* Interesting 3.6 engine build coming up *

[Fast82930]

I was on the track yesterday and should have some decent in-car video.

I never knew who was driving since Chris Powell and Greg Fordahl both had seat time in it.

Lots of cars out first time yesterday playing with new go fast bits

[Craig 930 RS]

"To be honest a 3.6 is nice but not all that impressive for my own use."

No, they aren't impressive.
I thought you were going with a 3.6. 280RWHP you say. 10 up from before. Apparently this isn't your car or your engine you refer to.

Are you - or are you not going - with a 3.6 Dane?
Staying with your 3.4?
Mysterious.
---------------------------------------
Talked with Ted today, Lyall - lots of FAST drivers driving other fast cars - wish I would have made it to the PCA event.

A bazillion cars with Motons and JRZs out there now -

So how do you like turn 9 with the changes?

[rdane]

It's just my opinion afterall. Admittedly not one I have read on Pelican before. 3.6s aren't that impressive for street use in comparison to some other well built hot rod engines, 3.4 and 3.5s easily come to mind with their level of low end torque.

Until you put them on the track and under a clock then things will change. But track width, tires and suspension mean as much or more on the track than simple HP and torque. So like I said, not that impressed.

Going from 175 rwhp to 275 rwhp is a big jump. Hard to ignore the differeneces or the other problems. Brakes and cooling for example not to mention lack of heat in the cabin.

I went from 180rwhp/170# to 220/215# and then 260/250lbs#. So I think it I can make a valid comparison.

To be honest a 3.6 is nice but not all that impressive for my own use. The reason I changed engines was the improvements in engine management and engineering, not power.

O2 sensor, knock sensors, twin plugs come to mind off hand.
The new exhaust and a couple of tuning tweeks added 10+ hp at the wheels to the origional 267.

[350HP930]

Man, all that hard work and money and the thing has less HP and torque than my worn out 930 did after 100K+ miles.

Congradulations anyways though, thats some mighty nice work even if it is a little weak.

[Fast82930]

Craig,

Turn 9 doesn't feel as different as it looks and the exit is still real bumpy.

The radius is opened up a bit more but you can't use much of it. More of a spectator safety issue except for the new asphalt.

Easier to provoke an early apex then it use to be though...

[kstylianos]

I have to agree with mr. Dane on this one. I recently gained a few HP in my 1.5L 88 Tercel after changing the air filter after 60k miles. Not only can I keep up with the more mighty Corolla S but even the bigger displacement Camry's. It is true the cabin gets a little hotter, but its the price you pay when you play this game.

[Craig 930 RS]

Lyall -
Ah, so an early apex isn't as deadly as before?

P.S. Internet forums are a frickin' ball !

[rdane]

Originally posted by 350HP930
Man, all that hard work and money and the thing has less HP and torque than my worn out 930 did after 100K+ miles.

Yep I agree, nothing wrong with a decent Turbo. There is a reason that Porsche dumped N/A race cars at 330 hp in 1974 and went to Turbo race cars.

It wasn't until 1993 that those numbers were bettered with a 3.8 RSR and 350hp in a N/A engine again. (as opposed to a '74 3.0 RSR)

The '74 2.1 turbo was 480 hp. and 340ft/lb or torgue. Now that is a fair jump on performance

[Kevin Stewart]

RDANE you dont give up do you

It's just my opinion afterall. Admittedly not one I have read on Pelican before. 3.6s aren't that impressive for street use in comparison to some other well built hot rod engines, 3.4 and 3.5s easily come to mind with their level of low end torque.

i dont understand why you keep dissing the 3.6, my 3.6 is way more impressive than any 3.2 with HOT ROD parts, sorry the fuel injection is even better, if the 3.2 was that great why did porsche scrap it, my 3.6 idles great well mannered perfect street motor, and itll eat the 3.2 for what ever meal it wakes up to, i have ridden in 3.2s driven hot rod 3.2s motors and have never been impressed, as far as low end torque, what are talking about, my 3.6 will blow the tires off at will and they are 18x10's,

why do you hate the 3.6 so bad that every time it comes up you just down it, sorry but i will pass on a 3.2-5,

you dont see us guys that have 3.6 talking the talk about the 3.2, so let it go,

[rdane]

Originally posted by Kevin Stewart
RDANE you dont give up do you...
you dont see us guys that have 3.6 talking the talk about the 3.2, so let it go,

Kevin I have both (3.4 and a 3.6) so it is easy enough for me to make a comparison for my own use. My 3.4 and Ralph's 3.5 are close enough to the 964 3.6s that it is a wash IMO.

At least the 993 engines I have seen on the dyno are a step above the 964 and the smaller hot rods.

I had no doubt there were some here who would disagree with me.

I think Porsche had more in mind that HP when they built cars. The car's balance might well have been one of things. A balance of power, torque and lightness is clear in the early cars.

Porsche added weight in every generation and added power to deal with the weight. We all know it didn't help the cars.
Plugging in 300 hp into a early car doesn't make it a "better" car by Porsche standards or mine.

I wasn't the first to come to this opinion. Not many have the funds or the insight to pull a 3.6 from a finished early car and start over because the car wasn't "right".

Having the opportunity now to use either engine once the paint is dry I am still not convinced that the 3.6 is the best decision.

I see your opinion obviously differs.

[Walko]

Kevin,

I have remined fairly quite on this topic. But I think I can understand where Rdane is coming from having had 6 yes 6 motors in one of my 911's which included but not limited to
2.7, 3.2SS MFI, 3.6(964) and 3.2 I can say the most fund i had was my 3.2SS.

