Anybody want a trackable '73 911T?

Yes Lane, Thanks.  My Birthday was Monday buy I'll accept this gracious belated gift. 

Of course, Marty.  As a part of the tradition of my giving such gifts the receiver must hold their breath until it arrives.  You may start now. 

Is that a bug eyed Sprite next to the 911?  Pretty cool little car.

Yeah, we had some nice cars show up yesterday.  I didn't meet the Bugeye's owner, but I've seen it at our local British Car Show before.

Phil - I was wondering if the yellow car on other side of Bugeye might also be one.  Or at least a AH Sprite/MG Midget.  Afraid they are now too small for me --- and too expensive for a nice one.

 

 

You mean a Spridget Greg?  I looks like another Bugeye from the windshield curvature and mirror placement on the fender....

Nope.  That's a Morgan Plus-8.  The Morgan has a Pontiac Solstice drive train as the original Rover V8 kept overheating.  The Pontiac 4-cyl is lighter, more powerful, more economical, and reliable as an anvil.  I've driven it and it is fast!  It was bought new by the father of a friend of mine who inherited it a few years back.

 

Unless there is something I'm missing, I don't think I would spend my 65K on that particular example.  I think I would look for something much newer and better looking (to me) for about half that amount.  I've seen what I would be looking for  in Excellence, but I suppose that would mean it would not be "trackable", not that I would really care about that quality.    

As to the Morgan -- I LOVE that car.  And US running gear inside? -- how sweet.  I might actually try for one of those someday.

Beautiful Morgan.  It would be even more beautiful if it was British racing green.

 

Way back when I was 19 I had a chance to buy a one year old Morgan for $2300.  Unfortunately, at the time I was driving a $600 Mini 850 and could barely afford to keep it on the road.  By today's standards $2300 is chump change, but back then it was way more than I could afford.

 

Just curious, what does the 'T' in 911T stand for?

'T'oo much money Ron.  It actually stands for 'Touring'.

I think the T was originally the milder 911, but I doubt that this one is stock.

Three early 911 configurations (67-69) as engine options. 911T was the 6 cylinder upgrade from 912. I think it had 110 hp. Next engine model upgrade is 911L (later changed to 911E) with 130hp and next upgrade was 911S with 180hp. HP ratings are approximate by my recollection.  

Hey Lane.  Do ya think you could talk your buddy into doin some tradin on my 76 911 outlaw car for his Morgan.  I've always loved those cars.

Y'all Porsche boys got taste after all . . . lustin' after that sweep-fendered British stuff . . .

His dad bought it new so I think he's probably never gonna let it go.

Always had soft spot for MOGs.  I almost posted this Jag kit car here the other day. My thought was - wouldn't it look cool with a set of Pedrini's or Mahle wheels - very Morgan +8 looking then. Probably tad over priced but I've never seen another one.

 

 http://www.thesamba.com/vw/cla...etail.php?id=1761077

 

 

That's, um...  Yes it certainly is. 

 

Whatever it is I don't see any Jaguar in it.

Wolfgang, not to sound mean, but I'm glad you've only seen one. Hurts my eyes!

 

RE the 911, if it is an early 73, it is MFI(mechanical injection) and I believe the 2.4 was 140hp up to the S at 190. Early 911s, 65-73 are into unobtanium right now. We refer to them as "Long-hood" and most people who like them prefer them to the later 74 on cars. The 74 on cars were modified to pass US bumper specs and this was done worldwide by Porsche, and in as nice a way as possible. I think they look alright, but I know Angela and I prefer the early cars. Lighter is better! They lengthened the wheelbase in I think 69, so they are your best bet for handling.

 

I'll bet that 911 Lane posted is an absolute BLAST to drive. If you've ever driven an early car, you'll know what I'm talking about. My good friend had a 72 T with an S-spec engine that I aligned and corner-balanced. That car was a handling BEAST on 195/65-15 on 6" Fuchs!

