I too prefer the looks of the SC especially my slantnose but I may just sell it and hold off for a while and search for the Detomaso Pantera I always wanted or just wait and get an '89 Speedster or somethign similar.

Betcha' a stock late Carrera would tear apart a Pantera.

I bet an early 911 with a late Carrera engine would truly take apart a Pantera.

Panteras were infamous for overheating.

I would have to agree with DD74. In an SC or midyear, I would personally prefer a modified, freshly rebuilt (better than new) 3.0 than a tired or unknown condition 3.2. Many of the comparisons here are likely invalid due to the differences in age and condition of the engines being compared.

It's long and annoying and no one cares about his past cars or pipe dreams of future cars.

I used to stop light race a friend of mine in his stock 3.0 Carrera up to max 100mph 3rd gear (late at night you know, no-one else on the road) when my car was untouched.
It didn't matter how many times we raced or quality of launch but I trounced him convincingly each and every time and continued to pull away in each gear.
Another friend of mine imported an '86 US slant-nosed 930 and he was shocked how quick the Carrera was off the mark, 0-40mph. I actually ran him on a 3/4 mile strip and took his $100. After driving his car though, it was obviously out of tune or had some issues as it was quite unexciting. Maybe because it was a smogged US version?
Drives of other stock Australian delivered 3.3 930's proved a different experience. Blistering acceleration once on boost but I would still back the Carrera up to 40 mph. After that, bye bye.....
Now that my car is a bit lighter and better quality fuels available, the car has amazing performance, and IMO excellent throttle response.
We'll see the improvement when my flipped 993 HE's and M&K arrive with SW chip.
More recent friendly arm wrestles with 996 TT's is a sobering experience! However, with lighter weight and my car's excellent state of tune, stock lardy 993 and 996 Carreras still see me in the rear view mirror but still brake carefully!
It's not a boast as there is no magic to a stock car but these early ROW Carreras are a very capable little machine, and in my my 20 year experience, more than a match for the stock 3.0 units (ROW that is). I can only imagine how a tweaked new rebuild would pull.
Unfortunately, I wont tear down a perfectly good motor and will probably have to wait another 120,000 miles before its time....

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/read.gif
according to my user manual, my 82 3.0L SC was rated @ 178 HP.

OK, so I've been doing a bunch of reading and can't quite understand some of the lingo here. what is "area under the curve"?

Also, why are CIS pistons restrictive?

the area under the curve speaks to how much mid-range power is available.


consider a couple different engines power profiles.
imagine the area under the green line vs the highr peak HP of the red line..

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1167513699.jpg

If you are road racing, and have enough gears, the rev's can be kept in the peak range. (red better)
But for off line accel, the green line will produce more total power. (green better)

oh, and CIS pistons are not 'restrictive' any more than any other. Every piston will support a certain performance profile. . . the CIS pistons are designed to 'sing' with the intake, ignition and exhaust for performance, fuel-economy and emissions. It's a balance. If you want to shift that balance, you can burn more fuel, give up mid range, or a number of other sacrifices --including new pistons. Generally, engines can squeeze out more peak HP by narrowing the power band.

OK, so I "get" area under the curve.

And I "get" that the CIS pistons are designed to go w/ the induction & ignition. I guess my question is how do CIS pistons affect performance of a stock 3.0 rebuilt with PMOs, SSI and Electromotive ignition?

they inhibit the performance b/c they require a certain cam profile that is not 'sporty' at all

Betcha' a stock late Carrera would tear apart a Pantera.

I bet an early 911 with a late Carrera engine would truly take apart a Pantera.

Panteras were infamous for overheating.


__________________

Carefull. Sounds like you haven't been around one in a while. Gary Hall has been modifying Panteras that you wouldn't want to meet-up with, in your Carrera.

Joe:
What year is your 3.0?
They came in 8.5 : 1 and 9.3 : 1 CR in the US, 9.8 : 1 Euro in '81.
CIS pistons have a different dome-shape. (Forged)
Higher performance pistons like JE have machined valve pockets for higher compression. (Smaller piston to valve clearance)
A different "hotter" cam for carbs would make a big difference.
What cams do you have?
If you have OEM SC-cams, have them reground.
With a 964 profile, you can keep the stock springs but, with a highlift cam, stronger springs are recommended.

I still think my 75S 2.7 felt faster than the 3.0 that Gamroth put in it.
The 3.2 in the Carrera is like a truck engine. You can lug it down, step on it and it has power. The 2.7 you had to keep wound up.

But I think for one of my 914's it will have a 2.4. The car will weight right at 2000lbs. I don't know what you really call it. But you'd step on the gas and the tach and the rev's would whip up there on the 2.7. Not the same as the 3.0 and 3.2.
My rambling .02c.

Yo, article didn't show up. I'd like to read if possible.

Paul

http://www.pelicanparts.com/techarticles/911_engine_rebuild/911_engine_rebuild2.htm

sorry ... the period was wrapped in with the href tags ... same url but without the period at the end.

My 3.2 has the Carrera sport cams (964), a larger throttle body, SSI's, M&K GT3 style exhaust, Steve Wong chip, and it seems pretty stout. I'd estimate 230-235hp. Coupled with a 7:31 R&P, the car really takes off and has very good torque, not to mention incredible gas mileage (~30mpg on the highway).

Sure it's no 3.6, but if you can get a used 3.2 cheap enough that is still in good shape, it's not a bad option. I am not sure a 3.0 could approach the power and torque of this motor.

My 3.0 is an '82 US so I understand it has the smaller heads and valves making for better midrange performance. The engine was rebuilt 10k miles ago with stock SC parts. At 9.3:1, John aka Camgrinder suggests I use his DC20 profile which is a little more aggressive than the 964 & webcam 20/21 profiles alot of CIS guys rave about. I'm not sure I want to do new jugs and sleeves right now since my main purpose is to keep the engine from falling off a cliff at 6000 RPM. I've read the smaller valves for the later 3.0 should be good in short bursts to 7K, though I'm thinking titanium retainers would get things to spin more freely.

Joe:
I made a SS 3.2 by using the bottom from an '82 engine, the CIS is from a '78 with larger intakes, Heads ported out to 39mm, P/C's are 98mm 9.8 : 1 CR, Cams are 964, SSI's, M&K muffler. Expect ~ 235 HP at the crank.

I used 964 cams because I wanted to keep the stock springs.
With Camgrinder's DC20, I believe you'll need stronger springs?
In your case, changing the cams out to either profile will make a noticable difference and wouldn't cost that much.

Re RPM: Around 6k+, with stock springs, the valves will start to float?
I am not into high-reving; my aim was to get an additional 50 horses which should be a lot of fun.
Yes, it would be nice to get a later model 964 or 993 but, my 911 has/had so many upgrades that I decided to just add a stronger engine.
If your SC has been abused and is generally "tired" with worn suspension, brakes and body in bad shape plus, if you have Alusil P/C's, sell it and get a later model.
The big unknown in making decisions for a rebuild is you don't know what P/C's you have until the engine is apart.
If you have Alusil, that's ~$3000.- extra right there.
For anyone facing the decision to either upgrade or sell consider this: A later model with 3.6 has more HP but weighs 400 lbs more.

Happy '07

Post your pictures from your M6 rebuild, it would be interesting to see the inside of the engine, head, etc.