RE: PH Heroes: Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2 Clubsport
Discussion
STiG911 said:
Mitch2.0 said:
Chris Harris seems to have spelt his name wrong at the end of this article.
gary71 said:
rs48635 said:
Nice to see some respect for the much maligned 915 gearbox, nothing wrong with cable shift.
Agreed, nothing wrong with a well sorted 915, but it's not cable shift, there is a big chunky steel rod sticking out the end of the box 
I guess you may have meant the clutch?Should have remembered gear linkage. Then again I forgot to unhhook it when removing engine and gearbox. Almost pulled the whole car off axle stands tungging engine backwards. On small cotter pin full removed, and had the whole engine & 915 between my legs.
rs48635 said:
Ahem. Yes I did. G50 introduced hydraulic clutch to help muscle atrophy in driver's left leg.
Should have remembered gear linkage. Then again I forgot to unhhook it when removing engine and gearbox. Almost pulled the whole car off axle stands tungging engine backwards. On small cotter pin full removed, and had the whole engine & 915 between my legs.
Should have remembered gear linkage. Then again I forgot to unhhook it when removing engine and gearbox. Almost pulled the whole car off axle stands tungging engine backwards. On small cotter pin full removed, and had the whole engine & 915 between my legs.
I forgot the speedo cable in the same scenario, it did a good job of suspending an engine and box, and even still works!infradig said:
I seem to remember young Mr Harris owning one of the few rhd cars(was it the launch press car?) And Steve Cropley writing in Autocar that people were rudely asking how he could afford it ! Plus ca change.......
They didn't delete it from certain counties. I have a UK car and mine has the underseal. Wills2 said:
Great cars Integrales but it wasn't until the 1990's when the "evo" came along with matching performance to this mid 80's car, the HF turbo of the same era was well down on performance compared to the CS. (not that they should be compared mind)
Sorry to sideline again with my consistently biased opinions on Lancias (typical scenario: proud owner, blinkered opinion) but the article states the CS being "On sale: 1987-89". The 16v Integrale was on sale in 1989 so there is a cross-over in dates between the two (otherwise I would have firmly bit my tongue). An unmodified 5-door, 5-seater production hatchback of the same era which can, on paper at least, out-accelerate a lightened special edition sports car. That CS is a nice looking 911 though. If nothing else, I've always liked the rear 3/4 on non-convertible 911s, especially those of that era.
jbforce10 said:
Wills2 said:
Great cars Integrales but it wasn't until the 1990's when the "evo" came along with matching performance to this mid 80's car, the HF turbo of the same era was well down on performance compared to the CS. (not that they should be compared mind)
Sorry to sideline again with my consistently biased opinions on Lancias (typical scenario: proud owner, blinkered opinion) but the article states the CS being "On sale: 1987-89". .PH said:
this car was the prototype for a run of 340 3.2 Clubsports. Completed in 1984, it wears the graphics applied to non-UK market Clubsports
Was it 1984 or 1987-89?
Chris Harris said:
Makes my guts creak just thinking about my CS. First Porsche for me, and in many ways the best - relatively affordable, cheap to maintain, tough, fast and so much more than the sum of its parts. I've never driven a standard G50 3.2 that comes close.
I would almost certainly have not held onto that!This RS in the article is lovely, My 1988 Sport has the four spoke wheel......it also has the G50 box, though to be perfectly honest my old 2.4'T' had the 915 and was from memory a smooth changer.......the only benefit to the G50 is all the hype that goes along with it making the car perceivably more desireable......
rs48635 said:
Nice to see one, and indeed could be the inspiration for all 3.2 carreras insted of 964 or 2.7 RS clones.
That interior is box-fresh eh? Would all 1984 cars come with the 4 spoke steering wheel, as my own 1984 cab has the fugly 3 spoke.
Nice to see some respect for the much maligned 915 gearbox, nothing wrong with cable shift.
That interior is box-fresh eh? Would all 1984 cars come with the 4 spoke steering wheel, as my own 1984 cab has the fugly 3 spoke.
Nice to see some respect for the much maligned 915 gearbox, nothing wrong with cable shift.
My 1988 3.2 Sport has the four spoke wheel, my previous 2.4 'T' had the 915 box and I have to say drove perfectly well even compared to a G50. The only advantage I see to the G50 cars (like my 3.2) is that it's perceived to be better and therefore enhances their value.
rs48635 said:
Nice to see one, and indeed could be the inspiration for all 3.2 carreras insted of 964 or 2.7 RS clones.
