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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.)
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!
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.
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.
@@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 TH-cam 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.
![[MIRRORED] LISA - ROCKSTAR 🎸 MV version #LISA #BLACKPINK #ROCKSTAR](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-U58DuCCtZk/mqdefault.jpg)
That 0-60 time was mind blowing back then. Still impressive today!
Keith especially for 247hp
@@JDMHaze my thoughts exactly, that's quick man !
Blair Williams it likely had more
They were misquoted. This vehicles 0-60 were more in the low 5s.
@@LynxStarAuto
Not for the C4 it wasn't.
0 to 60 in 4.5 seconds in 1989, very impressive!
Micheal Micheal and with 247hp at that!!
Power has to be underrated. 247 seems way too low for it to put out those numbers with that kind of curb weight.
Michael Nakis i agree
I think it's due to the engine being over the rear axle and great traction.
S
"It's a collection of curves that makes Saturday afternoon washing and waxing into an R-rated experience."
Kevron Harris JOHN was a well known EXHAUST HUMPER .
@@tomhertz1614 😂😂😂😂😂
Beat that line Top Gear
And he says it with such a deadpan delivery😄
247hp and did the quarter in 13.3! Damn that’s good. Favorite Porsche body style ever.
$69,500 in 89 = $142,252 today .... WOWZERS!!
Way faster than I would have imagined for having 247 horsepower. Cars are too bloated these days.
OnTheReelFishing that's the truth. All the collusion protection systems and unnecessary technology weigh cars down. It's crazy by how much
I positively agree. Some cars need a huge weight loss diet plan for better performance and handling.
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?
Kevin S yeah, probably should
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.
Many wish that cars were still produced like this.
I for one wish that MotorWeek episodes were still produced like this. That intro was deep.
Jake from State Farm the closest thing are the Singer 911s
I love motorweek, one of the best TV shows for car people.
Ive watch motorweek since year 1992. Other car show host come and go. But john davis still here, he original and best.
Over $70000 in 1989-90 is crazy. Today thats almost 150k. Thats starting to get into GT3 territory.
34FenwayPark it's a Porsche. Not exactly competing in the Toyota Celica price point here.
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)
Still faster than 90% of cars on the road
Respect
Everybody take a drink when John makes a comment about an oil pressure gauge and another one for Volt meter 🤣
I was in the gray market back then a imported lots of 930, 911,928s and you know who made up my customer list, mostly US fighter pilots.
Retro Reviews RULE
I can't get enough of these retro reviews
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..
@@jimw8808 Wow. Consider yourself lucky.
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.
Porsche always appears to make magic on their cars
Porsche is always 10+ yrs ahead of the game
fato putso oh yes the 944 dash and instrument cluster used up until 1995 button like the ones for the seats used up until 1998.
Amazing how this design hasn’t aged
Thank you for uploading these old reviews, a great watch.
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.
Great car. No nonsense performance, braking, and awd handling with auto-sensing locking diff nice!
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!
That thing was STUPID QUICK for 1989!
It's still competitive today!
Damn, that's still respectably quick today!
I love these retro reviews
964 Carreras are the best looking 911s imo, followed closely by 993s.
I have a 1990
I miss air cooled porches. They are old school hard core kind of cars. New ones are better and more refined but I think the old ones were more fun.
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.
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
The ZR1 might not take this car off the line, but it would leave it once the speeds got past 70-80mph.
Aaron Bays I don’t disagree with you
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.
U called datsun Toyota and Mitsubishi supercar smfh
231mac never saw those times you are quoting for a ZR1. 🤔
Amazing numbers for the time. Also amazing: that Porsche would put a Camry beige model in the press fleet.
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.
What a beautiful car
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).
Love the shape.
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.“
I had the exact same 89 911 C4 I use to take to RRR.
4.5 0-60 Christ didn't know these were that quick, very impressive for the time and power
And today Porsche can get those impressive times...from their station wagon!
Could you guys post the 80's Pontiac Bonneville SSE review?
Porsche managed to wring a couple more years out of an ancient body. Mark my words, the car will be history by 1993.
Lucky it’s made it this far. The rear engine layout can never compete, much less succeed into the 21st century.
One of the main car mags had the Carrera 4 0-60 at 4.8. Yes it was that quick.
Its almost 2019 and i still afford this car that was built in 1989...
Toyota had the Turbo All Wheel Drive Celica, in 1988.
