Whoops. Sorry about the errors, David.

It's a 1993 model year motor, built in 1992. It seems like it's pretty healthy, still. :cool:

Dear Anonymous Poster,
That is easy corrected by signing your posts. :D
-Chris

Jack,

Based on those numbers from your engine I wonder why anyone (unless they have plenty of $$$) would go to a 993 vram? for 20 HP? Thanks you just saved me 2K~!

James

mjshira, to make a resonable comparison, don't you think that a vram should be tested side by side?:confused:

On the CIS fuel head issue, I had the fuel head on my 930 modified for improved flow - you can see the results in the dyno sheet below. The blue lines are after the fuel head was modified - big improvement. I would think the SC fuel head would benefit from this mod as well.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1065541778.jpg

Some like the 993's hydraulic valve lifters for their easier maintainability and quieter operation. The VRAM intake is another trick to squeeze that last bit of performance out of a normally aspirated engines and make the torque curve a little flatter. The issue is that the VRAM Euro OBD I engines are hard to come by. They need to come from ROW. That's what drives the prices.

IMHO I like the valve train noise. It sort of is part of the aircooled Porsche sound. And I won't hear it with my current exhaust setup anyway. If I want quiet I take the watercooled or walk.

is

Ingo: you certainly won't hear it with your current exhaust! Yikes!

Did you get the droplinks?

ischmitz

Thanks for the comments. Do you have a sound file of your engine? I'd love to hear it based on dd74's post.

James

I was reading 911&Porsche World (a UK magazine) and there was an article on a 3.6 conversion. Interestingly, the mechanic believes the VRam intake actually hurts ultimate top end power so he removes it and replaces it with the earlier plastic intake. I forget what issue but it is a recent one (at least here in the states).
-Chris

it was the current issue, I read it this past weekend. I am not sure but I was kinda suprised at how much HP Jack's car is making with out major modification.

Yeep, got the links but didn't have time yet to put them in. I need to get the brackets for the swaybar welded to the chasis first. Thanks a lot for those.

Unfortunately not at the moment. I remember someone at BBRIII recorded one but I never saw it posted. I'll get to record one once our stupid IS department releases my new laptop (with hopefully better sound quality for recording)

Ingo

Can you post that article here. I would be intersted what the issues where...

I could see where it is more difficult to retune the VRAM intake when you change other components (airfilter, exhaust) to continue to get its benefits. All you can tweak with simple means are the switching points on the RPM scale. If you need to change chamber volumes it's a hole different story beyond the scope of most people.

Overall I would assume a volumetric effect of greater 1 will put more air into your engine and thus make more power when properly matched with fuel amount and timing.

Ingo

Ingo,

So which is faster - your 01 or 74 ;-)?

Zcat, how did you go about this & do you think a non turbo car could benifit?

One of Stephen Kaspar's cutomers (Stephen runs Imagine Auto and is the PCA 911 National Tech Advisor) told me about this. There is a gentleman in Lousiana who makes a living modifying CIS fuel heads for improved flow - both in terms of even flow to each fuel line and overall fuel volume on full throttle. As you probably know, the general consensus is that that 930 CIS fuel system can only handle about 400 crank HP max. My car is putting out about 475 crank HP and I still have room left for more power (the other guy who had this done is at 450 RWHP on his 930 and is still at about a 12:1 AF ratio at peak power).

I believe he has done SC CIS fuel heads. Keep in mind though that this mod is only useful if you are outflowing your current fuel head. Blown's dyno chart posted earlier is a good example. I know he said he is planning to go EFI, which will give him much more upside potential. If he is happy wiht the power he has now this mod may be a much more cost effective way to go.

The 74 is way faster from the get go. With its 7:31 R&P it's geared pretty low and that makes for aditional kicks. The only disadvantage is that I can't shift to fast from 1st to 2nd. I don't want to kill the tranny (again). The 01 is faster and way more stable at higher speeds. Totally different cars.

2445lbs @ 280HP Targa
3045lbs @ 300HP C4

I yet have to run against a guy in our company with his 01 Turbo. Problem is that he shifts slower than I do in my 74. He doesn't know how to drive a stick shift (yikes) so it might be an unfair race....

are you planning to switch to an 8:31? I have a 3.2 with a 7:31 and it is real quick in my 69. If I had to guess I'd say some place in the 5 sec range. But she starts to tach a bit after 120 ;-)

Ingo: so in your estimation, how do you preserve a 7.31 r/p when attached to a 3.6? Is it just a matter of shifting slower?

And what is the horsepower and torque of your 3.6?

Thanks.

7:31 r/p longevity with a 3.6?
rolling starts, change the gear lube frequently and inspect it, skinny tires- anything to reduce the load on the box