TheSamba.com :: View topic - How does it feel to drive a 356 compare to a Beetle?

Sat Aug 04, 2012 8:55 pm

Hi im just curious. Compare to a Beetle, how a 356 drive? Also why the 356 was so expensive compare to a Beetle when the 356 is made with a lot of Beetle parts?

Thank you

Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:44 pm

SgtSamy wrote: Hi im just curious. Compare to a Beetle, how a 356 drive? Also why the 356 was so expensive compare to a Beetle when the 356 is made with a lot of Beetle parts?

Thank you

356 is much tighter, steering more precise, its lower and has better handling and much quicker. Mostly though it is solid since it is one complete piece, body and chassis, not bolted together like a bug. A Ghia is a little closer in feel, but even that pales in comparison. I always wondered if one was to stiffen up the Ghia body by welding the body to the pan if you could more approximate the feel of a 356.
Also, real early ones used VW components quite a bit, but as the car progressed fewer and fewer were used.

Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:11 pm

Hi im just curious. Compare to a Ford, how a Shelby Cobra drive? Also why the Cobra was so expensive compare to a Ford when the Cobra is made with a lot of Ford parts?

Thank you :D

Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:16 pm

Not to be sacrilegious but "back in the day" I think one of the car magazines did a comparison test between a Karmann Ghia and a Speedster...the KG won!

Go figure...

But, I don't think I'll be trading in my Speedster.

Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:31 am

Braukuche wrote: SgtSamy wrote: Hi im just curious. Compare to a Beetle, how a 356 drive? Also why the 356 was so expensive compare to a Beetle when the 356 is made with a lot of Beetle parts?

Thank you

356 is much tighter, steering more precise, its lower and has better handling and much quicker. Mostly though it is solid since it is one complete piece, body and chassis, not bolted together like a bug. A Ghia is a little closer in feel, but even that pales in comparison. I always wondered if one was to stiffen up the Ghia body by welding the body to the pan if you could more approximate the feel of a 356.
Also, real early ones used VW components quite a bit, but as the car progressed fewer and fewer were used.

Thank you for this very interesting information. I did not know that it was one complete piece. My next question is, do you think the Porsche replicas that are sold actually ''replicate'' the driving sensation you do have with an original 356 or they can not because of the special body of the 356? I know that most replicas are mad out of fiberglass and the pan of Beetle is used to make them. So it`s basically just a fast Beetle with some makeup or it actually feel a little bit like a 356?

Thank you

Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:43 am

My only personal experience that equates a 356 and a VW was that my '53 356 had a 36 hp motor for a while and drove more like my '57 Beetle. I then put the 1500 356 engine in the VW and that drove better.

Once I got past the early and A model 356s and into a Super90 B and a nice late C, there was NO comparison between the VW and the 356 as the 356 evolved.

So, the closest similarity between a 356 and a VW was in the first half of the 1950s, and even then, the 356 was more "cool"...there were less made, they were made differently, they cost more and handled better, were lower and more aerodynamic.....on and on....

And I really like Jack's analogy with Ford products! (I was reading about that in my latest Ford 356 Registry magazine (not to be confused with the PORSCHE 356 Registry....hey, they both had a model called a Speedster).... :lol:

Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:59 am

SgtSamy wrote: My next question is, do you think the Porsche replicas that are sold actually ''replicate'' the driving sensation you do have with an original 356 or they can not because of the special body of the 356? I know that most replicas are mad out of fiberglass and the pan of Beetle is used to make them. So it`s basically just a fast Beetle with some makeup or it actually feel a little bit like a 356?

Thank you

No, the difference in construction is exactly why a replica doesn't accurately replicate the driving experience of the car it emulates. Might be better, might be worse, but not the same unless it duplicates the original in every way.

Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:08 am

It depends on the kit you buy, the manner in which you build it and the components you use to make it move. I have seen some great looking replica's they really look the part and actually can often in a straight line anyway, out perform the original. I think many like the look of speedster more than having the need to go really fast round corners.

