What does "bulletproof" mean for an SC?

hytem · 08-09-2006, 11:57 AM

I own one of these cars, and I keep seeing references to "bulletproof" regarding the SC's engine. I believe the term was originally coined by Streathers' in his "Essential Companion" book, which I have.

I'm not quite sure how the SC engine is more "bulletproof" than any other 911 engine. Sure, the 3.0 engine is a refinement of the earlier 911 engines dating back to the 60s--especially the 82s and 83s--if you add the Carrera tensioners. And yes, later generations of 911s were improved in some areas, which created new problems in other areas.

But I wonder about any special advantages of the SCs. Any simple explanations out there? Do the 3.0 engines really last longer than the others?

petrolblue83911 · 08-09-2006, 12:01 PM

The SC 3.0's are legendary for lasting 200k + miles when well maintained. There are shortfalls as well, such as the tensioners, and the fact that they tend to run really rich when they get older.. but the tollerances built into the design of the engine are such that it is "overbuilt" and so you can I think, expect that a well maintained stock engine can go well over 200k without major engine work.

The 3.2's are also extremely good, I guess there has been a degree of worn valve guides?? with them but, if I could have afforded a 3.2 when I was looking I would have gone for one!

Deschodt · 08-09-2006, 01:18 PM

With all due respect to Adrian, that term was already in existence before Adrian even joined the Porschelist ;-)

I think more than any specific details, it comes from the large number of Scs that putter around with 200, 300 and 400 + thousands of miles !

Each and every model has its achilles heels, the Sc's are easier fixed than most I guess. I think it's very understressed engine... 3.0 for 180 hp ? I mean, a boxster gets 240 hp from 2.7 L.. The 2.7 Rs got 210 hp from 2.7 liters... The Sc is the Mercedes 300D of the porsche world ;-)

PS: was the book useful to you ? I am very dissapointed by its contents so far... Except it features my car ;-)

Nine9six · Nine9six's Garage

With all due respect to both previous posters...
Superman was bulletproof, as depicted when shot with bullets from a gun. Conversly, this means you can go out and shoot your SC, and watch the bullets bounce off. Be careful of the ricochets!
This is usually performed best in a remote location of the desert.
Have fun!

randywebb · 08-09-2006, 04:48 PM

The SC followed the 2.7L Mg cased motors - that is where they got the term, b/c they were so much better.

Porsche · Porsche's Garage

I thought it was because Superman was bulletproof, so SuperCarrera (SC) should be bulletproof too...

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

I think of any of the air cooled engines, odds are you will get the most amount of miles without needing to tear it down. But that based on a statistical pool, and I don't see it as black and white. The 3.0 has some real issues, most notable being the head studs. But 3.2 and 3.6 engines can suffer the same fate, and they both are more likely to require valve guides before a 3.0 engine does (note: I an not a mechanic, nor do I play one on tv, but I do read a lot).

For individual, it is a crap shoot. Any engine could develop a problem. And any engine could just go and go. Too many variables, especially wrt ownership and driving styles.

ruf-porsche · ruf-porsche's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Nine9six
With all due respect to both previous posters...
Superman was bulletproof, as depicted when shot with bullets from a gun. Conversly, this means you can go out and shoot your SC, and watch the bullets bounce off. Be careful of the ricochets!
This is usually performed best in a remote location of the desert.
Have fun!

But why did superman always duck when the bad guy threw the gun at him after unloading a round?

anthony · 08-09-2006, 07:11 PM

I have a feeling that the bulletproof reputation took hold before broken head studs was such an issue. The broken head studs seem to be related to age and corrosion so as SCs get older we are seeing more and more of this. It will probably get more common on 3.2s as they age more.

JR_NYC · 08-09-2006, 07:37 PM

Just for kicks i regularly shoot at my SC with a high powered rifle, sometime at point blank range, and the bullets really do just bounce right off. I mean it's amazing. I think the clear coat Porsche used was a predecesor to Kevlar. And now I use Collinite wax which adds another layer of protection.

randywebb · 08-09-2006, 07:58 PM

try some depleted Uranium -- I'm sure we can "get thru" to you SC guys some how...

sithot · 08-09-2006, 07:58 PM

SC's were overbuilt. Larger rod bolts for one. 3.2 Carreras can break or stress their smaller rod bolts. This was an issue for some auto-x'ers and racer boys. ARP came along with better parts so that's fixed. This didn't show up until a car had been pushed hard; perhaps too hard.

With proper maintainence 200,000 plus is no issue on an SC.

Tom

Zeke · 08:34 AM

Lessee, 2.2 S motor, 180 HP & 9.8:1 CR;
2.4 S, 190 HP/ 8.5:1 CR.

3.0 SC motor, 180 HP and 8.5:1 CR. Approximately 600 more cc's, and it did produce 175 ft/lbs torque as compared to the 2.4 S with 158.

Or, 2.2 S = +-88 HP per litre; 2.4 S = 79, but the 3.0 = 60.

Seems like the engineers left a little on the table.

(all figures rounded)

Edit: 82 on the 2.2, not 88. Thanks MOMO.

Jeff Alton · 08-09-2006, 08:41 PM

Milt is right (again) as is Randy. The 3.0 SC motor is not excactly highly stressed. Also, compared to the 2.7, it was way more reliable. Great motor though!

Cheers

quattrorunner · quattrorunner's Garage

Engineers left just enough on the table for boost

MOMO3.2 · 10:41 PM

Continuing on Milt's theme:

1979 3.0 = 60 HP per liter

1977 2.7 S = 61 HP per litre

1965 2.0 = 65 HP per liter

1974 2.7 = 65 HP per litre

1987 3.2 = 68 HP per liter

1989 3.6 = 69 HP per liter

1995 3.6 = 79 HP per liter

1972 2.4 S = 79 HP per litre

1970 2.2 S = 82 HP per liter

Nine9six · Nine9six's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by ruf-porsche
But why did superman always duck when the bad guy threw the gun at him after unloading a round?

Thats just one of those questions that will puzzle mankind well into the future.

Zeke · 08-10-2006, 08:39 AM

A little OT, but another interesting comparison is the power to weight ratio of the various models. This puts some wear and tear on the motor, too. Apparently, Porsche HAD to keep upping the size of the powerplant just to remain relatively constant.

Anyone care to do that math?

MOMO3.2 · 08-10-2006, 09:47 AM

Here is the data from "Original Porsche" by Peter Morgan:

1977 S (2.7) = 15.1 lb per HP

1979 SC ( 3.0) = 14.2 lb per HP

1974 S (2.7) = 13.5 lb per HP

1970 S (2.2) =12.5 lb per HP

1987 Carrera (3.2) = 12.3 lb per HP

1973 S (2.4) = 12.2 lb per HP

1990 Carrera (3.6) = 11.9 lb per HP

1996 Carrera (3.6) = 10.6 lb per HP

Draw your own conclusions, but these are the COLD hard facts...

Mike

rooked 930 · 08-10-2006, 10:29 AM

anyone wish to comment on the bulletproofness of the 3.3 (or lack thereof)?

rob
'79 930