3.0 and 3.2 engines

[86 911]

Hi,
I have recently purchased a 1986 Porsche 911 with a 1978-79 3.0 engine. What is the difference in performance between the 3.0 and 3.2 engines if you were to test drive an 86' and a '79. Would you notice the difference in power? I am asking this in order to see what I am missing out on if I had bought an '86 with a 3.2 instead of what I bought (and '86 cabriolet with a 3.0). I also hear that the 3.0 engines are more reliable than other Porsche engines. Is this true?

Thanks,
Matt

[Jack Olsen]

1979 3.0 180 hp / 175 tq -- shortcoming: head studs that snap
1986 3.2 217 hp / 195 tq -- shortcoming: premature valve guide wear

Was that the biggest-ever power increase from one model to the next?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

A quick note on the 3.2 valve guide wear: if the valves are good past 70K miles, they will most likely be good for the life of the motor, both of which should be good for 200K.

Can't imagine why someone would put an SC motor in a Carrera though.

[86 911]

Hi,
I believe that was the greatest power increase. I just researched it and the 3.0 to 3.2 was the greatest increase in HP from one era of 911's to the next.
I am not thinking of putting in a 3.2 in my '86 yet, but if the difference is very noticible, I may consider installing a 3.2.
Any other opinions between the two engines?

Thanks for all of your posts,
Matt

[Carrera3.5L]

Originally posted by JackOlsen
1979 3.0 180 hp / 175 tq -- shortcoming: head studs that snap
1986 3.2 217 hp / 195 tq -- shortcoming: premature valve guide wear

Don't forget the pressure fed tensioner update that the Carrera's got in '84. An expensive and worthwhile upgrade for the 3.0L SC. Major engine damage if they fail!

The head stud and valve guide issues are for both engine types.

A '79 model is lighter than the '86 (all things being equal) and thus the 3.0L will be faster in the car it originally was in. You have a little extra weight to lug around with the Carrera. Ideally, the 3.2L would have been a nice performance upgrade for the '79.

Do you know why the '86 has the earlier 3.0L engine???

Ralph

[Carrera3.5L]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
A quick note on the 3.2 valve guide wear: if the valves are good past 70K miles, they will most likely be good for the life of the motor, both of which should be good for 200K.

Wish that were true in my case. My guides went noticeably south at about 85K. Worked out for me though, 'cause a 3.5L is in the process!

Ralph

[86 911]

Hi Ralph,

My 1986 has:
1) 1976 frame
2) 1986 cabriolet body with the turbo look and BBS wheels
3) 1978-79 3.0 engine with 40K miles

The man that I bought this car from had bought it from a man who had all of this done. I don't know why he did it. Maybe he had a 86' 911 with a bad engine and frame, and a '76 with a 3.0 and a frame, but with a bad body? I am not sure why he would attempt something like that, but it is a great running car except for a few minor electrical and interior offsets! I have photos attached.

Matt

[TerryH]

I thought I read in Andersons book that 84-86 was 207 and 87-89 was 217. Was that misinformation or did I read it wrong?

It stuck in my mind because I have a RoW 3.0 that is listed at 204 and I remembered the early US 3.2 at just beating it at 207.


Edit: Nice car, Matt. Congrats!

[Jack Olsen]

Uh, there's no such thing as a frame on a 911. Unibody cars don't have frames.

What you have is a 1976 911 with a 3.0 liter motor upgrade. You also have Turbo-look-style bodywork. By the picture, the thing the car seems to have the least of is 1986 components.

It's a nice looking car, though, and may be smog exempt next year, if the laws don't get changed (assuming it's titled as a 76). The 1976 motors had 165 hp and 175 ft/lb of torque, with the notable weakness being overcooked magnesium engine blocks and pulled head studs.

So, on the bright side, your motor is more powerful than stock, not less.

[nostatic]

I believe Terry is right: 207 for the '86, bump to 217 in '87.

Also, from what I've read/heard, the 3.2 is much more prone to valve guide wear, and if the premature doesn't get you (between 40-60K), then likely around 120K they will start going. Of course exceptions exist, and that number could be 150K or...

Both 3.0 and 3.2 snap head studs...3.0 seem to be more, but they are also a few years older. Hard to say. Funny you mention tensioners, as we were just discussing that today. Some feel the oil fed can be *more* problematic, and instead just use 930 tensioners and change them every 60K miles.

[wkcarson]

Matt,
I have had both 3.0 and 3.2L engines in past 911's that I have owned. I had a 3.0L engine (from an 83 SC) in a 74 911 (light body vs. the later SC and Carrera's) and a 3.2L euro in an 86 911. The 3.2L was significantly faster than the 3.0........ however my 86 was a euro car with 231 HP vs. the 207/217 HP for the USA 3.2L. I put SSI headers and a dual in dual out muffler on the 3.2 and it was really quick then. I think you'd find that the 3.2 is certainly quicker, however the 3.0 is still a great engine.
If you want to mod the 3 liter engine though, you could certainly build it to eat 3.2 carreras all day long (98 mm p/c's, 964 cams, etc, etc)!! Good luck-

WK Carson
San Diego, CA

[nostatic]

also, if it is a 78-79 motor, where is the airpump?

