There's a simple explaination for that. It offered state of the art 4 wheel drive system not many cars could offer at that time, let alone match its sophistication. Today's Carrera 4, however, is just another 4WD sports car. A Porsche it may be, yet just a sports car nevertheless.
@@LynxStarAuto He was comparing it to not only a modern Porsche (not Toyota Celica), but a 911 GT3, which is the fastest/most expensive naturally aspirated model available (except for the GT3RS)
Well despite what you think, you only have your own age group to blame. CAFE standards have been In place since the early 2000’s. Shall we rally the troops and blame the millennials for this one too?
247hp and 0-60 in 4,5 is impressive as hell. For example, my 944 s2 with a little bit less weight then standard and aprox 230hp makes it to 60 in high 5's. RWD though but way slower.
I remember watching this back when it came out & wanted a red 911 C4 in May of 1999 I found a1994 Wide Body 911 Carrera 4 red & it still turns heads & I still love it almost 21 years later.
Wow. I saw your profile pic and was thinking “what a nice 964” before I even read your post. Were these going for cheap by the late 90’s/early 00’s, since there had not only been another air-cooled generation released in the 993, but also a completely new liquid-cooled 911 in the 996 (in which they ramped up production which would have notably increased the pool of available 911’s on the market). But then again, a 94’ model would have only been a 5 year old car. I had a 98’ silver C2 for about a year and a half, purchased in 04’. Traded it for an 02’ Corvette Z06
@@dr.lyleevans6915 When I bought it I didn't know there were only about 250 made. I payed about 1/3 what I could get today have thought maybe I should sell it but just haven't tryed it sits there where it never gets below 50 & drive it 2 or 3 times a year..
Yes this a review of the 1990 model. It's the first year with airbags. A book about the 1989 model tells about the 959 technology incorporated in the Carrera 4. It's not as quick as the 1990 but I've never driven a car that felt so flat around turns. It's grip is amazing.
Still have it in the garage (guards red not gramma beige) and it won't do 0-60 in 4.5. Low to mid 5 sec. Range is more like it as I know its for sure slower than a c5 vette. Porsche was nearly broke at the time and almost discontinued the 911. Hard to believe today. Won't part with the car as the tactile connection with the driver cannot be replicated by more modern cars.
The 964 Carrera 4 is a gem. AWD in a 1960s performance car with an air cooled engine. Even in 1952 auto enthusiasts were bemoaning how the new cars lack true driver involvement!
The air cooled cars were great. The 964 is a bit more complex than the previous 911's, but you still have a chance to maintain this car yourself 30 years later as this was baked into the design philosophy. Simply amazing cars then and now.
Wow, even with inflation it really isn't that much more expensive today. Plus that 0-60 time is pretty darn impressive even back then. All that 959 DNA.
I had a 964 (Carrera 4 not the 964-2 Carrera 2), and I am totally sure it should have been R Rated: enjoyment, pleasure, you could also do it alone, do it as a couple, invite one or 2 friends, have another one behind the wheel, do it faster on straight lines, enjoy the curves, feel the roads like I never had, high revs, hard breakings that don't stop the fun but prepare for another burst of sensations! In 1999 I had the choice of an used Boxster (recent one) with it's incredible balance, or and 90's 964 "old lady" really harder to driver for the same price, and I chose the MILF. It was tremendous! Either in Frenche Savoie goind and returning from ski station, sometimes driving on snow, quietly doing Paris - Albertville (600km) commuting, and also running on the Deutsche Autobahn with other Porscher, between 160 to 240 Km/h (100mph to 150mph).
As a huge fanboy of the Japanese “supercars” of this era (Supra Twin Turbo, 300ZX TT, FD RX-7, NSX, and even 3000GT VR4) this car always used to piss me off at what it was able to do with so little🤔 Very impressive.....a Corvette ZR1 of this era with significantly more power was barely any quicker
jameswillard1 The 1990 ZR1 did 0-60 in 4.3 and the quarter in 12.6, all while weighing almost 300 lbs more and not benefiting from any traction control. Not sure where you're getting this 'barely' from. Also, ONLY Mototweek has this car's 0-60 at 4.5, everyone else has this car at 5.4, or slower. I think Motorweek goofed, lol.
I kind of wonder if Motorweek got a "ringer". Aka a tweaked press car. I don't remember 911's of this era being that fast, at least non-turbo ones. Anyways, those are IMPRESSIVE numbers for 1989. Also this was the first 911 to offer AWD as an option.
Last night I dreamt I was ripping one of these around my hometown. I feel like I’ve been on happy juice all day long, as a result. Maybe one of these are in my future. They cost about the same now as they did when they were new, but considering that $70,000 in 1989 is about $150,000 in 2020, I’ll take the “discount.“
Such a nice review, they used to do it right back in the day. It has everything, 1/4, 0-60, braking. Comparison to previous models, pros and cons. Now I have to listen to some pimple faced teenager burning through his dad's savings to tell me how he feels about how the car looks, without going through the performance figures.
Had. A friend with a 90 Porcshe 911 but it was a Carrera2, nice car but some stuff seemed old inside. Even the 2wd was fast as the engine hang over the rear wheels. Good car.
4.5 0-60 in 1990 w 247hp? Wow. Talk about Porsche understating their power figures I know it’s light but for comparison the Focus RS w AWD and 350hp does about 5.6sec or so from what I gather. I do love these old Porsches though. Shame prices are going nuts. Even the 924s are getting up there
Chris Dooley -- According to Motor Trend the Focus RS does 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. Car & Driver got 4.6 seconds 0-60 out of the RS. Still impressive that a 30-year-old Porsche can match those times!
