It’ll take you some work to get an SC down to 2200 pounds. It can be done, but it’s not cheap.

If you build a 3 L engine with mechanical fuel injection, you can add quite a bit of money to the budget I previously expressed. If you want to go with electronic injection and individual throttle bodies, I wish you luck.

You described my ‘83 911 race car, though its a little heavier than 2200 with fuel as its all steel body. My 3L is not maxxed out as race engines go, but it does require 100 octane fuel. Made 270hp at the wheels, rev limit is 7200. 915 trans has short gears and you hit rev limit in 5th at ~135mph. It is the most fun car to drive that I have experienced.

Forget building an engine, forget the Cobra, just go and buy this...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-cars-sale/1028028-1984-930-blk-blk.html

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1556496839.jpg

That is a very cool 930... sadly i'm a few years away from making a decision... and with impact cars prices starting to cool and drop i'll likely loose money on my car. LOL the only guy to lose money on a Porsche 911. Hahahaha

My car is 2450, and still runs the steel bumpers, OEM seats, and a big fat battery.... I think I can get under 2300 pretty easy.

I think this thread has done everything you have asked for.

And more than a few have suggested not putting any significant money in your SC to up the whoopee factor. When you brought out the fact that a Cobra kit car might very well be in your future, I think you called it. You can get one for not much more than you will yield selling the SC.

Low boost (.5-.7 bar) turbo setup is REALLY nice and minuscule in cost to a "built" motor.

Yes I am! :)

Fook the Vett idea - where is the challenge in that?! :) All you need is this (plus a BOV valve, or recirculation valve if the fuel system utilizes metered air, which this animation doesn't have) if you want to make that car of yours actually move forward at a rapid pace!

A properly reinforced 915 would be okay if you keep horsepower and torque below 300 - above that, and you'd need a 930 or g50 box to have any faith that it won't let you down.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...op80qd2gif.gif

I have had a lot of variations of 911s over the years including a serious built SC 3.0 and a 3.6 in a 72 model, a couple of 993s and 964s, Turbos, etc.. People have been building hopped up 3.0s for the last 20+ years but that $15K build will not perform near as well on any level as a bone stock $15K 3.6. I will take a stock bigger displacement/higher HP motor over a hopped up one on any day.. Ive been there and done that many times and in my experience, thats the way to go. Ass others have mentioned, the smartest thing to do, would be to sell it and buy a newer 996/cayman, etc, but i get the alure of the classic 911.

Rawks, what do you mean when you say a properly reinforced 915, just wondering what all the entails?

Also STOP watering the turbo seed that has permanent residence in my head. ;)

I do find it amusing that in the Porsche community that anyone wanting to turn the power up is instantly not meant for a Porsche, or doesn't understand the refinement of the car or any other of a list of condescending adjectives.

I LOVE boost, but I have to admit that I am very drawn to the NA 3.6 option, I just think that the total cost will be very high all thing said and done, not to mention the issue of stressing out the 915 behind a 3.6 If the used 3.6 market hadn't gone bonkers it might be a much better option, but these days I think you'd be hard pressed to get there under 30K

I love the Porsche, maybe 220-240HP would be more fun that I think in a sup 2300lb car. The childhood dream garage was a 911 next to a Cobra anyway sooooo. ;)

I'm sorry that you are taking good advice as an insult. You came here looking for help, (and you need it), people who know engines are taking the time to explain things and you're whining.

Do whatever you want to the schitbox. Who cares. It's been owned by at least two people who are clueless, the first being the one who threw the CIS away because of some minor and completely fixable issue, (CIS is as simple as FI systems get), and spent IDK how much $$ to put carburetors on it that are suited for some completely different engine. Now it's a slow, fuel-guzzling POS w a transmission that no one ever maintained. And you are blaming the car.

People who are too arrogant to learn how things work and just close their eyes and throw darts don't do well w these cars.

It's pretty clear to me now. Some people dive their cars from within while others are looking at the reflection in windows as they drive past.

There are lots of things that can be done to a 915 transmission, they are not all alike and there are pros and cons to a lot of the factory pieces, plus a bunch of aftermarket upgrades for one purpose or another.

The 8:31 differential is stronger than the 7:31, the intermediate bearing plates on some versions are weaker than others, there are reinforced differential side cover plates, etc. Bottom line, you can add many thousands of dollars in upgrades to your already expensive rebuild.

