Why is SC engine often referred to as bulletproof?

[IaAaron]

Originally posted by beepbeep
Well except for failed head studs, blown airboxes and usual CIS problems it's quite reliable.

Frankly, I believe 930 engine is just a reliable (no exploded airboxes) if owners could stop fiddling with boost.

Stop fiddling with the boost? come on where is the fun in that If we didnt have something to fiddle with we wouldn't have anything to do to the car other than drive it and look at it! LOL

[ficke]

Rod, Please do not misunderstand me, the 3.2 is a great engine and has design features that are better than the 3.0 like the aforementioned tensiners but when over spun the stock 3.2 rods will fail before the 3.0. Wayne Dempsey address this in his "How to rebuild 911 engine " book and Bruce Anderson discuses this in his book "Porsche 911 Performance Handbook" and if you ever talk to people who maintain these engines for racing they will tell you for high revving safety Porsche rod bolts are usally substitute with an after market fastener like an"ARP" product in the 3.2's. If you obey the red line the 3.2 will last fine, but the stock 3.0 can take more abuse in this department so it is more "bullet Proof" I belive this is a common undersatnding

[911 Rod]

Originally posted by ficke
Rod, Please do not misunderstand me, the 3.2 is a great engine and has design features that are better than the 3.0 like the aforementioned tensiners but when over spun the stock 3.2 rods will fail before the 3.0. Wayne Dempsey address this in his "How to rebuild 911 engine " book and Bruce Anderson discuses this in his book "Porsche 911 Performance Handbook" and if you ever talk to people who maintain these engines for racing they will tell you for high revving safety Porsche rod bolts are usally substitute with an after market fastener like an"ARP" product in the 3.2's. If you obey the red line the 3.2 will last fine, but the stock 3.0 can take more abuse in this department so it is more "bullet Proof" I belive this is a common undersatnding

I guess I'm just a little over protectve.
When I do a rebuilt can I make this improvement?

[IaAaron]

Yes you can upgrade to ARP rod bolts and head studs.

[nesslar]

Good stance, 911 Rod! I can't see Porsche doin' that either! My '86 Carrera doesn't have many miles on it (54K), but I'm adding to the total quickly enough, so we'll see eventually how well things go. That's assuming plenty of sunshine here in western Washington, of course!
I don't baby my Porsche, but then I don't try to see just how bullet proof it might be, either. Fast is fast is great stuff, tickets and accidents are something else entirely.
Targa!

Like the comment I read recently, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

[MOMO3.2]

163,000 miles+ on my 1987 Carrera 3.2 and the motor has never been touched.

I don't see how some of the earlier posters can dismiss blown up air boxes, broken head studs (that are apparently common on the SC), and the need to update chain tensioners to avoid a catastrophic piston into valve engine failure on the 3.0, yet focus in on some 3.2's that had early (under 80,000 miles) valve guide wear issues and rod bolts that may fail IF the motor is overreved. That makes for a pretty weak argument.

In the context of flat 6 Porsche motors, both the 3.0 and the 3.2 have proven to be remarkably reliable thus far. Perhaps if I owned the model that yields less horsepower, less torque, and is less fuel efficient I would better understand your argument.

Mike

FWIW, I honestly do not favor Carrera 3.2's over SC's at all. I would trade my Carrera 3.2 away for an SC in better condition in a New York minute. They are virtually identical cars with only subtle differences from one year to the next. In fact, the more I learn about the various vintages of air cooled 911's, the more I realize that ANY 911 (long hood, mid-year, SC/Carrera) can be sublime!

[911 Rod]

In the end they are all "our children".

[aigel]

Few more pointers:

The later 3.0 does not "need" the oil fed tensioner upgrade, as it already has the wider idler arms, with the bronze bushing, which took care of 90% of all chain tensioning problems.

The 3.2 has the SAME studs than the 3.0, they will start breaking and already are.

All mods to the 3.0 - minus the head studs - are external. Can't say that about 2.7 fixes, or 3.6 fixes, or even 3.2 valve guides.