The integrity of the steel floor pan with steel body welded to it makes the 356 feel very modern in its driving feel. The ride quality is normally the first thing people that have never been in 356 before comment on. They find it hard to believe the car is over 50 years old.

Roy

Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:53 pm

Remember that 356s have a shorter wheelbase than VWs--cornering is more fun! Acceleration is much better as is braking.

Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:36 pm

I had a 1954 bug, at 50mph I felt like I was going fast. In my 356, at 85mph, I am going fast. Both fun to drive but for different reasons.

Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:20 pm

I had a '58 Ghia with a Porsche 1600 normal motor in it. I had previously owned a '58 356A coupe and was very familiar with it. The Ghia could not even begin to approach the handling and feel of the 356. Two different worlds. There are too many things to discuss as to why that is, but a few of them are: Seats, pedals, body construction, steering, and on and on.

I later also had a '56 bug with the same Porsche motor in it. While it was fun, it still could not compare to the 356.

By contrast, a '58 Speedster that I drove was one of the best handling, lightest, and exhilarating cars I have ever driven.

There is a genius in the design. It is not just the sum of the parts.

SV

Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:43 pm

356's handle better at 100+ MPH. :D
Jon

Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:50 pm

OK, Norm Robinson let me drive the nice, uber-original '54 Cab he owned forever at the Williamsburg Holiday and he drove his Convertible D. In crossing over the James river on an open grate bridge, the car on skinny 16" wheels and tires steered itself...scary! I just let go of the wheel and crossed my..fingers.
On the back roads, it was a handful to keep up with the A...actually, I could not. Norm would pull over and wait. The brakes were not as good, the turnsignals weren't as good, the shifting wasn't as good...and I first kept thinking of my VW from school days and then thinking about how I would have liked to be driving the '59 A! The difference from 5 years of evolution was significant even though there was a very strong visual family resemblance.

If we Porschephiles here keep up this non-VW 356 high-fiving here on the Samba, we will risk looking like several threads "over there" where the majority of "atta-boys" emanate from those with single or low double-digit previous posting history. I wonder about why they joined, what they know about the club, what 356 they drive, why they own it and for how long.
It's alleged that some of "them" lurk here on the Samba, get upset that some of us (me included) "whine" about stuff over there over there and then send emails complaining to various higher-ups over there about what's posted over here......oh really? Hummmmm......why lurk? Join in!
Otherwise, I have 2 words I use frequently to express myself about such things.......

My suggestion based on this thread is to start another thread....how many years of 356 experiences does each 356er on the Samba have? What model(s) do we have experience with? Let's get an average, so responses here about topics like this one, a legitimate inquiry for sure, can carry more weight. If not a year, hell, a day qualifies a respondent.

Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:19 pm

The best handling 356 I have driven is my.... 912! You know, that semi-trailing arm (IRS) rear suspension was quite a design improvement.

I have had a fair amount of experience driving Porsches back to when I was 16, in 1971... I have had a fair amount of experience twiddling with the suspension and working out the bugs. Maybe not as much as some of the racers and guys that are still doing it for a living, but a fair amount.

Recently my neighbor has restored a '53 coupe, a '55 pre-A Speedster, a '57 coupe (very original) and a '61B coupe. I got to drive all of them. Not extensively, but enough. Yes, indeed there have been improvements through the years, and the handling even depends a lot on the setup of the car. Bottom line is I do not like the pucker any more, and prefer a balanced car to a "yippee!" oversteering car.

BTW the '58 Speedster I mentioned before was like flying a kite. It felt like your feet go right out to the wheels. It also had a lot of GS parts underneath. Brakes, oil lines... I suspected at the time it was originally a 4 cam car, but did not investigate.

SV

Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:09 pm

savaden wrote: The best handling 356 I have driven is my.... 912! You know, that semi-trailing arm (IRS) rear suspension was quite a design improvement.

