3.2SS Build
 

Well, pulled the trigger on doing a 3.2SS engine build.

This has been a dream of mine for the last several years. I was going to do the build myself - even took a 911 aircooled engine build course.

Thinking over the last 2 or 3 years and an enormous amount of internal debate, I knew anyone can throw a bunch of specific parts together to assemble an engine. But, I needed it done right with the associated details of a complete package.

I made the decision to chat with Jeff Alton at Turn3 Autosport. I've known Jeff for a long time - even bought a number of used parts from him and he has attended a couple of the garage days I hosted over the years.

This year Jeff and his great people at Turn3 took my tired 3.0 litre SC engine - over 325,000 kms on her - and put some fire in her belly. And, did they ever put some fire in there. The engine components are listed on the graph. I'm not going to get into the detailed specs of the build because Jeff built it. Plain and simple.

The overall goal was to have a strong engine for canyon carving, was dead reliable for travelling long distances and would run on "s h I t t y American gas".

I'm still trying to break in the engine, but that may need to wait until Spring. The few hundred kms I have been able to drive Rosie has been amazing. The throttle repose is instantaneous - will make downshifting a dream. The power band is lower and so much stronger to deal with the switchbacks when canyon carving.

She is running a little rich right now, but that is likely a good thing with the break in. Will retune next Summer when the engine has a few more kms on her.

Overall, I am very happy with the results. Actually, I'm totally impressed with the numbers. Jeff mentioned this has been perhaps one of his best builds. All I know - I have a very big smile on my face.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1576616798.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1576616939.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1576616967.jpg

Very nicely done! Love the edit setup.

Why a short stroke engine for the street? I don't get the fascination with short stroke engines.....

Its a easy way to add displacement and they still make plenty of torque.

That is insane horse power from a 3,2. Well done. I may have to rethink my motor.

Rev nice, long stroke is ok for cruiser or GT type cars but the feel of a short stroke for something light and sporty is quite nice

Well, longer stroke motors are preferred in race cars these days. The power is more usable and there is more of it overall. Still fast revving and more fun to drive....

Charlie, thank you for the very kind words. It was a pleasure to work with you and build this motor.
Now post some pics of the car so people see that the motor is just a complimentary piece in your beautiful Targa!

Cheers

Scott,

it is the simplest and most cost effective way to get displacement increase in a 3.2. At 70.4 it isn't that "short" But it is shorter than a production 3.2 at 74.4, hence it is called a "short stroke 3.2"....

The 70.4 stroke with a 127.8mm rod length also has a (arguably, though splitting hairs) better rod/stroke ratio than the 74.4 and 127mm rod found in a 930/3.2. This motor, which makes plenty of HP and TQ did not require Charlie to get a new crank/rod combo. I think you will agree it makes a decent amount of power with a very nice usable torque curve.

Compared to a 3.4 (74.4 crank) we built as a very similar build, it made essentially the same torque (and curve) and a little less peak HP. Tuned on the same dyno during the same week. It makes a very nice street engine and would be perfectly happy on the track.

Cheers

Had the car since 2004. Long distance canyon carving is my passion with friends throughout British Columbia, a few from Alberta and several from Washington State. We get together 5 or 6 times a year to drive some 2000 kms on a 3 day weekend into the most remote places we can find with twisty roads.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1576651556.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1576651870.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1576652225.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1576652373.jpg

I get the cost thing. My main question is why do people think shorter stroke motors are somehow better than longer stroke motors.

If you built a 3.4 with a longer stroke crank that makes the same torque as that 3.2, you simply did not optimize the 3.4 build like you did the 3.2 build.

Have these guys dyno a bone stock 3.2 and see what that dyno says compared to factory numbers only fair right

Thats an absurd amount of power.It just concretizes that building an efficient engine,isnt simply connecting a specific group of parts together.
Im sure Jeff has honed his skill and knowledge, through an incalculable amount of time and effort to reach this point.
Then for some to ask him publically to divulge his "secrets" is imho inappropriate.Then to question, the validity of the claimed power at the same time is doubly so.

Dear lord that is a TON of power. Most of the 3.2SS's I see are making 200-240WHP.

This engine is exactly what I want for my SC. This might make be forget the turbo route.

i just figured the usual US dyno vs rest of world figures, automatically knocked 15-20hp off in my head, still impressive regardless of dyno differences
x2, no doubts there.

Thanks for your input Scott.

Lets clear the air here a bit.

There have been some posts on this thread that have been deleted now. I will still address them.

We use a dyno as a tuning tool. The "number" is basically irrelevant to us. The smile on the customer's face is worth far more. We contract that tuning work to a company we consider partners. They are experts, beyond anything I have seen anywhere I have traveled, in the realms of tuning. We tune all sorts of cars, with all manner of tunes. I mean no disrespect to any of the tuners or types of tunes I will mention. The advantage of live tuning makes the comparison to a "canned tune" apples to oranges. Lets get that straight. We use plenty of canned tunes on everything from a 3.2 Carrera, to a 991.2 via the likes of Cobb and many other well respected tuners. You can do your quick google search and see who the best players are in that field, we use them. And have had great success, and continue to support those products. I will tell you as an example, that when we tune a 991.2 car with a Cobb, we send it over to have it maximized, and the gains are real, over the standard Cobb tune.

But live tuning on a dyno, with a modern, fully featured ECU and sensors, allows us OEM flexibility in tuning without the worry of smog, CAFE or any other issue. Every single engine, even those with the same build specs, creates a slightly different "air pump". The reason we chose the tuning partner we did (and we are fortunate they are in our back yard) is because they focus on on driveabilty first, then ultimate power and torque.

Every motor we spec is specific to a particular clients' needs. Street motors need flat torque curves with lots of "area under the curve". Race motors can be a little more tailored based on typical track layout, car weight, gearing etc. Data acquisition can really help here. This was street motor. Charlie uses his car for spirited touring. Lots of hills and curves. The torque curve seems suited for that type of driving.

Debate all you like about the peak numbers. It makes no difference. No two dynos are alike. Remember, it is a tool. I can tell you that this particular dyno has been used countless times on stock cars vs mod cars and it is pretty accurate. Could we do more before/after? Sure, and we will likely do that as time permits. But at the end of the day, we don't market our motors based on a HP number. Clients come to us via word of mouth from other clients that love their motor. There is no HP war in aircooled motors, at least not for those of us that build them...

Hope this helps.

[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;10692814]i just figured the usual US dyno vs rest of world figures, automatically knocked 15-20hp off in my head, still impressive regardless of dyno differences

If it was a Dyno in England the number would be 20% higher lol! :) ;)

Cheers

Was your intent to be dismissive? Because that is how it came across....