That interior is box-fresh eh? Would all 1984 cars come with the 4 spoke steering wheel, as my own 1984 cab has the fugly 3 spoke.
Nice to see some respect for the much maligned 915 gearbox, nothing wrong with cable shift.
That interior is box-fresh eh? Would all 1984 cars come with the 4 spoke steering wheel, as my own 1984 cab has the fugly 3 spoke.
Nice to see some respect for the much maligned 915 gearbox, nothing wrong with cable shift.
Cupramax said:
0-62mph: 151mph
Top speed: 5.9 sec
Please keep up at the back
Autocar and motor tested the standard 3.2 Carrera and found they did 0-60 in 5.2 seconds. It was the fastest road car they had tested at the time. 5.9 is what Porsche quoted but they were famous for being modest.Top speed: 5.9 sec
Please keep up at the back
This is still supercar quick even by todays standards isnt it?
I owned a 3.2 1988 carrera ,very old fashioned to drive and not that quick and the handling good in the dry but downright scary in the wet -so well balanced car ...never!.
On the plus side very simple mechanicals and good reliability but the 964 i bought later was soo much a better car in every respect.
I know i will get flamed for this but the 986 Boxster S i have now is far better to drive than the 964.
On the plus side very simple mechanicals and good reliability but the 964 i bought later was soo much a better car in every respect.
I know i will get flamed for this but the 986 Boxster S i have now is far better to drive than the 964.
jbforce10 said:
Wills2 said:
Great cars Integrales but it wasn't until the 1990's when the "evo" came along with matching performance to this mid 80's car, the HF turbo of the same era was well down on performance compared to the CS. (not that they should be compared mind)
Sorry to sideline again with my consistently biased opinions on Lancias (typical scenario: proud owner, blinkered opinion) but the article states the CS being "On sale: 1987-89". The 16v Integrale was on sale in 1989 so there is a cross-over in dates between the two (otherwise I would have firmly bit my tongue). An unmodified 5-door, 5-seater production hatchback of the same era which can, on paper at least, out-accelerate a lightened special edition sports car. That CS is a nice looking 911 though. If nothing else, I've always liked the rear 3/4 on non-convertible 911s, especially those of that era.
Flamed? consider yourself bloody torched, incinerated even...........The 3.3 just takes a real driver, it's a man's car that needs to be handled, no nanny aids, just a raw sports car, and to say it's not that quick either, HUH??? it or you needed to be pushed harder and further. It's the Yorkie bar of sports cars, NOT FOR GIRLS!!
But then we are all entitled to our opinions to be honest, you yours and 3.2 fans ours.......
But then we are all entitled to our opinions to be honest, you yours and 3.2 fans ours.......
Mystic Slippers said:
I owned a 3.2 1988 carrera ,very old fashioned to drive and not that quick and the handling good in the dry but downright scary in the wet -so well balanced car ...never!.
On the plus side very simple mechanicals and good reliability but the 964 i bought later was soo much a better car in every respect.
I know i will get flamed for this but the 986 Boxster S i have now is far better to drive than the 964.
On the plus side very simple mechanicals and good reliability but the 964 i bought later was soo much a better car in every respect.
I know i will get flamed for this but the 986 Boxster S i have now is far better to drive than the 964.
Typo, meant 3.2 of course.......
cjb1 said:
Flamed? consider yourself bloody torched, incinerated even...........The 3.3 just takes a real driver, it's a man's car that needs to be handled, no nanny aids, just a raw sports car, and to say it's not that quick either, HUH??? it or you needed to be pushed harder and further. It's the Yorkie bar of sports cars, NOT FOR GIRLS!!
But then we are all entitled to our opinions to be honest, you yours and 3.2 fans ours.......
But then we are all entitled to our opinions to be honest, you yours and 3.2 fans ours.......
Mystic Slippers said:
I owned a 3.2 1988 carrera ,very old fashioned to drive and not that quick and the handling good in the dry but downright scary in the wet -so well balanced car ...never!.
On the plus side very simple mechanicals and good reliability but the 964 i bought later was soo much a better car in every respect.
I know i will get flamed for this but the 986 Boxster S i have now is far better to drive than the 964.
On the plus side very simple mechanicals and good reliability but the 964 i bought later was soo much a better car in every respect.
I know i will get flamed for this but the 986 Boxster S i have now is far better to drive than the 964.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff