3.6 Conversion vs. 930

[Lukesportsman]

What are you guys opinion for a street car with non "serious" track time. I define this as a FUN car on the street that can be used competently at the track. Winning in class is not the goal because that is an easy question of the two. But, a good mixture of adrenaline pumping speed and reasonable handling.

Stock is not important to me and the 930 would get the tried and true upgrades to say 350-370 hp. The 3.6 would probably be just exhaust for the conversion at around $12k. I also would plan to make purchases to help balance the 930 weight bias (no A/C, lightened exhaust, CF wing, CF rr bumper).

Both cars are becoming very close in cost for equal cars, so let me hear it! Do any of you think that a 930 is a reasonable option? If so, would you go for 78-79 or 86-89? I would probably end up with a 74- for the 3.6, either way lightened up some.

Is it the weight bias or uncertainity of turbo boost that makes the 930 more of a handful? Seems like getting lag down and wieght down could help this with appropriate tires.

Thank you for your thoughts.
Luke

[rick conrath]

You need top define your definition of adrenaline pumping speed. For some it's the 3.6, for other's its much more extreme in the form of a modified 930. If you know deep in your heart that you will be on a constant quest to become a HP junkie, buy a '78 or '79 930. That would ultimately give you the best value and the most flexibility.
Rick
'78 930
Let the floodgates open.

[Jack Olsen]

They're very different powerplants. If you want to be launched like a rocket, then the Turbo is the only way to go, without question. A 3.6's 250-280 hp is just a drop in the bucket in the Turbo world.

The upside to the 3.6 is that it makes (generally speaking) for a more reliable, and less-costly-to-maintain ride that will (again, generally speaking) be a more manageable performer on the track. There are some Turbos that are set up for racing and are fantastic on the track, don't get me wrong. But by and large most of the guys who get into big-hp Turbos focus more on neck-snapping forward thrust than setting the car up to handle really well on a road course.

So if your goal is to put your friends in the passenger seat and watch all the blood rush to the back of their head as they scream for mercy, then definitely get the Turbo. And if blowing away other cars on public roads is your goal, then nothing will come close to a modified Turbo.

But the 3.6 will probably require less maintenance dollars, in the long run. And it won't open the door so widely to the more-more-more modification mindset that afflicts some Turbo owners. I'd say you're going to need deeper pockets for the Turbo, and it will be a tougher car to learn to drive well on a track. But it's a faster motor, in a straight line, and its on-off (hammer of the gods) character makes for a driving experience that's hard to duplicate.

[RarlyL8]

Yea - what he said.

[Lukesportsman]

I have a drag car, so it will take considerable speed to impress me on acceleration alone. I am wanting a Decathalon car. I agree that it gets very expensive to make one car do all, but I have an MGB for open air and a vintage Mustang for unbridled bang the gear speed that handles reasonable, yet crude (Shelby suspension, big swaybars, and a tight differential). So, my mind says 3.6, but my heart says turbo. I'm likely to go with heart, to make me happier for a longer time. I just want to know if I'm stupid for thinking this way. I've heard so many horror stories about the early 930's. I've had some seat time in a rear engine on a track, but limited. I have no problem with humility in taking things slow, as long as the potential is there. Looking for a car worth the time and money it takes to really invest in, what better than a Porsche Turbo? F cars are too finicky and break too easy for anything in this price range. And I'm not refering to Ford's...I already have 3 of them :-)

TIA
Luke

[Kevin Stewart]

When it comes to price they are about the same, i could have did a turbo motor with 20k that had a new 4 speed to go along with all plumbing for about the same as the 3.6 conversion, i went for the 3.6 because i didnt want turbo problems of maintenance, the 3.6 seems to be easy to maintain and be reliable, Kevin

[RarlyL8]

Turbos have no maintenance issues. The life of the engine is directly proportional to the level of boost used and the driving habbits of the owner.
Boost lag can be vertually eliminated with the propper engineering. These moters respond very well to modification and there are infinite stages and configurations to be done gaged on your specific needs and wants.
Mine is an SC transplant using a stock 915 and a warmed over '78 3.3T putting out an estimated 375hp. I couldn't be happier and have no plans to change anything. I love it.

[Embs]

My opinion is to go with the turbo. I have been through two 3.6 conversions now. The one that is currently running properly is indeed fun to drive with decent low end torque (second gear is the "fun" gear). However it doesn't come close to the "push" of a turbo.
IMHO the 3.6's are a little dissapointing. I expected more power especially after putting the engine in a car that weighs considerably less than the original 993 car the 3.6 Varioram came out of.
Unless the 993's six speed added a lot to the driving experience, they must have been some rather boring cars.
Also for fear of hurting my 915 box I can't ever really launch it hard.
I am joining the junkies soon.

[JonT]

Todd--are you planning on selling your car or supercharging/turbocharging your 3.6? Just curious.

[Embs]

I am more than likely going to sell both 911's and get/build a 930. A few years ago I had a Dodge Stealth TT (4000 lb. Mitsu barge) putting out nearly 430 Hp and I just miss the boost.

