My motor was originally built for PCA club racing in stock class F, which is why I stayed with the stock 3.0L displacement instead of building a short stroke 3.2 like the one mentioned above. It had the SC220 cams in it rather than the 964s (which are illegal) and headers with a Bursch muffler. In that configuration it had 205hp at the wheels. When Boy #3 arrived I sold the race car but swapped the motor to my street car. During the swap we put in the 964 cams and put the quieter but more restrictive OEM 74 muffler on then dyno'd it again. We lost about 8hp altogether but the torque numbers were even. The numbers can't really be compared though, as they were on different days, and with the motor in two different cars!

Hello, Bobby. You don't know me, but I'm a fellow Nord Sterner and I've followed your exploits in the newsletter for some time. You'll find several Nord Sterners here. If you have time, meet us at the Target in Bloomington at 9 tomorrow for the Minnesota Pelican fall trip to Red Wing.

rfng's turbo kit is starting to look cheap now when compared to SSIs, 964 or 20/21 cams, and high compression pistons. :) The main drawback to the turbo is durability.

Jürgen

The problem with turbos and super chargers, as it was explained to me, is that our cars are tired already. Doing either to a a 100+K mile SC and you'd quickly end up with no engine.

Both are great ideas for adding HP to a "new" engine.

Or like the other comment that sticks in my mind from this week, "No one ever said these cars have to be inexpensive, Porsches cost money to rebuild. That is a fact of life".