George

[mca]

I don't think mine is bulletproof. 123k and it needs a top end rebuild ... well, at least it is showing signs of valve guide wear and it uses 1.5qts of oil every 600 miles. Getting compression and leakdown tests done today.

The car was meticulously cared for by all POs based on the appearance and the paperwork. But I guess someone could have dogged it out.

I see bulletproof as a 200k mile engine ... there are TONS of engines that last to 150k (my dad's Jeep Cherokee for example).

Just my opinion ... don't get all mad at me ... my expectations are probably too high.

[Wil Ferch]

Well...as long as we're quoting personal examples

Recently retired 1990 Eagle Talon 2.0L ( aka "Mitsu" Eclipse).... 217,000 miles

Still active and strong 1993 Toyota Corolla 1.8L.... 245,000 miles ( and going !)

1994 Geo Prizm 1.6L..... 196,000 miles

...you can bet these "winter boots" don't get the TLC my 911 does !!!

- Wil

[ZOA NOM]

Originally posted by aigel
Few more pointers:

The later 3.0 does not "need" the oil fed tensioner upgrade, as it already has the wider idler arms, with the bronze bushing, which took care of 90% of all chain tensioning problems.

The 3.2 has the SAME studs than the 3.0, they will start breaking and already are.

All mods to the 3.0 - minus the head studs - are external. Can't say that about 2.7 fixes, or 3.6 fixes, or even 3.2 valve guides.

George

Your envy is starting to show, George.

185k, untouched, and rolling daily.

[NY65912]

Wow....bad Karma. I just got a call from my wrench telling me that they found a broken head stud on my '80 SC with 109K.

DE schedule is now pushed back.....again.

I hope I do not fall victim to the "while I'm in there disease".

[911 Rod]

I hope I do not fall victim to the "while I'm in there disease". [/B][/QUOTE]

Disease or blessing in disguise?

[aigel]

Originally posted by ZOANAS
Your envy is starting to show, George.

It's certainly not the 3.2 I lust after, as my 3.0 does everything just as well. A 3.6 is a different story, I'd even pull the heads and flush out those air passes, before I drop it into my SC.

George

[RickM]

Originally posted by ficke
Rod, Please do not misunderstand me, the 3.2 is a great engine and has design features that are better than the 3.0 like the aforementioned tensiners but when over spun the stock 3.2 rods will fail before the 3.0. Wayne Dempsey address this in his "How to rebuild 911 engine " book and Bruce Anderson discuses this in his book "Porsche 911 Performance Handbook" and if you ever talk to people who maintain these engines for racing they will tell you for high revving safety Porsche rod bolts are usally substitute with an after market fastener like an"ARP" product in the 3.2's. If you obey the red line the 3.2 will last fine, but the stock 3.0 can take more abuse in this department so it is more "bullet Proof" I belive this is a common undersatnding

When I had asked 3.2 owners with failed rod bolts to identify themselves I don't believe one did.

So, while they MAY fail under very extreme conditions I still don't think it's at all common.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

[911 Rod]

Maybe it's time for a poll.
One for engine failures,
and one for who is being honest.

[RickM]

Originally posted by 911 Rod
Maybe it's time for a poll.
One for engine failures,
and one for who is being honest.

Just add a footnote to your poll page....

"* You must tell the truth to the best of your ability"

That should do it.

[gerry100]

I heard the 3.0 got the bulletproof rep because the fools that shot them didn't know where the engine was and only harmed the spare and the battery

[aigel]

In all fairness, the 3.0 also got the rep in comparison to the 2.7 and before the head studs started snapping.

George

[sand_man]

Originally posted by beepbeep

Frankly, I believe 930 engine is just a reliable (no exploded airboxes) if owners could stop fiddling with boost.

I agree! I'm certainly banking on this, after a painstaking rebuild! I've already gotten grief about running a conservative .8 BAR spring instead of 1.0 or 1.2 BAR!

Sorry, I got off topic...