 

I had a 72 project that I sold due to financial needs, but it woulda been awesome. I had a RS spec motor with twin plug high compression heads. About 250hp conservatively! And around 2000-2100 pounds. Fun fun fun!

Longhood 911s rounded the bend into oblivion a couple of years back. Early 912s were last year.

 

Strangely, the value these days is in in the best cars (IMHO): 84- 89s. The 3.2 NA motor is probably the sweet spot for an old retro-grouch like me-- The earlier engines were more fragile (and less powerful) and the later 964s and 993s really upped the ante in complexity. The 3.2s were "just right". Slap on some PMOs and let that dog eat. I'd greatly prefer the lightweight simplicity of the longhood package, but galvanized bodies didn't come along until '76.

 

A back-dated, non-widebody 3.2 car in rensport guise seems pretty close to perfect.

 

Everybody raves about the G50 cars, but the 915 seems plenty nice to me (with a Wevo shifter).

 

I had a SWB longhood ('68) in my sights a couple of years back. It had a perfect color combo, nice "delete" package, etc.... but it bit too rich for my tastes at $18k. Add about $100k, and that's what it would be going for today. It makes me want to go out in the garage and hug my speedster.

 

I think I will.

Stan, I respect you much, but I have to disagree. Did you ever drive a properly set up MFI car? Absolutely INSTANT throttle response. Nirvana. It makes PMOs seem, well, backward. I do mostly agree with you, but I REALLY want my 72 back, so I could finish it. Oh, the sound of an MFI 2.7 twin plug and a factory sport muffler. Make it 10.5:1 or so. Delicious! I had the perfect combo in my hands, but I had to let it go.. So it goes.

Yeah, the PMOs make me weak in the knees for what they are, not how they work. MFI is cool, works really well, but doesn't have that "mechanical age" vibe going for it. I've driven both. The PMO car just made me swoon.

 

FWIW, a very strong argument can be made for a 2.7L with the studs and tensioner upgrades. Very, very light in comparison to the later engines. I can see how you'd advocate for your '72 as the coolest kid in town. I can't argue against it.

How fortunate we all are that we can disagree about the coolest cars on the face of the earth. This is not a case of good, better, and best, but WAY COOL vs. WAY WAY COOL.

These are first world mental exercises, and you are 100% correct, Jim- I've been blessed beyond any expectation.

 

FWIW, I'm not really even disagreeing about Danny's ultimate vs mine. I can understand every argument to be made for every 911 from the very early cars right through the 991s.

 

No matter... all of them are off the radar as long as I've got the car I really want.

 

And I do.

My old '68 911S Targa had the typical 2.0 liter S. Until one of my tensioners let go and jacked up a lot of engine. Soooo, I thought why have it rebuilt as stock? Rebuilt it to a 2.2 blueprinted & balanced S with 1972 S specs, triple throat webers and 3" stacks breathing out through a sport muffler. Sold it in '78 for $5K, and bought a '78 SC Targa. DANG I miss that '68! 

 

Yeah, there was a lot of that before the 3.2. The hydraulic tensioners fixed a lot of it.

 

BTW, Jim: I love those old pictures. Really, really fun.

You're really rocking the big lapels and wide leather belt Jim.  Look brah, no slippas!!

Well at least his bell bottoms are ironed! OMG!

Don't mess with El Guapo! He has minions, I mean friends, everywhere!

Jim next to his targa.....One of my favorite pictures, EVER!!!!

Any air cooled 911 is ridiculous now. I've been looking and I just can't seem to pull the trigger. They're great cars but just too much for what they're asking nowadays. I was working a deal on trading my 996 C4S for an 87 Turbo with a Recovery Title, but the guy decided to keep it and do the work it needed. It would have been my last Porsche....doesn't get much better...well, in the obtanium world  

Thought you guys would get a chuckle outta those pics! 

Hey Mickey!!!  Long time, no post.