what engine do you suggest?

[B.Lane]

have an 85 convertable, wide body roller i building. I have 2 engine choices from the guy im dealing with, both are the same price. Should i put the stock 3.2 in it? or a 76 turbo engine? same miles/leakdown on both.

[masraum]

Go with the 3.2 if you want a daily driver engine. With the 3.2 you don't have to wait for turbo lag. The 3.2 had 204hp with a pretty good torque curve.

The '76 turbo had 245hp, but the pre-boost performance is not pretty since you are then running on an engine with 6.5:1 compression and relatively mild cams.

If this is going to be a weekend toy and you will eventually be able to invest more money in the engine for things like a K27-7200 and new intercooler, etc, then you can probably bump the hp up to at least 300-350 relatively easily (not cheaply) and you will have lots of grin factor.

For excellent reliability, and tractability the NA motor is the way to go, but if you will spend some cash to modify the turbo motor and you want a play toy then it might be the way to go.

Stock the 3.2 is probably just about as fast as the turbo since you don't have to fight turbo lag and the week bottom end performance.

[Kevin Stewart]

Put the 3.2 back, that is probably the engine that came out of it, Kevin

[dean]

Originally posted by masraum

Stock the 3.2 is probably just about as fast as the turbo since you don't have to fight turbo lag and the week bottom end performance.

I can tell you that the turbo is way faster than the 3.2. I also found that the turbo has just about the same bottom end as my SC motor did. I would suggest that you get a ride in a turbo car then make up you mind.

[350HP930]

Despite all the talk about lag those peppy NA cars usually always end up being slower at the track and on the street when compared to my turbo.

I consider it a friendly head start to the competion before I decimate them. For that first second they actually think they are winning.

I am very happy with my fraction of a second of lag and the rewards that come with it.

[Schuey]

turbo...you can mod the hell out of it later...

BTW...how much money are we talking about?

[Jack Olsen]

Despite all the talk about lag those peppy NA cars usually always end up being slower at the track and on the street when compared to my turbo.

I consider it a friendly head start to the competion before I decimate them. For that first second they actually think they are winning.

I must be in my third year of thinking I'm actually winning, then.

I haven't had a Turbo pass me yet. (I've had to give plenty of point-byes to n/a cars, though. )

On paper, just about all the Turbo's should be faster. In practice, I think you've really got to get up to the higher end of suspension prep and driver skill before they come into their own -- at least on track days.

[twin plugged targa]

I would reccomend the 3.2 if you want reliability and longevity out of the engine and the Turbo, if you want to spend a lot of money and get a lot more power ultimately.
My experience of an early turbo (78) was that it was heavy and sluggish until the boost came in. I found my 86 Carrera much more peppy, nimble and alive.
However my 86ragtop was not the most reliable car known to this board but I believe now she was a bit of a lemon!.
As all will probabley agree, how fast you want to go depends on the depth of your wallet
I think is is generally accepted that turbo's are due for a rebuild after 50-60K miles whereas a Carrera may go 100-200K between rebuilds.
So the mileage of both these engines may indicate if you are expecting major overhaul costs in the near future.
In my brief experience of Turbo's over N/A cars the only car I have driven without noticeable lag has been a 2001 twin sequential turbo 996. Otherwise the larger the turbo the faster/sharper the boost/torque increase. This can be like an automatic car downshifting when you least want it.
- Just my 2 cents
Ben

[350HP930]

Well Jack, I think you are the exception with your good driving skills and great car.

Out here on the east coast the selection of nicely sorted street legal cars and good drivers seems much weaker.

Let us know if you ever have reason to visit florida with your car.

On the subject of turbo longetivity, I think people are looking at worse case scenerios to think that 60K miles is a rebuild point.

My car performed rather well right up to 130K miles. Very hard miles I must add.

[surflvr911sc]

True, there were many 3.2s that were rebuilt around that mileage due to valve guide wear, but there is also a big difference between your '87 930 3.3 and a '76 930 3.0 w/o intercooler.

Would it be out of character for me to say neither, go for the 3.6.

[350HP930]

Whoops, I didn't pay attention to the details that the car was an 85 but the turbo was from a 76. Yeah, thats not exactly the best turbo engine to build on.

[B.Lane]

$7000 for either motor for the $$ questions. If i dont want the turbo, i can get it for anyone who wants it. 70k on the 76 turbo motor

[911boost]

B. Lane, where abouts in Colorado are you?

Bill

I am in Fort Collins?

[fintstone]

I think that meeting emissions for 1985 standards would be difficult with a 1976 engine.

[masraum]

Jeez, yeah, I would never suggest that a later model turbo would be slower, but I would be willing to put my 3.2 up against a 75 or 76 turbo, and I think it would do pretty well unless the others were modified.

[Jack Olsen]

Originally posted by 350HP930
Well Jack, I think you are the exception with your good driving skills and great car.

Actually, I think the problem is that there aren't enough guys with Turbos showing up, out here. In my experience, I've seen a lot of the latest ones, with guys who take them out maybe once or twice. But I just don't see many of the earlier ones.

I'm sure that if someone with a 3.3 Turbo made a point of getting some meaningful seat time and kicking my butt, he'd be able to do it without too much trouble. I just haven't ended up on the same day on the same track with him... yet.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by masraum
Jeez, yeah, I would never suggest that a later model turbo would be slower, but I would be willing to put my 3.2 up against a 75 or 76 turbo, and I think it would do pretty well unless the others were modified.

I think a stock '76 Turbo would pull away from your Carrera. Even the "little" 3 liter non-intercooled Turbo Carreras have 265HP in US trim. They're also about the same weight as a 3.2 car. Maybe the gearing would be an issue, but it's hard to say.

Lag's is a real issue to cope with on a stock 930. How many stock ones are even out there any more? My engine's totally stock, and it's extremely laggy. A blast to drive, but not the greatest for corners.

On the track, I'd guess Carrera would probably walk away from a '76 930.

Bench racing is fun.

[masraum]

Hmm, I looked it up in Bruce A's book, and it listed the '76 as having 247hp. I think the combination of lag and gearing would put us pretty even.

The original turbo's were tested with 0-60 in the mid 5's and most of the magazines tested the 3.2L cars anywhere between 5.2 and 6.1. I don't think I could get my car down to 5.2, but I bet if I drove it like a rental I could get into the 5's, and I'm betting a turbo, especially an early one would be even harder to launch.

But it's neither here nor there. I think it would be close, but someone would have to come out on top.

[350HP930]

Originally posted by JackOlsen
Actually, I think the problem is that there aren't enough guys with Turbos showing up, out here. In my experience, I've seen a lot of the latest ones, with guys who take them out maybe once or twice. But I just don't see many of the earlier ones.

I know what you mean. I have yet to run against another 930 at any event I have been too.

I suspect most of them are mothballed garage queens hidden far away from any competitive events. It makes it like quite lonely in the ASP and DS classes.

[zotman72]

Did you sell your 3.6? That would have been the optimum choice rather than 1st generation Turbo or 3.2 motor.