Why is SC engine often referred to as bulletproof?

[DARISC]

I bought an 82 SC RoW coupe for use as my daily driver. One of the many reasons I chose an SC is that it's engine is often referred to as "bullet proof".

What is it about that particular engine that warrants that term? Is it truly any more bullet proof than a later 3.2 or 3.6 ?

[Joe Bob]

Because except for the occasional headstud problem it's a keep on running fool....

[k9handler]

nope...just better design than the 2.7 however almost all of the pcar engines can be built better with the newer products.

[N11Porsche]

My 1979 911SC had 190K miles on the clock. Was still quick, burned no oil, did not smoke on start-up and was taken to redline, often. No headstud problems, engine was never opened and it ran great! That's my definition of bullet-proof

[quattrorunner]

My sc is working with similar results now at 200000k, but I can't believe it. The pesimist in me knows somthing will be broken soon. I take good care of it though.

[aigel]

The 2.7 in stock form gave troubles, so did the 3.2 with terrible valve guides on some engines. The 3.2 also has smaller rod bolts that may give earlier in an over rev situation. The early 3.6 had head to cylinder leakeage problems and the later 3.6 has air injection ports that clogg and get the check engine light to come on, leading to a top end job on fairly low mileage cars ...

So, compared to that stuff, the 3.0, even including head studs looks pretty darn good, once you put a pop off and address the tensioners. Note that the 3.2 has the same head stud problem than the 3.0. The 3.2 is newer and that many studs may have been changed already on the 3.2s, because the heads were off for valve guides!

George

[livi]

With the 3.2, I think the key word here being 'SOME' (rather few) had a premature valve guide failure.

[aigel]

I have 4 pals with 3.2s. 3 of them had their valves redone. A couple of them under 100k miles. I know, 4 isn't a good statistical sample. Maybe the climate here adds to it, compared to sunny southern Sweden. It is definitely not a few. I'd say 50% from what I see at my club. I don't know anyone with a 3.2 that has 200k with the top end untouched. I know a few SC owners that do have such cars.

George

[livi]

Wow! That sounds ominous - to say the least. I would for sure trust your experience more than my own info solely based on what I have read in Porsche magazines and previously on this forum.

Is it at least close to the truth that those that did have valve guide issues seem to have turned up at rather short mileage - say already at 60-80k ? I think I read somewhere that there were a subgroup of engines that failed early, the rest being more or less SC quality in that department.

Inquiring since mine got almost 90k..

[Kroggers]

Originally posted by aigel
I don't know anyone with a 3.2 that has 200k with the top end untouched. I know a few SC owners that do have such cars.

George

I have an SC with over 200k with an untouched top end "used and dirty, but running strong " - must be time to fit a turbo to that lump

[livi]

Thats a beautiful behind alright, Pål!

[Kroggers]

Originally posted by livi
Thats a beautiful behind alright, Pål!

Not as nice as some of the engines I have seen on this site. I have decided that I will resist from removing and painting the engine and engine bay until the engine needs work, and then I will do all the usual "whilst you are in there" stuff as well I had been thinking about a 3.6 transplant, but I have been told that you get into lots of problems here in Sweden with the insurance and Vägverket when you do. Therefore I was thinking I would make more "not so visible" changes

[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.

[twobone]

just keep in mind that like any engine, it needs to be taken care of.

I had to ditch a suppossely rebuilt engine last month because the PO has let the engine get so bad due to lack of "care" that the oil lines to the cam got clogged up with crud and the cam was toast and there was alo likely bottom end damage.

[Jadams1]

I'll let you know after another 100,000 miles or so. At 4,000 miles per year, that will be in 25 years. I have 123,000 on the engine now, I replaced all the lower dlivar headstuds with steel ones at 107, 000 miles. No machining was done, not even new rings, just new gaskets and put it back together. Cost $300 in parts, I did the work. Engine runs great with no issues.

Bulletproof (except for dilivar headstuds), time will tell.

[sammyg2]

At just over 100,000 miles I took apart my SC engine to replace the lower head studs with steel studs.
I found no measurable wear or damage, nada zip zilch.
The ring gaps were still within spec but I replaced the rings just because I had already bought a new set.
The valve guides, valves, and heads were in great shape and did not require any re-work.
I'd say that's bulletproof.
BTW, at the time I took it apart it had 2 years of running with a turbo on it so that confirmed that there was no damage due to boost.

[yelcab1]

190K miles, no valve guides issues, no head stud issues here.

[911 Rod]

Time to stand up for the 3.2.
How come everyone is saying the 3.0 is bullet proof after you do the 3.2 upgrades?
Come on. The 3.2 is what the 3.0 evolved into.
The 3.2 is everything the 3.0 wanted to be.
More of everything.
I'm 285,000 km and never opened.
Had to be said.

[ficke]

Another way to look at "bullet proof" is design development and for what reason. The 3.0 is the result of years of development since it is an evolution of the original 2.0L.
Porsche had plans to have a turbo car and they did not want to make a different engine for the turbo and none turbo cars so the case/ lower end on the 3.0 is very under stressed since it was designed for the HP of the turbo motor.
The 3.6 is a new design so there will be teething problems in the first years just like the 2.0L
The 3.2 is a stroked version of the 3.0 besides the longer distance the piston travels and the added stress that creates, smaller rod bolts were used in the 3.2 for clearance reason.
So the 3.0l is a sweet spot in Porsche air cooled engines.
The engine can be made even more trouble free with later development features such as the final evolution chain tensioner used on the Carrera.

[911 Rod]

So they decided to make the lower end of the 3.2 weaker than the 3.0?
1 step forward, 2 steps back.
I can't see Porsche doing that.