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.
I'd personally take the keys to the 993, but this is a matter of taste.
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.)
13.30 back in 1989 would have destroyed a C4 Corvette and the Grand National.
I didn’t know a convertible was that much more expensive than the coupe! Look at the prices now haha.
The 964 is a nice model. The 993 is so gorgeous though.
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
Agreed. I'm guessing it's about 300-320hp. What do you think?
Dungzoo i agree
Probably little to do with inaccurate power figures and more to do with gear ratios and off the line traction.
David C Yes the AWD makes the launch alot easier
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!
The new 964 Carrera 4.
Porsche carreira é muito maravilhoso imagina como é a velocidade sensacional 👍👍😁
And it still is the king of the road. The 964 generation and older ones i mean 😁
I want to see a video of a rear driven 911 , vs the NSX.
To 60 in 4.5 seconds, that has to be wrong. 996 with 300 hp is 5.1 seconds and that was the fastest 911 ever.
Looks better than the 993.
By today's standards those are great numbers!
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.
Lucas, 2017 and below. Furthermore, Porshe's that come with 400 horsepower decimate Ford V8's.
Rear transverse is a silly point since this was AWD
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.
7:25 That panel gap tho.
Still want one.
hand made...
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 what a price tag.. new booster today
0-60 in 4.5 secs? WTF...that's quick for 2018
Que belleza de auto. 🌐🌎🌍🌏
I'm shocked at how fast this car was.
why ?
Even 60--70, VW,s were the fastest off the line cars verse over weight US muscle cars back then
Lic Driver Circa 1968
@@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.
the older 911s had a terrible driving position , love the rev gauge in the centre , speedo to the side
Here, the "true" 911 started to die. A 911 is a car that you are glad you survived. Especially in the wet. This car was just, well... too good.
This was the beginning of the overcomplicated Porsche with its airbags.
This car is still fast today! The guys today brag about the new Honda Civic type R and this blows its doors off to 60 and 1/4 mile.
4.5 seconds to 60? Why is it so fast? That's what a 964 Turbo would run
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.
Lmao funny how they say lift off oversteer made the rwd version a handful
E36 BEAMERBOY lol ikr
Why?
There is no way they got that car to 60 in 4.5
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....
A corrado never won shit!..... Imsa.... LeMans......? Nope
@@chadbarbaro Whatever that means. Just watch out for that wonderful trailing throttle oversteer...
I was watching this one video on TH-cam 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.
Looks very similar to a vw beetle.
This is actually from '90, not '89.
landyachtfan79 based on MY coding? If so they're always from a year prior...
John says "Welcome to MotorWeek '90" in the intro.
It’s still the same car from 89’
89’ didn’t have the airbags like this 90’ had. 90’ had more power too iirc
Yep agree with all that sensual stuff
And that’s the colour the PR folk at Porsche chose to promote the Carrera 4 to their largest market?
Hmm, why my Porsche Carrera 4s 2006 is slower for 0-60 mph than the old one?
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
Late 80s Porsche
4.5 0-60 isn’t correct!
more like 5.1
@@chadbarbaro a 996 is 5.2. I’m guessing slower.
Street legal gokart.
$69,500 = $144,708.07 in 2018
So this thing has the same 0-60 of a manual 370z nismo and mustang bullitt 🙈
Better than a wrx with 30 hp less
It’s mind blowing right? I just made a similar statement above concerning the Focus RS w 100hp more.
Pipe Toloza my newer STI was same 1/4 mile times but slower to 60. This was amazing back then
Of course there amazing numbers from 90's cars,newer cars only have lots of horsepower but they are in the same or slower than the old sport cars
Great car, but the 993 was much better.
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.
Front boot = Froot
No weight
Nice but not fast .1993 Suzuki gsxr 1100 0 to60 2.9 second
quarter miles..10.20 141 mph That's faster and way cheaper......
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.
Ah... simpler times. Before every TH-cam jockey with a car fetish christened themselves auto journalists.
You barely buy a truck for that price now smh
James Gilliland arbitrary... this car's equivalent is well into the 100k today.
It would actually be $141,000 in 2018
first
Odd body design looks like Something out of Cartoon .
Victor Victor it's a VW Beetle derivative 😉
Lack of appreciation is your problem.
Who would buy a gold/tan 911? Looks absolutely horrible.
I love it it’s called Linen metallic 👍