At 3:20, Motor Week tries to describe *Lift-Throttle-Oversteer* but doesn't do a good job of it. Let me give it a try: When your *911 C2* is in a tight-turn at speed, and you make the rookie-mistake of lifting-off the throttle, which creates engine-braking, which affects only the rear wheels, which makes the rear-end lift-up a bit, which allows the rear wheels to lose contact with the road, which can cause the rear-end to spin-out of the tight-turn, then is when you're in a Lift-Throttle-Oversteer situation. However - When your *911 C4* is in a tight-turn at speed, and you make the rookie-mistake of lifting-off the throttle, which creates engine-braking, which affects ALL FOUR wheels, which PREVENTS the rear-end from lifting-up significantly, which PREVENTS the rear wheels from losing contact with the road, which PREVENTS the rear-end from spinning-out of the tight-turn, then is when you're using technology to look like a better driver than you really are. (Yeah, I've always been one of the tech-loving rookies.)
A day or so ago I watched the 1992 Porsche 911 turbo Motorweek review and that car had a 0-60mph time of 4.8 seconds. This 1989 Carrera 4 has a 0-60mph time of 4.5 seconds, and to the best of my knowledge, the Carrera is supposed to be the base model and normally aspirated. The turbo model is supposed to be the top of the range. Based upon this observation, it appears the basic model is quicker than the top model, and in 3 years, the car became slightly slower.
Wow! Almost 30 years later, and 5.0L Mustangs with 450 horsepower are now within this range of these performance figures. Hell, my 280 horsepower Honda Accord Coupe, with a 6-speed manual, can't even come close to this performance figures. One note, this car has a transverse engine, in the rear, allows for less parasitic horsepower loss, due to the drivetrain, to the wheels. Overall, I don't understand why more companies don't do a transverse layout, in the rear. Porsche horsepower is in a different performance league.
Companies probably don't do rr setups anymore because of a safety regulation, the fact that they might have to design a whole new chassis to fit the rr setup and because rr setups can be tricky to handle sometimes. Porsche is the exception to this as they have 60+ years of experience, fine tuning the rr setup so that its manageable. VW also has similar experience but the beetle was manageable because it was slow, not because of a fine tuned chassis.
A 2018 Mustang GT can do 0-60 in as low as 3.8 seconds and 1/4 miles as low as 11.8 at over 117mph. So, no, not in range, but far above. This Porsche was on par with the 3400lb, 300hp 2005 Ford Mustang GT, though. Let not forget, the Buick Grand National was as fast as this '89 Porsche in '87.
nes suno, you can't make a blanket statement like that. There are a series of automobiles that have odd trans-configurations. It's dependent on how it's engineered. Looking at the specs of the Nissan GT-R's complex AWD, I would of never thought their layout would create a car with such capable performance. Furthermore, your statement is completely contradicting. Porsche's, in general, including this 911, when it comes to acceleration are some of the fastest accelerating cars in the market.
@@orbits2 Maybe 0-30 at best, and even that would be questionable without serious mods (especially against Shelby Cobras and the like). Put even semi-slicks on any late 60’s/early 70’s American muscle and a VW, or period Porsche for that matter wouldn’t have a chance. That said, in this case the rear weight bias does play a role in acceleration, as does the AWD system. The AWD system could potentially hurt acceleration times, however, as it not only adds quite a bit of weight, but also increases the parasitic drivetrain losses and whatnot. Weight is the real secret to this era 911’s primal acceleration. The boxer engine’s great power delivery also played a role, as does the exceptionally low drivetrain loss (for obvious packaging reasons). I suspect these engines were either underrated, these times weren’t accurate (Motorweek is typically slower than other publications), or this one was a ringer. 4.5 second 0-60 isn’t very realistic with this power to weight ratio.
I find it hard to believe how this thing flies. It's not even a Turbo yet the almost twice as powerful 959 is hardly any better in straight line acceleration.
13.3 @ 104 is HORSEHIT! In Ashburn, Virginia in 1993 I came to a stoplight with a 964. I was in my '92 Corrado SLC, and it was stock. I was 150 pounds, my passenger was 225, and the guy in the 964 was about 200+. We raced and it was neck and neck! My corrado pulled a 14.86 @ 94.25 at Orlando Speedway in Bithlo a few years later with only me and a Neuspeed cat back exhaust installed. The 964 wasn't a drag car, it was useful in curves if you knew what you were doing. But it was NO faster than a VR6 powered Volkswagen....
I was watching this one video on RU-vid that showed a 1987 911 with manual transmission and convertible top could not break 8.5 seconds to 60 mph. The quarter mile was done between 18 and 19 seconds at just over 80 mph. Pathetic. It lost a lot of power over the years. I still like the car though.
my honda s2000 is 2800lbs 3000 with me in it and the same 247hp, this carrera is 3250lbs with prob an adult 200lb male which is now 3450lbs my car does 0-60 in 5.4-5.6 secs how the hell does this 911 carrera clock 4.5 seconds dang it 5.0 mustang with 440hp clock 4.5 seconds with the same weight as the porsche what the hellll
Starts at 1:26 The 0-60 time stated as 4.5 is BS. Car & Driver measured it at 5.1, and the quarter in 13.6. I trust them more than I trust these milquetoasts.
So what you're saying is motorcycles of a particular era are generally faster in a straight line than sports cars of the same era? Oh, and motorcycles are less expensive than sports cars? Thanks Captain Obvious. LOL.
