964 intake on 3.4 motor?
 

Is there any advantage to running a 964 intake "spider" on a 3.2 converted to 3.4L? have and extra 964 intake plenum and I thought I might try it on my 3.4 (twin plug, 10.5:1CR). I know there will be a bit of programming involved, I'm just curious if there would be any benefit.
-Chris

I believe that you will have a tough time adapting the 3 bolt 964 manifolds to the older style 2 bolt head studs. Though I suppose anything is possible w/ enough effort. 964 head won't work either because of the incresed stud spacing.

I believe that the usual advice is to use TWM( or equivalent) or have the stock manifolds cleaned up(extrude hone?) to equalize flow through the various runners.

CamB. has( I believe) an interesting varient w/ mfi stacks serviced by Motec

Thanks Bill,
I'm not so much interesting in the mechanics of doing it, so much as whether the runners are too big. The motor is running 3.2 Motronic.
-Chris

I see Smart Racing sells adapters for mounting 3.6 intakes on an earlier motor. Their catalog says they developed it for a 3.4 motor they project they did.
-Chris

bump

bump, c'mon anyone?

Hi Chris, I thought about the same, but on a 3.0 engine instead, But my idea was to Design and machine complete new Flanges from a 3D model, and made a cone or radius inside to blend from Head Diameter to ( in my case ø39 ) to The internal diameter of the 964 runner .. What did your experiment end up with ? do you know the internal diameter of the 964 runner where these are connected to the flange ?

Roslin

I wound up not going that route. I really doubt that mixing 3.6 intake with a 3.0 motor would be a good match. I think someone was tinkering with the idea of using a Boxster intake but I don't know what came of it. You could do a search.
-Chris

3.6 intake on 3.2 engine
 

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1227582332.jpg


We do this conversion with great results. Above should be 3.6 intake on 3.0 engine.

The billet adapters for the cylinder heads are in stock.

Rothsport Racing 503 885 9626 Jeff Gamroth

Billet adapter 3.6 intake to 3.2 head
 

What would be the advantage of running 3.6 intakes on a 3.2?

Dyno :: 3.2 Stock with SSI exhaust / M&K muffler
 

Posted is a dyno sheet for a stock 3.2 Autothority chip SSI M&K muffler.

If you were to install a 3.6 intake with engine management you can expect gains in torque @ 4500=16+ ft. lbs. at 6000=24+ ft. lbs. horsepower gain @6100=26
above the graph numbers.

We have done many conversions on 3.0 liter engines with the 3.6 plenum, but this was to get rid of the CIS. We have yet to put a 3.6 plenum on a 3.2, but we have done one on a 3.4 race engine. The numbers above are projected gains based off of our 3.0 results.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1227655131.jpg

I wonder what the benefit would be if you used a varioram intake on a smaller displacement engine? i.e. 2.4-2.8?

Randy wells has a 2.8 with varioram and motec.......

Cheers

Do you know if Rothsport have adapters for fitting the 993 stacks/intakes to a 3.2 head? It will be the same type of adapter but with an internal taper running from 42mm diameter down to 39mm diameter? I have a 964 plastic intake, 993 plastic stacks and 3.2 heads - don't ask why!

If I might be so bold as to ask a couple more questions :)

- what have you done with the throttle linkage? Adapted the 3.2 rod system or replaced with a cable?
- your pictures shows an engine (presumably) running engine manaement as there is no AFM while the dyno plot is (presumably) for an AFM 3.2. Any issues putting the 3.2 AFM on the intake? my understanding is that the 964 and 3.2 AFMs are the same part, so I guess not.
- do you stick with the high impedence 3.2 injector and remap accordingly rather than use the low impedence 964 type injector?
- your adapter cover the cut-out in the 3.2 heads for the std injector placement by the look of it, do you fill the cut-out or just leave it covered over? It might have a tiny negative flow impact if you don't fill it but I can't get too excited about it.
- if you had a choice, would you keep the adapter as thin as possible and replicate as close as possible the original injector placement? or make it thicker to raise the injector placement?

Such a timely revival of an old thread. Very useful having the pictures and confirmation that it works on the dyno!

Thanks,
Richard

Wow - good to know - maybe I need to be shopping for a 993 intake?

I have a 993 v-ram intake. I was going to replace my non-vram on my 993 but decided not. I'd love to see that set-up.

Sounds great with the resulst from an 3L engine .. interesting ! But my idea was to produce onepiece injectorbody with 2 bolt pattern for the 3.0/3.2 cylinderheads, ( sory i wrote flange, but ment injector body) these should then be made to fit 964 or 993 runners, but with an corect designed ( acording to optimum flow) blend between head and runner corne or rasdius..

maby the varioram intake could be a good choice for smaller motors, seen from a midrange touque point of view ..?

Now where is the challenge in that?

I can't install a 3.6 anyway, class rules etc. I'm thinking of building another engine, with IBTs and a varioram manifold, Haltech E11. currently I'm getting about 200 hp from a 2.2, If I can fatten up the midrange a bit that would be very helpful. The car weighs 1850#

And I have already a spare block, the engine managment, the ITBs and the varioram manifold.