Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: KaptKaos Jun 30 2003, 09:55 PM

Hello All,

I have an "odd" question. I have a friend that is expecting to get her 356SC back from the shop in the next few weeks. She has just had the motor, brakes, clutch, rebuilt/replaced.

I am curious as to how the 914-4s performance compares to the 356s (4 Cam excluded). I have a 73 1.7, which I know is not the fastest of the stock 914s, but how would that compare with the 356 SC. There was a post a few days ago (cross post to rennlist) that had a list of uploaded R&T scans from the 50s & 60s with the 356s. I began reading them, but the comparisons were hard to draw.

I guess what I am asking is: If we go for a little canyon ride, who is eating who's lunch?

All input is appreciated.

Thanks,
Joe

Posted by: campbellcj Jun 30 2003, 10:01 PM

Most of the 356's only had about 60HP, an antiquated suspension design, drum brakes, and a fairly significant rear weight bias.

They are very cool cars, but performance wise, I'd betcha even a 1.7/1.8 914 would be a handful for a 356 driver to keep up with.

I could be a lot more specific if my father-in-law would let me drag his pristine 64 356C out of his garage! It's been trapped in there for over a year now. Original owner, factory delivery car, <100K miles. I've only driven it once and that was a -long- time ago.

Posted by: Aaron Cox Jun 30 2003, 10:02 PM

what are the differeces between a
356 A
356 B
356 C
356 SC
356 Speedster
356 Super 1600?
and other derivatives?

Posted by: KaptKaos Jun 30 2003, 10:45 PM

Acox,

The differences are tremendous. There were different engines, with different bodies and a host of fine details.

In general, there are a few basics that you can consider.

Speedsters were built from 55-58 (I think, correct me if I am wrong) and were built as a low cost/low weight option so people could buy them cheaply and race 'em.

Super or S models had higher horsepower engines. There were 1500S, 1600S, SC, etc..

Coupes and Cabrios were built by a variety of builders, so there are differences in their design. Karmann & Reutter built the most. I have read, but never seen, of others.

In the mix there was a Carerra. It was a 4 Cam, Roller Bearing motor that was originally used in the 550 and later the 904 (I think??). These are the big $$ cars now as the engine was(is) expensive and rare.

Hope that helps some.

To any that I have offended by being incorrect in my statements above, feel free to admonish me.

- Joe

Posted by: James Adams Jul 1 2003, 06:25 AM

The 356C had disc brakes, and I think the SC was 90 HP (it was the after the Super 90 and before the 912 which were both 90 HP)

The suspension was crappy.

You have the suspension and CG advantage (your car is lower) but the brakes are probably pretty similar and the 356 has you on HP. The 914 probably has a little more torque, and 5 gears instead of 4 (although the gear spacing is such that it may not make any difference).

I think it will come down to the driver on real twisties. Straight line I think you might be toast.

Posted by: vsg914 Jul 1 2003, 06:47 AM

Hey, went to my first AX about a month ago and got smoked by a very nice 356C!!!!!!! I had crappy worn out tires, and the driver was also crappy and worn out.

Posted by: Bleyseng Jul 1 2003, 07:14 AM

At last years AX a super 90 was there and ran about 10 sec behind me.

Lots of body roll.

Geoff

Posted by: seanery Jul 1 2003, 07:23 AM

I had a 63 Super 90 with disc brakes and it was sllooowwww.
It had webers, too. I expected the feel of a teener when I bought it, but
it just wasn't quick at all.

Don't get me wrong, I think they are just about the coolest cars! (just not quick at all)

Posted by: brant Jul 1 2003, 08:10 AM

The 356 should have a weight advantage too...
I used to club race against a gutted and soupped up car that would just spank everything in its discplacement class... but it was not stock.

brant

Posted by: fuch toy Jul 1 2003, 08:48 AM

My 65 C has four wheel disc brakes. Early VW style axles, four speed and was a pig in the corners compared to my 914s.

It NOW has a 914 motor, wide wheels from a 993 and flares. Still not as good as the 914, but it will kick a 914s butt in the straights.....

150 hp and less weight will do that.....

Posted by: Aaron Cox Jul 1 2003, 08:50 AM

do they all have swing axle suspension in the rear as opposed to IRS?

also, dont the 912 and 356 share the same engine?

Posted by: James Adams Jul 1 2003, 09:03 AM

All 356s are swing axle.

The 356SC (the last 356 pushrod engine) engine and the 912 engine are basically the same.

Posted by: Aaron Cox Jul 1 2003, 09:35 AM

are all the engines interchangeable? such as putting a 4cam into a 912?

Posted by: James Adams Jul 1 2003, 09:43 AM

Once you find a 4-cam to use, we'll figure out that answer for you ...

Posted by: ArtechnikA Jul 1 2003, 02:20 PM

356's were produced from '49 to '64 and there were a lot of changes in those 15 years. they all had certain similarities (trailing arm front suspension, swing axle rear) they varied in displacement from 1,1 liters at the beginning to 1,6 at the end.

the 1500 normal in my '53 is basically a hotrodded dual-carburation 36HP VW engine. Porsche did all the usual hotrodder tricks available at the time (eg roller cranks) but always tended to smaller displacements, light weight, big brakes and COMPARITIVELY sophisticated suspension as their 'unfair advantage.' the 356 suspension IS crappy - by today's fully independent standards - but even early 911's did not have the nice Lobro CV joints in their axles... you want to define crappy, go check out the 356's contemporaries, and see what the MG-TC and Morgan were like...

engines available in '53 were 1100cc (rare) 1300cc (few) 1500 plain-bearing (most) and 1500 'super' (roller-bearing) (very few). a 1500N produced about 65 HP and coupled with the light weight and slippery aerodynamics made for a relatively quick car - FOR ITS DAY.

a bottom-of-the-line CRX can blow it away in almost every category, of course.

Posted by: Dave_Darling Jul 1 2003, 03:23 PM

I believe that the SC ("Super C") had a 95 HP engine. Most or all of the production 356 pushrod motors (as opposed to the four-cam Carrera motors) I think made less torque than any 914 motor.

BTW, there were some "plain-bearing" Carrera motors, as the roller-bearing ones were at times lacking in reliability and were much more expensive to produce.

For some info on 356 engines, check:
http://www.pelicanparts.com/356/technical_specs/356_engine_stats.htm


So pretty much, the only thing that most 356es would have over most 914s is lighter weight. Lightness is a Good Thing, but... More torque, comparable power, better weight distribution, more sophisticated suspension design, and similar or better braking would push things in the 914's favor.

That's assuming stock versus stock...

--DD