Horsepower isn’t generally a problem, it’s the torque. A high horsepower motor that is biased to power in the upper RPM ranges, seldom has enough torque to seriously dent the life of the transmission. Turbocharged engines usually make more torque, so are more of a problem.

The problem that you seem to have with some of our comments is that, on the one hand you want all this horsepower, but on the other hand you don’t want to spend a lot of money to get there. Some of us have been driving these cars our entire lives and what we’re trying to tell you is that those two goals are mutually incompatible. You get a lot more performance for your dollar from other types of cars. A 911 of that era is simply not an inexpensive car to get to the performance levels that you’re asking for.

A 911 is designed for the type of road you don’t have in your area. Even a stock ‘82 can be safely driven at a pace that is not even remotely legal on such roads and can be very challenging. It will never be much when launched from a stoplight. Half the cars out there today will blow your doors off and that’s just a fact.

That’s true, but I never understood why people could think that way. Certainly not my cup of tea...

LOL, so now wanting two very different driving experiences is about being an attention whore?
You ignore 4 pages of context to conjure a narrative that fits what you want? Yea Zeke you "nailed" it, I just want people to look at me.

Speeder you seem to take a pride in being kind of a dick... not sure why. You seem to like throwing straw man arguments up. If you have specific engine options offer them, if not move along.

I have not presented myself as arrogant, at least that was certainly not my intention. I have mentioned several times my desire to learn and obtain the knowledge from those that do know. Perhaps anyone who doesn't immediately take you advice as divine truth is arrogant.

Thanks Java, I know I balk at the costs of some of the Porsche power options... all but the most devoted or wealthy have to admit that the costs are pretty insane at times. For me it's trying to find the right balance of cost to power that will keep a grin on my face. It might be 200 well tuned HP it might be more, I am not really sure.

I do know that this is my Porsche, that I see as a canvas to paint what I want my Porsche to be. I know that it will change with time and that's okay too. I will do me best to listen to it and learn from it for years to come.

I know it's not a drag car, I guess in my mind Mr. Olsens car might be close to what I imagine is a perfect power balance for an N/A 911, my thinking was to push my car in that direction within a more modest budget.

Yo' Geronimo, have I mentioned that turbo powaaahhhhh is the only way to go if you really want a "grin" on your face (or maybe a look of "ohhhhh shiiitttt!!!"), and don't want to make excuses for why a 911 is slow from a dig ("it's a momentum car meant for the twisties only")?!?! :D.

I garuntee you that all pinings for the romantic idea of n/a power will disappear instantly the first time you open the throttle. And talk about acceleration while already traveling at highway speeds :eek: - would have a built, n/a 911 crying for its mama!

That's not what I said. However, you do remind me of the kid that had a Lamborghini Countach and Farrah Fawcett poster on the wall and since you couldn't have one, you'd bygod get the other.

He clearly did by saying what you shouldn't do and that was use carbs on your motor but rather restore the induction to CIS.

Kinda where I was going with my statement about seeing yourself in the reflection. Some are more keen on what the car represents and others are all about optimum performance. You seem to be somewhere in the middle. IDK, I just got that impression. If I'm mistaken, you have my apology. Not here to fight. In fact, I've lost pretty much any energy I might have had for this thread.
If memory serves me well, Jack upgraded to a 3.6 for about what your budget is. I believe it is a 964 based engine and not a 993. Prices are up these days, I grant you that.

Good luck on your endeavor.

Yep, Jack has a basically bone stock 3.6 in his lightweight 911 and it’s a 964 engine, so no varioram and about 260hp. Because he knows how to drive it so well, his lap times would smoke most people here in a 700hp new GT2RS.

That is what we are trying to explain to you about Porsche cars. And I suggested a stock 3.6 in my first post(?), think I was first w that. There is your answer, sorry if that wasn’t specific enough. Just don’t let some whistledick put carbs on it and you’d be good to go.

Buy a new Bullitt Mustang or better yet, a 350GT...that'll really piss off some who post here. :D

Put Jack in a GT2RS and he will bare-assed spank his former lap times (once acclimated to the car).

I do not think that one needs to settle for low power and slow acceleration/straight line speed in a vintage 911; not cheap or easy but they can be built to haul ass in situations other than just corners.