[k9handler]

I must not have an understanding of what a quick/fast car feels like.
My car is more than I can handle, the torque feels great and the car will pin you deep in your seat under hard acceleration! I would guess she performs a mid 4 sec 0-60 as a baseline...and my car accelerates from 90-150 like some cars go 0-60! So I would agree with Jack that a reliable 3.6 would be the choice...and I am sure you would be happy with it.

I agree with everything that has been said (Jack, Embs etc.).

I too have been a little disappointed by the 3,6 engine. I have driven an 87 911 G50 with an early 993 engine a couple of times and although it was very fast it didn't feel as "wild" as I expected.

The 911 that impresses me the most is still the 3,4 liter 295HP lightened SC of one of my Porsche friends: http://www.porsche911sc.com/ Now that's a 911 that feels wild

I have yet to drive a Turbo. My guess is however that a Turbo will be the most adrenaline pumping way to go.

[JonT]

I haven't driven a turbo either (Porsche anyway) but one thing about the 3.6 is the torque curve feels very flat and this smooth power delivery makes it feel very different than the boost driven build up of the turbo. A direct comparison on a track/dragstrip would be very interesting to see. To match (or come close to) a modded turbo a NA 3.6 car would need to be lightened to < 2300 lbs and gearing changes would be necessary. This would give more of the violent accelleration a turbo motor is known for.

[89911]

Ditto on the turbo. Less headaches if you don't get greedy. I bet cheaper also when you factor in all the upgrades/changes needed with a transplant.

[Lukesportsman]

Thank you for all your inputs. I also tend to agree with 89911 for at least the "initial" costs involved to build. If you look at nice SC's versus nice 930's you are not paying that much in premium. I do think for someone who is looking for a true project car that the conversion with LOTS of time could come out ahead. But I already have enough on the slate to keep me from being bored, so I'm looking at the simplest route for a reasonable cost. It sounds like the general feedback is inline with what I was thinking......turbo=excitement:3.6=trackable.

Most of the turbos I've seen (likely due to initial price) seem to be well maintained, at least cosmetically they are. I'm figuring that they have seen more driving abuse and am taking that into account.

Several have brought up the issue of the 915. I'm honestly spoilt to the speed of aftermarket Tremec boxes for indestructible syncros. This scares me in that I may have the tendency to be harsher than a "good" Porsche driver on the shifts. The 930's reputation seems to give me a piece of mind.

Please keep them coming, but thanks for all the inputs so far. Horror or bad stories from personal experience also very welcome.

Luke

[ZCAT3]

Having previously owned a 993 NA car and currently owning a fairly modified 930, I would say I like the 930 a lot more, but the 993 has so many good things about it. As we are just really talking engines, the 993 3.6 is a very refined engine that is technically superior in every way. The 993 power delivery, as noted above, is very linear, so the sensation of speed is muted. In fact, when we switched from an 87 Carrera to the 993, I thought the 993 felt slower, even though I knew it was faster.

Modifying a 930 engine to make it very streetable but with lots of power is a very expensive undertaking. My car is close to 500 HP running stock boost and has almost no lag. You could buy a high mileage 993 for what it cost to get my 930 engine to the point it is now. Due to the lack of lag, however, the car is extremely drivable and more manageable on the track than it was when it was stock.

How about getting a 993 or 964 engine and supercharging it?

[stealthn]

Lotta conflicting sentiments here?.... Jack what are you basing the less maintenance and less money to maintain 3.6 on? (I am not questioning it, just curious)

Cheers

[thethrill]

Your best bang ofr the buck it to purchase a clean 86 (or euro 78-85) turbo. For $25K+/- you can get a very nice car. You have a car that essentially is a race car with creature comforts. To make it truly haul ass, remove the creature comforts (power seats, AC, rear seats, RS door panels etc.) you will lighten it some 300+ pounds. Swap out the F/R bumpers with IROC/RSR pieces and loose even more weight! With nothing else you will have a screamer.

Motor mods that are somewhat reasonable in cost would be top end (port/polish heads, 964 cams, increase compression) recurve ignition, loose the smog equipment approx. cost $2500-$3,500. Replace the turbo with a garrett T04S or K27. You will have some where near 400 reliable HP. Couple that with a car that is 2,500 lbs. and watch out! With these improvements there will be very little turbo lag.

I have done just this on my 930. It has approx. 90,000 miles and it has been more reliable than my chevy truck!

To make it more fun to drive, install bilstein sport inserts and 22/28 torsion bars. every thing else is there...including big brakes and a bullet proof trans w/lsd.

Nothing beats the rush of a turbo on boost! A 3.6 will feel anemic in comparison.

[hobieboy]

if you are talking about 3.6 conversion as opposed to 964/993 then don't forget that many 911s are also upgraded with turbo tie rod, rear trailing arms, etc. to make it handle better on the track.

If you are converting and might do those changes, then the 930 might be a better platform to start.

[Embs]

I do agree about the power curve of the 3.6. I know with the Vram that it's so smooth it sneaks up on you. I have been a passenger in a factory 3.8 and it has a nice "low end" sensation. but both lack the "punch" I am looking for. Everybody is different, so to each his or her own.