80 to 83 SC, What's the diff?

[MOMO3.2]

Westy:

You could spend a few more dollars and hold out for the very, VERY late 83 SC with the factory "M3.2" Code. Like all of the "Porsche Specials", it did cost more. But, you got that same classic 911 with: bigger brakes for improved stopping power, a leap from the standard 180bhp to 207bhp, better gas mileage, and vastly improved performance (C&D Magazine tested the "M3.2" at 0-60:5.3sec, 1/4 mile 13.9 sec). These "M3.2" 911s were, in fact, the fastest production cars sold in America at the time!

The even later models ("M3.2/G50") got bumped to 217bhp.

The "M3.2" Code 911s were introduced to the public in late 1983 as the 1984 model Carrera and continued through 1989. They are distinguished visually by a "Carrera" script on the rear hatch. You may want to add them to your list

Why settle for the base model? Reach for the brass ring.

(flame suit on)

Mike

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

Mike,

You almost had me with that one! ROFLMAO!!

But, your weak Carreras will always fall to the SCWDP!!! It is written in the Book of Porsche, and The Gods have deemed it so!

(where is that flame suit....)

[Westy]

MOMO 3.2

If you're saying the late 83's had a 3.2, then it's not what I want. Thanx, but 3.0 for me or nothing. I've done waaaay too much reading on this motor to ignore it.

[dd74]

No flaming here. Carreras are nice cars, too. Just heavier and more complicated. SCs are more spartan, so I guess it depends on what a driver wants.

Jim (Superman), touched on an interesting scenario that I've been bantering around: a hybrid 3.0, which would be an '80 to '83 engine, but with early intakes from the '78-'79 3.0 that has its cylinder heads ported to match the intakes. Box this up with 20/21 cams, heat exchangers/headers or SSIs and a good muffler, and there supposedly is a substantial power increase.

I've heard this combination of early and late SC parts can yield over 240 horsepower.

[RickM]

Originally posted by dd74
Carreras are nice cars, too. Just heavier and more complicated. SCs are more spartan, so I guess it depends on what a driver wants.

I'd argue that the Carrera is less complicated. The Motronic system is more efficient and alleviates 90% of the problems that pop-up with the relatively complex CIS setup.

[MOMO3.2]

Westy:

That was all tongue in cheek. The 1984-1989 Carrera 3.2 is the "M3.2" option code to which I was referring.

On a serious note, I flat out love 911 SC's and would be every bit as pleased owning one as my 1987 Carrera. I was attempting to demonstrate that I have developed a sense of humor about posts like Nostatic made in this thread. It is in fact humorous reading posts that try to put a spin on the FACT that the SC is the base model, lower achieving brother of the Carrera 3.2.

It is kind of like a 914 to a 914-6, a 911T to a 911S, a Carrera 4 to a Carrera 4S, etc...

Mike

[dd74]

Originally posted by RickM
I'd argue that the Carrera is less complicated. The Motronic system is more efficient and alleviates 90% of the problems that pop-up with the relatively complex CIS setup.

I've heard this, too. Which is why I might consider a 3.2 if I ever went through another engine transplant. It's just that little rod bolt issue which makes me hesitant, as I like to rev my SC motor up to 6,000 RPM more frequently than just "now and then."

[Westy]

DD74,,,,'splain your last post about the rod bolt, please

Westy

[dd74]

The rods in the 3.2 are supposedly weaker than those in the 3.0. Porsche did not enlargen the rods when the engine was increased from 3.0 to 3.2. They were, in fact, thinner than those on the 3.0. So at higher revs, they were more prone to failure on the 3.2s than 3.0s. This is one reason why many wrenches I've talked to like the 3.0 engine, particularly the later one with the turbo case over the 3.2.

[Westy]

dd74 -

Thanx. Once again, everything I read and hear points to the 3.0L . Heck, I liked my 2.4 (or was it a 2.2) with carbs on it. I'm sure the 3.0 will suit me just fine.

[SC-targa]

Originally posted by dd74
Jim (Superman), touched on an interesting scenario that I've been bantering around: a hybrid 3.0, which would be an '80 to '83 engine, but with early intakes from the '78-'79 3.0 that has its cylinder heads ported to match the intakes. Box this up with 20/21 cams, heat exchangers/headers or SSIs and a good muffler, and there supposedly is a substantial power increase.

I've heard this combination of early and late SC parts can yield over 240 horsepower.

