Original Porsche 911 versus BMW 2002

  • Thread starter Thread starter Parnelli Bone
  • 42 comments
  • 11,636 views
Parnelli Bone

Parnelli Bone

www.gtcarreviews.com
Premium
Messages
10,558
United States
Columbia, MD.
Messages
Parnelli_Bones
Hello everybody. I'm looking for your opinions and knowledge here, which car is better so far as overall performance goes? I've never driven either one, except for in videogames. From what i've read and deduced, it's a bit of a toss-up because both cars have different handling traits. What about the air-cooled Porsche engine? Any thoughts on if this would eventually hurt the 911 in the long run?
 
I'd be less worried about the Porsche compared to the BMW of the time in terms of reliability, and in overall performance, the tip of the hat would likely go to Porsche as well. Of course, back then, it took a lot of guts to drive 911 fast.

My how things change...
 
The BMW 2002 was meant to be a simple family car with sporting pretensions. I would expect the Porsche 911 to perform better, being a purpose-built sports car. The picture might change somewhat with the 2002 Turbo, but those are rare cars.

Test drive a 2002tii. It should be easy to get a hold of one. Try the BMW 2002 FAQ.
 
hamstrings
The picture might change somewhat with the 2002 Turbo, but those are rare cars.
Click to expand...

and from what I have heard they have a......'interesting' engine reponse and powerband, they don't even have a wastegate. Everyone still loves em though :D
 
Ah yes...i should have specified the BMW 2002 Turbo in comparison to the 911.

Thanks for your responses guys. 👍
 
The E30 M3's S14 motor drops right into a regular 2002 if you want to go that route. Same M10 engine block, so same motor mounts. You could fix the car in a shed. No giant fender flares nor crude air dam, but you can add them. ;)

A converted car might be cheaper and easier to find than a Turbo. It might help with that "interesting engine response". :)
 
If someone could keep the Porsche pointing at the correct angle, then the 911 would probably be quicker, but the BMW would surely be more consistant therefore 2002 would be quicker in the long run.
 
hamstrings
The E30 M3's S14 motor drops right into a regular 2002 if you want to go that route. Same M10 engine block, so same motor mounts. You could fix the car in a shed. No giant fender flares nor crude air dam, but you can add them.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but compared to the amount of crap that can bolt right in to an old school 911?
 
I somehow got the feeling that Parnelli Bone was shopping for a sports car, hence the motor swap idea. YSSMAN mentioned reliability, so a newer engine might be easier to find parts for. The idea wasn't to produce a car that performed better than the 911.

I apologize for the confusion.
 
No, i aint shopping. :( Just curious about which car was considered better back in the day so i get my facts straight. I just wrote an article on the BMW 2002 Turbo in GT4 and came to the conclusion that this car must have been nearly the best car one could own in the early '70s, so far as overall performance went (minus acceleration runs, of course).

Then i thought, hmm, well the 911 might be considered superior. And then i thought further about various Italian supercars, which might be considered further surperior. But a comparison between 911 and 2002 turbo is fair enough.
 
The 2002 Turbo came out the same time as the 911 2.7 Carrera RS which is undoubtedly the better car. The 911E and 911S would have probably been at least as quick as a 2002 turbo too. The early 911's with their light weight (not much over 1100kgs) and relatively narrow tyres were very well balanced cars and not the 'backwards-through-a-hedge' beasts that the late 70's, early 80's 911's became.
 
I'd expect even a regular 911 to be substancially better than a 2002 turbo at the same age.... Weight is fairly similar at around 1,070kg, but the 911 had more power... c.208bhp vs 170bhp (for a 1974 Carerra 2.7).

And of course the gap would be come bigger if you looked at the Carrera RS or the Turbo (first turbo's were available in 1974).

Both are great cars though.

EDIT... the 911 2.7 RS or a Turbo are better than the Italian 'supercars' of the same era never mind the 2002. Perhaps not in how they look (a matter of personal taste of course), but they were as quick and handled at least as well if not better whilst at the same time actually being driveable as they didn't breakdown every 5 yards.
 
zed300
If someone could keep the Porsche pointing at the correct angle, then the 911 would probably be quicker, but the BMW would surely be more consistant therefore 2002 would be quicker in the long run.
Click to expand...

The 2002 turbo's "interesting" engine response made for even more "interesting" handling. If I remember right, one or two were actually left in the hedges by the press during the launch test-drive. I wouldn't exactly consider the 2002 more stable than the early 911, whose low power output was certainly less upsetting to the chassis than in later, turbocharged models.

