Ok I feel like a luddite.........CWP?

After looking at the pictures of the varioram at the 'proper height' with the package tray modified, it would appear you are committing to a partial engine drop to get the intake off the car? I can still get the manifold off the car at the Timmon's height.

Anyone here with the TPC supercharger instead of the Rassant intake? Anyone tried both?

Can we talk about the 3.2 cross bar and console again? Is the top of it at a different height than the 3.6 cross bar? Anyone ever measured the difference? What is stopping someone from simply removing the spacers and lifting the aft end up the 1.25 inches the spacers force it down? This has been bugging me.

The 3.6 tin is sized to complement the lower position of the egine, both the tin and mount prevent a higher . ie stock engine position.

3.6 mount & tin
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1752966489.JPG

3.2 mount & Sheridan f/g
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1752966626.JPG

w/ a vram a modified package tray is more desirable than the droopy drawer ghetto look

which can be ameliorated w/ a custom, read expensive, exhaust setup.

just my opinion but since I've had 964, 993 vram & 993 non vram the 993 non vram is the best compliment to the 915 and early chassis. The vram has what I call a Camel hump torque curve, the cammed n-vram is more like a pouncing tiger. You really don't miss the lower rpm vram torque, and you can appreciate the higher rpm tiger torque curve. a 3.8RS is very hard on the 915 in the lower gears.

Thanks for the pics and insight about the different motors, Bill! I could've sworn my 3.6 tin was all 'inside' the engine cutout, but now I'll have to go look again. If it is, the only thing stopping me from going higher is the V-Ram.

Here is an "old school" version! Forgotten just how old this 3.6 setup is but it came out of Bill Verburgs car at least 10+ years ago and no idea how long it had been running with him! Only change from when I got the motor from him is the B&B exhaust system.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1760968593.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1760968593.jpg

Joe that's a 964 aluminum console w/ the 964 crossbar, It requires the 1.25" spacers discussed above.

For some reason I thought that it has the aluminum console w/o A/C but I guess not.

You'd have a problem using the 3.2 console because of the crank damper w/ 3 sheaves.

AFAIK there are no single sheave dampers available these days. At one time there was a 964RSR damper w/ single sheave available but no longer.

:)

Still offering the correct Fuel line adapters & Hoses for the 3.6 upgrade to most earlier 911 models......


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1760979604.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1760979669.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1760979718.jpg

All Hose is E85 Rated and available in plain Black or Braided SS.

For info, please do not pm me. My box is Full.

Please email me, len.cummings @ verizon.net but without the spaces.

Thank you.

Len

:)

:)

Here's another set, made for late 911SC.....

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1760980269.JPG

Made before we went to Yellow Zinc plated fittings. Today, everything is yellow, even though it adds to the cost a bit.

Len

:)

You email doesnt work IM me.

:)

Ooops, forgot the ".net". Now corrected.

Len

:)

Bill, thanks as usual for the info. I had forgotten the status of the engine and it seems for good reason!

I did some research and realized that its been longer than I guessed at. I installed your old 3.6 in the 911 in 2003/2004 and its been running nicely ever since!! Really surprised that its been 22+ years! Guess time flies when you are driving a sweet 911!!!

I believe that this is a photo of your engine as it arrived here in Phoenix in 2003.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1760982424.JPG
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1760982424.JPG
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1760982424.JPG