[SpeedracerIndy]

Originally posted by 86 911
Hi Ralph,

My 1986 has:
1) 1976 frame
2) 1986 cabriolet body with the turbo look and BBS wheels
3) 1978-79 3.0 engine with 40K miles

A 911 does not have a frame since it is a unibody car, so is it possible you have a 1976 with turbo flares from a 1986, and a 3.0 from a 1979? What is the VIN stamped on the front dash and/or under the smugglers box in the trunk?

edit: damn, Jack beat me to it!

[86 911]

Hi,
Thanks for the comments. I just looked on autotrader reaserch and compare, and I found that a 1984-1986 911 2dr has 200 HP and a 1987-1989 911 has 214 HP.
The engine number is 930/04, which is from a 78-79 911, and the VIN number is 9116210098, and is currently registered as a 1976.
Nostiac, I don't know where the air box is, but since the engine # is 930/04, I am assuming it is from a 78-79.
Also, if the 911 is a unibody, then where is a safe place to jack up the car? I just purchased a car jack at Home Depot the other day, although I don't see anwhere to jack it.

Matt

[nostatic]

Autotrader definitely isn't the prime source for info on older Porsches. Peter Morgan's "Original 911" is a good one, as is the "red book", and Bruce Anderson's "Porsche 911 Performance Handbook." For US-spec cars, 84-86 was 207hp, 87-89 had remapped chip for 217 hp. Euro spec was 231hp.

[SpeedracerIndy]

Safe jack point for the rear is the sump plate on the engine with something between the jack and the engine such as a 2x4 or a towell to protect it. For the front, I usually jack under the torsion bar mounts in the front. You have to have a very low profile jack to get under there though. Personally i think the best way is to use a jack pad in the factory jack point (in the rocker covers) to lift one side at a time. for working on the engine, lift using the bottom of the engine, and remember to ALWAYS USE JACK STANDS. 84+ have jack pads built into the car at all four corners which is a nice addition.

By the looks of your VIN, you do have a 1976 car, with a 3.0, which as Jack said is an upgrade for that car.

[86 911]

Speedracerindy, Thank you very much for the jacking info! You are a Porsche-saver! I would have never thought that those would have been the jacking points.
Nostiac, thanks for pointing out autotrader as a weak source for Porsches.
Allright, I guess its time for me to refresh my neurons and go to bed. I will continue posting tomorrow afternoon,

Matt

[SpeedracerIndy]

Glad I could help. after re-reading my post, I thought I should mention, if you jack at the factory jack points in the rocker panels, you have to have a jack pad available from Pelican.


http://www.pelicanparts.com/catalog/shopcart/PORS/POR_PORS_PTOOLS_pg1.htm

If you do not use the jack pad, you will damage your rockers.

It sounds like you have a lot of learning about your new toy ahead of you! Have fun, and remember to use the search button. There is a wealth of information available on this board.

[dd74]

Both the 3.0 and 3.2 are good engines. There are three types of 3.0, which were produced between 1976 and 1983, the 3.0 Carrera engine, which was a European-only motor that I had a 2.7 crank (200 hp) the early 78-79 3.0 which had larger intake runners but lower compression (180 hp) and the 80-83 3.0, which had smaller intake runners but higher compression (again 180 hp). The Euro 3.0 is stronger than the last two by virtue of its higher hp rating, plus the 2.7 crank allows it to spin faster. The other two engines truly had little difference from one-another. Some may tell you the larger intakes assist in higher hp., but lately one Porsche guru has refuted that, thinking the smaller intakes are better optimized for the 3.0 engine. There is also a Euro 3.0 that has 9.8:1 compression which puts out 204 hp, but I've heard stories that it's hard to tell the performance advantage this 3.0 has over standard American 3.0s.

The 3.2 is an enlarged late-model 3.0 with higher compression and Motronic engine electronics. Premature valve guide wear was one concern for the 3.2, as well as smaller rod bolts that might break under high-RPM stress.

Additionally, it's been said Carrera chain tensioners, as found on the 3.2 engine, are not entirely beneficial to the 3.0 - that, in fact, it takes a large amount of engine abuse to cause the type of failure in a 3.0 engine that Carrera chain tensioners can help prevent - so spend wisely on this upgrade; find out how you'll be driving the car.

Regardless, of any of this neither a 3.0 nor a 3.2 should be discounted as great engines. The only true deficit I see between both is a 3.2 does weight about 40 pounds more than the 3.0.