---

Hmmm... I'd consider both cars good and desirable... I'd have to give the nod slightly to the tiit for being rarer and a more unusual sight on the road.
 
Parnelli Bone
Any thoughts on if this would eventually hurt the 911 in the long run?
Click to expand...

You're talking about cars 30+ years old, the long run has already passed.

Ownership of anything that old is a painstaking process of constant maintenance and care, the cars are old and will fall apart.
 
Of cars of it's type and age, there are so many more 911's around that anything else... they are just so reliable. And unlike Italian stuff, they can actually be used.
 
Must be why there are so many VW-powered 914s running around...
 
YSSMAN
I'd be less worried about the Porsche compared to the BMW of the time in terms of reliability, and in overall performance, the tip of the hat would likely go to Porsche as well. Of course, back then, it took a lot of guts to drive 911 fast.

My how things change...
Click to expand...

You have tried driving them both hard I guess :)

I read that you'll still have to drive them pretty carefully, like slow in. I'd imagine lift-off could be a bitch in one :)
 
Thanks for all your responses guys. seems like a close match overall between the Porsche and Beemer. And Italian sports cars of the day wouldn't hold up, eh? Interesting.


exigeracer
You're talking about cars 30+ years old, the long run has already passed.

Ownership of anything that old is a painstaking process of constant maintenance and care, the cars are old and will fall apart.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about years of ownership, i was actually talking about which car would hold up better when driven in some sort of endurance racing situation. Would the Porsche 911, with its air-cooled rear engine, start having problems? Or would the BMW 2002 Turbo, with its primitive turbo system, have to leave the track and call it a day first?

It seems maybe the Porsche, which had more of a proven powerplant, might hold up better, whereas the BMW's turbo engine might become a problem, but i'm just guessing. This was BMW's first attempt at a production turbocharged car, from what i've read.
 
exigeracer
You're talking about cars 30+ years old, the long run has already passed.

Ownership of anything that old is a painstaking process of constant maintenance and care, the cars are old and will fall apart.
Click to expand...

As an ex-owner of a 25 year old BMW, I can assure you all that maintainance is constant. You NEED to keep up on it too or it will nickel and dime you to death later.
 
I like the 914 and 924 for their simplicity, I consider them Porsches stripped down the basic elements of what makes a Porsche fun.

The Boxster is absolutely a Porsche in every way. I've driven one sort of hard several times and I'm a big fan. Even the early base 205HP engine is an absolute blast and is very inspiring with the intake duct right behind your left ear. The Boxster has a voracious appetite for corners, and with smooth pavement you can take 90 degree corners at nearly 45 mph provided you take the racing line. I could get around some circular offramps pretty quick in my Bimmer but where I was able to get up around 65-66 mph in my BMW, the Boxster would be comfortable doing about 79-80.

I still don't feel as if the Cayenne is a real Porsche, but admittedly I haven't driven one.
 
homeforsummer
Ah, you're not one of those Porsche fans, are you? Can't abide by people who think the 914/924/Boxter/Cayenne etc aren't "real" Porsches...
Click to expand...

Heh, no... it was a joke.

Car's like the 924, 944, 968, Boxter and Caymen are all proper Porsches... the engine might not be in the traditional place for a Porsche, but they remain true to the core Porsche value of being brilliant to drive. Each is/was class leading (or at least competitive) in it's own right.

I'd argue that the Cayenne isn't a proper porsche though. Maybe, just maybe it could be considered relevant in Turbo guise, but they've just released a diesel version FFS (which by all accounts, isn't a patch on the similar BMW engine).

Whatever the view though, I see the benefit of all of the non-911 Porsches as enabling Porsche to secure themselves financially for the long-term.


And for perspective, I own a 996, my brother has a Boxter S and my brother-in-law has a Caymen S... so I do have quite a bit of experience and understanding of the cars themselves.
 
Stotty
Heh, no... it was a joke.
Click to expand...

Good :sly:

Car's like the 924, 944, 968, Boxter and Caymen are all proper Porsches... the engine might not be in the traditional place for a Porsche, but they remain true to the core Porsche value of being brilliant to drive. Each is/was class leading (or at least competitive) in it's own right.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The van engine jibes about 924s annoy me a little bit too. As far as I'm aware from an article I read in a Porsche magazine years ago (I do have the mag, but I'm at uni and it's at home), it was an Audi engine (out of the 100 of the time, i think) which was tuned for use in the Porsche and de-tuned for use in a VW van. People act like it was taken straight out of a commercial vehicle...