I find that 240 HP number hard to swallow when you compare those numbers with the factory built 3.0 RS of 1974. Those cars had big ports & valves, someone corrct me if I'm wrong, but a 9.8:1 or so compression requiring premium fuel, early S cams, MFI, a good free flow, tuned exhaust and they were rated at 230 DIN.

Regards,

Jerry Kroeger

[tsuter]

"M3.2" at 0-60:5.3sec, 1/4 mile 13.9 sec?????

and over 240HP????? Yeeee! haaa!

Man, I'd be on my second beer by then!!

Go early, mod it up, go fast!

[rpiper]

They're about 230 if the late euro p&cs (9.8:1) are used. Mine: 9.8:1, 964 cams, 78 heads, SSis, ansa exhaust (cheapo OEM 2 in 1 out copy). 195 at the wheels. Was 204 at the wheels with headers/open exhaust.

[jazzbass]

Originally posted by MOMO3.2
You could spend a few more dollars and hold out for the very, VERY late 83 SC with the factory "M3.2" Code.

That was great! I have the M3.2 option and love it.

As someone who has worked on my particular 85 M3.2 car and many SCs, I would love for someone to explain the "heavier and more complex" comments to me one day, because I don't see it. They're nearly the same car, except for Motronic vs. CIS. And I doubt anyone will ever convince me Motronic is more complex than CIS.

[aigel]

The rods were redesigned in the 3.2 to make up for the larger stroke. It isn't the rods that are weak, but the fact that there wasn't room for a beefy enough rod bolt! This can easily be fixed with a $1600 set of Carrillo rods. Or for the street, just install some ARP hardware.

The other things speaking against the 3.2 is problems with valve guide wear. I do not know which 3.2s had this, but it sure was not an issue on any of the 3.0s. I know some folks with 150k mile 3.2 engines that smoke like chimneys. There isn't even an indication of such wear on my 3.0 with the same mileage.

I would not even THINK about putting a 3.2 in my SC. I would also stop attempting to get more out of the 3.0 as soon as I hit internals beyond cams. It's not worth it. If you are going to upgrade, go for a 3.6! Total cost may be about 3k over the 3.2 coversion or an involved upgrade (large p/c etc.) of the 3.0. I have ridden in 3.6 conversions. There is no replacement for displacement. And 250 horse is the plain jane 3.6 stock rating. It's fairly easy to get to 300 from 250. That's only 20%.

I agree that Motronic is much superior to the CIS. Just the reduced amount of clutter on the engine is nice. The CIS is just as reliable, however if you drive your car on a regular basis.

The SC remains the best bang for the buck on the current 911 market, followed by the 964 and the early 996. (All going up the price ladder).

Cheers, George

[mperkins]

Westy, i believe that nice moss green SC coupe is still for sale at Jack L Hunt Auto in San Rafael, CA. Something like 43K original miles. Rare color, beautiful car. Asking around $18K. Give them a call.

i posted this awhile ago.
Low mileage SC for sale in N. CA

[RickM]

Originally posted by dd74
I've heard this, too. Which is why I might consider a 3.2 if I ever went through another engine transplant. It's just that little rod bolt issue which makes me hesitant, as I like to rev my SC motor up to 6,000 RPM more frequently than just "now and then."

Do you remember when I asked of actual experience on rod bolt failure. If I recall correctly one person replied with "I heard from a friend". I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it's less likely than some make it out to be.

Regarding valve guides, as mentioned a million times before, if it doesn't happen by 60k miles it's most likely fine for quite a while.

[Westy]

You ever feel like I opened Pandora's Box? OK guys, lets stop the arguing and FIND ME A CAR!!!!

I'll check the green one, but green realy isn't my color. Or at least that what my hairdressor says. Ooooops!!!!

[aigel]

Rod bolts don't fail like in snap. They yield / stretch. They don't stretch in daily use, even revving high, if you stay under redline. But what happens if you miss a shift at the track or on the back road? The assembly may see much higher than redline rpm. The pistons may not hit the valve yet, but the rod bolts stretch and end up a bit longer than they should be. Then the nuts aren't torqued any more and will come loose, slowly over time and before you know it, your bottom end grenades.

Will a 9mm bolt stretch quicker / more than a 10mm bolt? You answer that question!

It is splitting hairs. Back to finding a car: Buy any engine you like, 3.0 or 3.2, they are all very good. Find a car you like (color, condition) and buy it regardless of drivetrain. 78-89, who cares!

George

[ubiquity0]

Westy- what about a C4? I saw a 110 000 mile coupe advertised for $16,000