Planed engine upgrade to 3,3 turbo 964/965

[thechiller]

Please, does any one have experiense with engine upgrade from SC to turbo?

I have a 1981 SC 3.0 with a broken head stud and a tired transmission. So i'm planing to get a new engine and transmission for my car.

I now have the possibility to buy a complete used 1992 3,3 turbo engine with transmission. Does you know any what problems i can run into when replacing with this "new" engine? Does the turbo engine fit at all into the car's engine compartment?

The engine should be complete included 3,3 L 965 turbo engine,
G50/965 gearbox, Clutch, DME (dont know what this is), fuel pump, drive shafts. I allso get new bumper's for the double piping.

Here is a link for information concerning the 964 turbo http://www.performance2and4.co.uk/964_TII_n.htm

Is it necessary to fit the car with the rear wing when using a turbo engine?

Please help me if you have any experience/information concerning a upgrade like this. Case I don't want to buy the turbo engine if it can cost me more problems than fun.


Best regards
Kjell Robert

[dean]

Just so you know (thanks to Goran). The body is a little shorter in the motor dept in the SC than the 930. So you are going to have a hard time fitting the longer powertrain in the SC.

[pjv911]

Im doing the conversion right now. A 1982 getting a 92` 965 engine and a shortened g50 tranny. With the shortened box ($$$) its an easy fit into the chassis.

Kurt Williams

[john walker's workshop]

better be sure you get the ignition control unit with the engine or you'll have to fork out like $4K.

[pjv911]

Originally posted by john walker's workshop
better be sure you get the ignition control unit with the engine or you'll have to fork out like $4K.

Yea and they are not easy to find used either. Only 2 years work correctly 91-92. The 94` model may work too but is said to be different.
You could always install a backdated distributor and go with an MSD I suppose.

Kurt

BTW there is another $2500 worth of control units that go under the seat. See if those are included too.

[RideShoot&Drink]

I have 87 3.3 in SC chassis, but mine is mated to 915 gearbox

[thechiller]

Originally posted by pjv911
Im doing the conversion right now. A 1982 getting a 92` 965 engine and a shortened g50 tranny. With the shortened box ($$$) its an easy fit into the chassis.

Kurt Williams

Hello Kurt

How was it possible to shorten the Transmission?

Best regards
Kjell Robert

[beepbeep]

Hej Kjell!

There are two ways: you either do some re-modelling of rear bulkhead and cut torsion-tube or cut/shorten G50 transmission. I find it better to convert rear suspension to coilovers "when already there". Cutting the transmission isn't so cheap as input shaft has to be cut too.

This is approximate procedure for installing such combo w/o shortening the transmission:

1. Remove original engine
2. Remove torsion bars.
3. Cut out the middle piece of torsion bar, weld in U-piece to strengthen the torsion turbe (otherwise there is a risk of structural weakening if driving around with tube cut in two).
4. Cut out a piece of rear bulkhead and move it a couple of cm towards the driver to fit the transmission.
5. Install coilovers with uniball rear plates, this is how those that we manufactured look like: (I actually have a pair of those left, if you are interested)


6. Install engine/tranny package (you'll have to modify front transmission mount if using G50)
7. Install turbo rear wing in order to fit intercooler.



So to round it up:
- You need rear turbo wing as intercooler won't fit under original SC wing.
- You either cut the transmission flange shorter or cut the torsion tube.


In theory, shortening the transmission is the easiest way. I've seen four G50 conversions in real life and all of them used standard (non-cut) G50 transmission and coilovers. I don't have any expirience at all when it comes to shortening but one thing caught my eye: OEM transmission clutch bellhousing has two set of holes.With other words, it has a flange with a hole where it mates to engine. If transmission is shortened, that flange has to be removed which cannot be good for axial rigidity. I don't know how they tackle that problem when shortening.

Check this pic to understand what I mean:



I like the coilover option most. Using standard non-cut tranny allows you to use OEM cluch and swap transsmission should need arise. Yes, going to coilovers is a hassle but is also a way to improve the car even further.

[pjv911]

I happen to be converting to coilovers as well. I wanted to go the shortened tranny route in effort to shift the added weight foward . Here is a few pics

Kurt Williams

[pjv911]

I will take a picture(tomorrow) of the inside of the bell to see how it looks structural wise. I recall it looks no different than the 915 inside.

Kurt

[thechiller]

Thanks for the help, i'm still evaluating what to do

Best regards
Kjell Robert

[thechiller]

is it then an alternative to use the 915 transmission? or is this tranny to weak for the engine? Does the 915 tranny fit the 965 engine?

Please help


Best regards
Kjell Robert

[pjv911]

Goran, Here is a picture of the bell view on my shortened G50 box. It does not have the weak housing as you posted above. I finally got the car together with the 965 engine just a few weeks ago. The tranny fit perfect and im very happy.

Kurt Williams

[jdm61]

Kurt....who di they shortening work for you? The only one i have seen is from Patrick and it is super pricey and i am told that Patrick is a bit of a troll too.....lol. Can you get by without going to coilovers if you use the short tranny? I have a factory turbo look so hopefully, theonly other thing i would have to swap out are the half shafts. The burning question is can you also do one of the early model G50 or 50/50 6 speed conversions on the short bell housing trannies or is there just not enough room to do both under the old torsion bar cars?

[pjv911]

It was done by Patrick along with steel syncros and modified gearsets. Yes its a pricey proposition just for the shortening alone. Mine is a standard 1989 type carrera g50. The g50/50 is the 89` turbo box and responds just the same to the mod. The 90` and up are much different on the tail area and are not used for this type of mod. This includes the 6spd boxes. And yes it fits perfectly without cutting the torsion tube. In short.... the coilovers are not needed to do this.


Kurt Williams

[Pingo]

Buy a turbo and save your self a lot of money and work..... :-)

[1972_911T]

If your planning on using the post 89 G50 you will also need to modify the end caseing as the later one have a huge mount on the front of the end case.




To do this you have two options. Buy an endcase from an 87 - 89 G50 but they are $1000 new and almost impossibe to find used I have just gone through the same thing trying to fit a G5003 into my 1972 car. The other option which I chose was to cut down the end case and make a mounting bracket to take the tranny cradle.





See my G50 conversion thread - G50 Conversion Project Begins

Good luck Steve