I'd argue that the Cayenne isn't a proper porsche though. Maybe, just maybe it could be considered relevant in Turbo guise, but they've just released a diesel version FFS (which by all accounts, isn't a patch on the similar BMW engine).

Whatever the view though, I see the benefit of all of the non-911 Porsches as enabling Porsche to secure themselves financially for the long-term.
Click to expand...

I consider the Cayenne a proper Porsche. It's up to the same high level of engineering as any other Porsche and is supposed to be one of the most capable off-roaders on the road (and not bad off it either apparently, if you have the air suspension). Even the aforementioned diesel is nicely quick - eight and a bit to 60, which is as quick as a 924S (the one with an actual Porsche engine :p) and still does over 30mpg, so it's a useable Porsche.

And you can't argue with the value either. Only £7k more than the very base Boxter? For a Porsche that can carry your whole family? And £20k less than a base 911 Carrera.

As you said, the biggest merit of the Cayenne is that it allows them to produce the Porsches we really love (GT2, GT3, RS etc) because it allows Porsche to be the profitable company it is. And you can lay the same praise at other basic Porsches, such as the Boxter, 924 and 914 - they've all had a hand in keeping Porsche in the black.

EDIT: The single worst thing about a Porsche diesel is that the whole internet goes "OMG, Porsche? Diesel? What a load of bull, they're idiots" etc.

And for perspective, I own a 996, my brother has a Boxter S and my brother-in-law has a Caymen S... so I do have quite a bit of experience and understanding of the cars themselves.
Click to expand...

You're all jammy, lucky gits :lol:
 
Last edited:
homeforsummer
I consider the Cayenne a proper Porsche. It's up to the same high level of engineering as any other Porsche and is supposed to be one of the most capable off-roaders on the road (and not bad off it either apparently, if you have the air suspension). Even the aforementioned diesel is nicely quick - eight and a bit to 60, which is as quick as a 924S (the one with an actual Porsche engine :p) and still does over 30mpg, so it's a useable Porsche.
Click to expand...

I haven't driven the diesel Cayenne, but I've owned an X5 and I have driven Cayennes - a base petrol model and a Turbo. The Turbo really is a thing of wonder in so far as something that big can travel so fast and handle so well. The problem is I don't see the relevancy of it... the day to day running costs are horrendous (single figure mpg for example) and it's not like you're going to take it to track days.

The base model was just plain rubbish. Take away the stunning performance and there are much better looking, much better driving SUV's about.

I actually think the X5 is a much better all round SUV, particularly the twin-turbo diesel one.

Gotta respect what it's done for the Porsche balance sheet though.
 
homeforsummer
Even the aforementioned diesel is nicely quick - eight and a bit to 60, which is as quick as a 924S (the one with an actual Porsche engine :p) and still does over 30mpg, so it's a useable Porsche.

And you can't argue with the value either. Only £7k more than the very base Boxter? For a Porsche that can carry your whole family? And £20k less than a base 911 Carrera.
Click to expand...

Yet it's £6k more than the almost identical VW Touareg....

I'm sure you can buy a set of Porsche badges for less than six grand ;)
 
TheCracker
Yet it's £6k more than the almost identical VW Touareg....

I'm sure you can buy a set of Porsche badges for less than six grand ;)
Click to expand...

You get that with anything though. Technically a Skoda Octavia is the same as an Audi TT, yet I'm pretty sure the TT is more expensive. And it's impractical. So why would you get the TT?... ;)

Re: The Cayenne's poor fuel consumption - well I guess that's what the diesel is designed to correct.
 
homeforsummer
You get that with anything though. Technically a Skoda Octavia is the same as an Audi TT, yet I'm pretty sure the TT is more expensive. And it's impractical. So why would you get the TT?... ;)

Re: The Cayenne's poor fuel consumption - well I guess that's what the diesel is designed to correct.
Click to expand...

You're never going to mistake a TT for an Octavia though are you. Cover the lights and badges on a Touareg or a Cayenne and you'd be pushed to tell the difference.
 
TheCracker
You're never going to mistake a TT for an Octavia though are you. Cover the lights and badges on a Touareg or a Cayenne and you'd be pushed to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

But then... how many cars go around with lights and badges covered up? :sly: It's all very well saying they look similar, but out on the road even the average person on the street will be able to tell the difference, because the Cayenne does have Porsche badges and distinguishing features, and the Touareg does look similar to most other VWs.
 

Latest Posts

Back