I have had a fair amount of experience driving Porsches back to when I was 16, in 1971... I have had a fair amount of experience twiddling with the suspension and working out the bugs. Maybe not as much as some of the racers and guys that are still doing it for a living, but a fair amount.

Recently my neighbor has restored a '53 coupe, a '55 pre-A Speedster, a '57 coupe (very original) and a '61B coupe. I got to drive all of them. Not extensively, but enough. Yes, indeed there have been improvements through the years, and the handling even depends a lot on the setup of the car. Bottom line is I do not like the pucker any more, and prefer a balanced car to a "yippee!" oversteering car.

BTW the '58 Speedster I mentioned before was like flying a kite. It felt like your feet go right out to the wheels. It also had a lot of GS parts underneath. Brakes, oil lines... I suspected at the time it was originally a 4 cam car, but did not investigate.

SV Certainly the 912 is a significant improvement over the early VW and even the 356, but I think it shares about 4 parts in common with those cars.

Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:43 pm

In short, to answer your question, it is exhilerating!

I also own a Karmann Ghia -- one of the later ones with fully independent suspension and not swing axles--it also has a longer wheel base than the 356 (the KG is the same a VW beetle) and it actually handles a bit better than the swing axle 356s--not nearly the power and acceleration, but better manners when pushed hard on a corner. That is why the 912 was better than the 356 too--slightly longer wheelbase and fully independent rear suspension. If you notice, the earlier 912/911s had a shorter wheel base than the later models. I think the longer wheel base makes for smoother turns. Porsche must have figured that out too.

Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:24 pm

Pat KG wrote: ... If you notice, the earlier 912/911s had a shorter wheel base than the later models. I think the longer wheel base makes for smoother turns. Porsche must have figured that out too. Porsche may have figured it out in a slightly different way. The short wheelbase 901 cars were built as 911 or 912. For the 911, significant additional weight was added to the left and right front bumper corners, apparently to compensate for the rear weight bias. This modification came at co$t. These weights were omitted from the 912 models, as Porsche must have felt that the weight bias was more favorable in these cars with lighter engines. When Porsche introduced the short lived 912E on the long wheelbase platform, it is interesting to note that an additional very heavy steel bar was added to the transmission mount to INCREASE rear weight bias on this car, again at additional co$t, but not on the 911. You might ask "Why didn't Porsche add weight to the rear of the long wheelbase '69 912 if it was important?" Good question. We could ask the same question about any number of changes/non-changes that Porsche has done over the decades. An easy one regarding 356 is that the lighter weight flywheel used on the Super 90 for four years was dropped in favor of the full weight flywheel for '64 and '65 SC models. My best guess? Economics. Porsche could have reasoned the 901 cars were the future of the company, so why tool up making a special flywheel for a few cars on the obsolete model. Just put the same flywheel on every car. Similar thinking could have applied to the '69 912. Sorry LWB 912 fans :wink:

Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:35 am

Jack,
No apology needed for the 69 912. I have owned a 66, 67, 68 and two 69's and the 69's are far and away the best handling of the lot, both in comfort
and when pushed. That extra few inches of wheelbase improved the F/R
weight bias in the 911 and was a more pronounced improvement for the
912. Maybe the added the bar to the E to keep that bad boy from showing
up it's brother.. :wink:

Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:40 am

76 HP is a bad boy? :)
Jon

Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:54 pm

Back to the original thread....How does it feel? The VWs seats offered 2 reclining positions, whereas the 356s, with exception of the Speedster, offered fully reclining seats , coupled with seat design made for a much more comfortable ride. In addition the 356 is a much more "solid" car than the VW. I've owned Ghias, Bugs, & a 356 Coupe & Speedster. Still have a '73 Ghia Vert, and the VWs are "tiney" compared to a Porsche. Just close the door of a 356 vs. VW. The Porshe sounds like you're closing a vault. Course the VWs cost a lot less than the Porsches, so it's not like you're comparing Apples to Apples anyway. Just my .02....

billb