be 'Man Bites Dog'......

Quite simply, the highest specced Porsche models were not allowed to run head-to-head against the highest specced 'Datsun' models in SCCA racing after 1969, were they? Am I right?

I've got an early Z and a '73 911, and just based on my impressions, the two cars offer quite different driving experiences. It's probably more accurate to say that these are two cars borne from entirely different engineering philosophies, and perhaps even catering to entirely different market segments.

This could be very interesting to me ( and others too I hope! ). Are you talking about your 432, and what model 911 do you own? More please!

Cheers,

Alan T.

[gnosez]

Alan - I believe once I have some time to research the records we should find results from races when the 240/280 ran in its' IMSA trim against 911s.

[HS30-H]

Alan - I believe once I have some time to research the records we should find results from races when the 240/280 ran in its' IMSA trim against 911s.

Thanks John, but results for IMSA, WSCC and FIA Sports Car and GT racing are all very well documented and relatively easily sourced. I've been a fan of endurance racing since Dad started taking me to sports car races in the 1960s, so I have a fair bit of reference material too.

I was more interested in those SCCA races we were talking about above. My question is at least partly rhetorical ( I think I know at least part of the answer ) but still valid I believe. The best sports / GT models that Nissan ( 'Datsun' ) and Porsche offered their customers in the USA market did not run head-to-head in the SCCA-sanctioned races.........

.....or did they?

Alan T.