Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSaloonM3
what a group of cars....i have an e90m and want a 1m coupe so damn bad!!!!!
but a '69 911 with a 997 gt3 cup engine is not too shabby neither!! how would you compare that to the 997 rs's?  |
The ’69 is a massively different animal than the modern GT3s, on many levels.
At first glance the motors are similar: the '69 has a 997 GT3 motor, admittedly a 3.6 rather than 3.8 or 4.0, but many of the parts are shared. However the "Cup" suffix is hugely important, as it's largely the motor that makes 997 Cup cars feel almost completely different than their street brethren.
A GT3 "Cup" motor is essentially a street motor with parts taken away. Some of those parts simply save weight and complexity, but others serve more critical functions. The most obvious of these is the idle stabilizer, without which the Cup motor drops any street pretensions. Firing a cup motor takes some coaxing and some throttle, and when it finally does come to life (with a bang) it requires a light foot on the gas for a couple minutes as it warms or it will sputter back to sleep. Finally it idles somewhat unhappily at 1800-2000 rpm, pushing enough heat into the headers to get them glowing cherry red.
Once warmed you can try to get rolling- harder than you'd imagine without the idle stabilizer, with zero flywheel and with a multi-plate clutch which bites hard. And once rolling like many race motors it can be reluctant at low RPM. The issue here is that the variocam was also removed, creating a big hole in the torque curve below 4500 rpm. Of course if you're driving a Cup car below 4500 you're doing something wrong, but it makes for a much less flexible, more difficult street motor.
So by using a Cup motor the '69 has the heart of a race car, with all of the drawbacks that entails. Of course there are advantages too. No flywheel means the motor revs like a switch, much faster than any of the street motors, and when it comes on cam...
The chassis is nearly as different. The '69 has JRZ 2x adjustables and coilovers with a very extensive cage for stiffening, but it still pits semi trailing arms designed in the early '60s against a fully modern 5 link rear suspension and a longer wheelbase. Add a much higher power to weight ratio and the result is predictable: the early car's tail is simultaneously happier and much, much angrier. It demands very quick hands and respect, and will not suffer inattention or fools. It takes some of the most challenging 911 characteristics, like those of early short wheel base race cars or modified 996 GT2s, and turns them up to 11. I've had autocross instructors drive it and not be able to complete a single lap without spinning. But there is something hugely involving and attractive about the widow-maker 911s as well, and if that's an experience you're familiar with and enjoy, the '69 Cup is one of the most distilled, high proof versions of that in existence.
It's interesting that on an autocross course it will turn very similar times to a tuned RS, though they make time in entirely different ways. The 997 RS absolutely crushes the '69 Cup in braking. It's not the power of the stoppers- the '69 wears 350mm 6 piston PCCB ceramic takeoffs from a GT2 with more than enough raw stopping power. Instead it's the ABS and the ability to trail-brake deep into a corner that let the modern car find gobs of time. Similarly through transitions the RS is untouchable, the passive rear wheel steering keeping the tail planted rather than twitchy, and it also has a slightly advantage in raw cornering Gs in most cases. All of which means that the modern RS is better at almost everything. Almost...
As you'd expect given the specs, however, the '69 does have a trump card, and it's a good one: it accelerates like little else. At roughly 5:1 hp to weight ratio it's obviously going to be quick, but more impressive is its ability to actually deploy that power so much of the time. All the weight over the rear means it will stick second gear, and not just in a straight line. Data on Hoosiers shows not only .8 Gs of acceleration in a straight line in 2nd gear, but an almost shocking 1 G of cornering and .7 Gs of acceleration
simultaneously. Or .5 Gs of acceleration and 1.3 Gs of cornering simultaneously. It will accelerate at .8 Gs in the
wet, on street tires. Essentially when it comes on cam and the tires are warm it's probably going to hook up, and when it does...
Does this make it better than a modern RS? No, not even remotely close. The 997s have such breadth- you can happily take them to the shops or to dinner on your way back from the track, where the '69 is a loud, somewhat uncomfortable one-trick pony race car. It can do the occasional back road if you're feeling frisky, but it sucks at pretty much everything else. The 997 RS is honestly a better car in nearly every measurable way.
However if you're in the mood for pure, unadulterated adrenaline with a quad shot chaser I've found very little that can touch a ridiculously light early 911 with a stupidly large motor stuffed in the back. In that rare situation the '69 Cup comes into its own. For that reason, perhaps unfortunately, I could never trade it.