Would I have another 3.6 in a heartbeat but it would be my daily driver.

Earlier motors seem to be more driver friendly in the noise the feel the response.

My view anyway


Michael

[Kevin Stewart]

I have no problems with you having an opinion, mine is start with the best possible motor, the 3.6 wether its a 964 or a 993 is hands down a better starting point, as far as balance goes, your right the 3.0 was anemic at best (wifes volvo smoked it), my opinion is starting with the sc, they should have had the power a 3.6 puts out, i feel that the carrera is totaly under powerd for what are to be super cars, i have been around performance cars a long time and currently race a 600 hp car, i have seen people do just about everything one can imagine to motors, i just never understood why people take a motor (3.2)and build it up to another motors (3.6) starting point, i used 3.2 and 3.6 for examples, wouldnt it be easier to build a smooth reliable 3.6, ?? If I remember right you already had a 3.2 so that makes since rebuild it give some extra hp , but taking a 3.0 up to a 3.2 is still an anemic motor, my motor was just rebuilt, i plan cams pc etc next winter, i just dont feel a 3.4 will run with my 3.6 especially when i up the stackes,

I hope your not comparing a stock 3.6 against a hot rod 3.2, thats not fair, even though i have driven both and still the stock 3.6 is faster

dont get me wrong the 3.6 has its problems, and by all means the 3.2 is a great motor,

[Kevin Stewart]

i just dont get where you guys feel that a 3.6 doesnt have enough spunk, (thats it a daily driver motor) you must be driving something different then what i am, ill put my 3.6 up against a 3.2-4 any day at the track, but as I say, compare apples with apples, regardless it doesnt matter to each his own, this is not my first 911 either, and not my first motor swap, I think its fantastic you guys are hot rooding 3.2 motors, but i also think its fantastic that a 3.6 fits in an sc, and to be honest, i have been looking at the 3.6 996 motor in an sc, sounds pretty fat to me,

[Walko]

Kevin,

I don't think that people compare apples with apples.

If you look at a 3.0 with 204Hp and a 3.6 with 252Hp? per litre the motors are very similar. As a racer you wold be aware that HP does not win races torque is what gets you out of the hole.

I would rather have a motor that made more torque than chasing a highHP motor.

I think the 3.6 is a great motor but they also have limitations.

Michael

[Kevin Stewart]

torque gets you out of the hole, thats interesting, we pull as much torque out as possible not to blow the tires off, as we speak we are working on a programable ignition to pull even more torque out for corner exit, we used to run as much hp and torque as we could, in the last few years I have constantly asked the motor builder to back the motor down, as a matter of fact i was there today, pulling even more cam timming out, I have found that to much hp and torque hurts my corner speeds, the reason is lead left foot, all my buddies are now pulling motor out to, and also making adjustable throttle stops, my tire temperatures are cooling, my lap times are faster, and over all the car is smoother a smooth car is a fast car, i was at a couple auto x's last year to watch all the high torque cars were side ways coming out,

its still back to lets have fun with the cars we love, and my 3.0 was not even in the same stratosphere as the 3.6, maybe i just have an exceptional running 3.6,

as i said its not worth the argument

[Walko]

Lets just go racing

Michael

[}{arlequin]

Originally posted by Walko
Lets just go racing

Michael

Exactly!! The bs (and bench bickering) will stop when you exit the pitlane... no tires (not even 10's), no "setup", no suspension (remote reservoir or not), nor 3.6 will help you if you suck.

The *biggest* difference in car's performance will be the driver. A good driver will easily overcome a 100hp deficit. I've seen it countless times. I know of a 912 that hunts down 3.2 Carreras at local tracks....

A better driver will be quicker each and every time... he'll pass you at trackout of the fastest corner and you'll be wondering whether you really have a 3.6 in the back or whether you've been swindled by your mechanic and have a 2.4 w/ a varioram intake dressing it up from the top.

If I had anywhere close to 260-280, or even 300 (!) hp, I wouldn't bother w/ 8 muffler designs just to eek out that last 4-5 hp. My butt couldn't tell the difference between 300 and 305hp.... it's just not that *sensitive*

If I have that much power, I'd search out for exhausts that give me just the *right* kind of sound that I'm looking for instead, even if it *lost* me some hp, since I'd imagine with those #'s I have plenty to spare....

[Kevin Stewart]

}{arlequin, Amen

[Craig 930 RS]

To each his own...
I still don't understand why folks try to pound the "I'm right based on what I say" philosophy into others' heads.
Who gives a sh*it?
There isn't a 'right' answer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my desires, the 3.6 Varioram has accomplished:

The most area under the HP & TQ curves
6,800 redline
Tractable at all revs
Quick revs up & down the range
Phenomenal throttle response
Very good gas mileage (!)
Starts and runs reliably all the time, at all temps

One can draw some pretty objective conclusions from the above, but - for my wants, this 3.6 Varioram engine *does it all*

My goal is now to become somewhere in the ballpark to as good of a driver as my car is capable of.

It will take years.

[Craig 930 RS]

Back to this thread:

Background:
Ted's early 90's 3.6 was a tired out engine with 20% + leakdown.
HP went form 255 ATW to 240, whereupon a leakdown was performed.
Uh oh. Rebuild time. Cams, 3.8 P&Cs, some valve work, and MOTEC.

Matched a GT3 in acceleration and hit over 170mph through turn 1 at Pacific Raceways - DAMN FAST!