Large port vs smal port SC

[euro911sc]

Originally Posted by joe payne

Also, I heard the disributor rotor rotates counter clockwise on the 78-79 SC's. Has anyone else heard this?

LOL

Yes, 78-83's rotate the other way... it was worth at least 12 maybe even 17.4 hp

-Michael

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg

yes, the '74 Carrera 3.0RS has MFI, but just exactly what does that have to do w/ the discussion here, which is specifically about the evolution of the CIS 3.0s from '76 thru '83, jeesh

Settle down there, Bill. This really isn't anything to get so worked up about. The question was posed as to why there was a 20 hp drop from 3.0 Carreras to SC's. I simply offered an observation, using the first 3.0 Carrera as an example.

[1100sport]

carrera 3.0l RS and Carrera 3.0l are really two different beasts and should not be confused as Bill pointed out.
The carrera 3.0l RS produced 230hp with hi comp pistons, S cams, MFI.... There is really no point of comparison with the first SC and its 180hp.
The relevant question at stake is between the carrera 3.0l 200hp and the first SC 180hp: same heads and ports, same pistons CR, same CIS system. Then the question is interesting. The only differences are:
Lighter crank on the C3
Different cam timing (more aggressive on the C3) but same cam (so an SC owner can very well use the C3 setting)
Some differences in ignition (SC went breakless) and fuel distributor (cheap to change)
btw ROW cars had the same exhaust system (no cat) and show the same output difference between C3 and SC 180hp.

It has always seemed strange that these apparently light differences can account for 20hp but still dyno tests and perf results evidentiate the C3 advantage. I think the difference in the crank mass is probably a more important performance factor that some of us think.

Mathieu

[javadog]

Crank mass would have no effect on horsepower. Porsche measured it with a steady-state type of dyno reading. The US '79-79 SC had the same cam timing as the Carrera 3.0. Only the ROW SC had the advanced cam timing. The quoted power output was the same for all SC engines in 1978, with different cam timing and differences in the exhaust. The US cars got a two-way cat while the ROW cars got a pre-muffler. Not all of this adds up, in my book.

JR

[1100sport]

Interesting, so if crank mass does not affect hp, and given that US SC had the same cam timing than C3, the only difference is ignition set up and fuel distributor.
How different is the SC fuel distributor from a C3?

[javadog]

Both the airflow sensor and fuel distributor are different between the C3 and SC. I have no idea what the differences are.

JR

[DaddyGlenn]

Sub'd ......to become more educated

[Mothy]

Just had the fuel distributor on my USA spec engine (83 SC with small port heads and runners) updated with one off a Euro spec early SC with large runners - only the fuel distributor and WUR were changed.

The difference is like chalk and cheese - no dyno results yet to back it up but to give you an idea at the last track day my lap times came down from 90 to 85 seconds - nothing else was changed.

My USA spec SC (std 180hp) is putting in lap times to match other Euro/Australian spec SC's (204hp)

Tim

[Bill Verburg]

Interesting, so if crank mass does not affect hp, and given that US SC had the same cam timing than C3, the only difference is ignition set up and fuel distributor.
How different is the SC fuel distributor from a C3?
Today 07:49 AM

Both the airflow sensor and fuel distributor are different between the C3 and SC. I have no idea what the differences are.

JR

other differences some mentioned back in post #9 are
1) fan - the 226mm, 11 blade '78-79 cooling fan, vs the 245mm 5 blade '76/77 fan the SC pumps 1380 l/s @6k, the C3 1265 l/s @6k
2) sai - the SC has a parasitic sai pump which the C3 doesn't
3) exhaust C3 has a free flowing premuffler, SC has a more restrictive cat,
4) C3 has a 930 part # for fuel dist and air flow meter, SC has a 911 #
5) yes the SC dist all rotate backward from any other 911 before or since, they have a pointless triggers too, C3 still used the old 911 point type dist.

I don't know the specific differences in f/d or afm either, they both use 63mm throttle bodies, but back in the day the C3 parts were sold as speed parts for SC. Also remember that emissions regs were tightened everywhere between '76 and '78, particularly CO which is proportional to power producing afr ie lean mixtures to reduce CO also reduce hp

I agree that the crank won't make a difference in steady state #s, it does make a diff in transient response

You can see a similar drop in hp when you compare earlier 2.7 cis RoW to US or even worse Calif engines. The drop in hp is in the same ball park, especially when the smaller engine size is factored in.

And no I don't want to hear about the 911/83 mfi engines, they are not relevent here either

[Peter Zimmermann]

Cam timing: Take a given spec for an acceptable range, say 1.4 - 1.7 mm at overlap for a USA, 930/16, '81 SC. If you time your cams at 1.4 you will be on the hp "side," 1.7 will put you on the torque "side." Generally, for a commuter car, finding a happy medium, say 1.5 - 1.55, will give excellent results for daily/weekend driving. Of course, the difference between left and right cams in an engine should be, ideally, zero. By the way, the high hp 930/10 used cam timing (.9 - 1.1 mm) the same as the USA 930/04 large port engine!

FYI: All SC engine ignition distributors turn counter-clockwise...

[safe]

Wouldn't it be possible to invent a new tensioner that could alter the cam timing, like the on the 968?
It can't be that hard, using long plastic ramps like on the 3.6 tensioning the chain "together" and moving the package up and down.

Maybe it would be a waste of time and effort on a single cam engine.

[Peter Zimmermann]

Originally Posted by safe

Wouldn't it be possible to invent a new tensioner that could alter the cam timing, like the on the 968?
It can't be that hard, using long plastic ramps like on the 3.6 tensioning the chain "together" and moving the package up and down.

Maybe it would be a waste of time and effort on a single cam engine.

Don't forget, a DME ECU sends control signals to electromagnetic valves, which, in turn, activate cam adjusters that are part of twin tensioners. The change from hp to torque is done by changing the valve overlap between intake and exhaust valves, so I think that twin cams are required. I'm afraid that our wonderful SCs are a little to antiquated for all this!

[safe]

Originally Posted by Peter Zimmermann

Don't forget, a DME ECU sends control signals to electromagnetic valves, which, in turn, activate cam adjusters that are part of twin tensioners.

Yes, but that would be the easy part to do. It's basically rpm based when to change cam timing.

Originally Posted by Peter Zimmermann

The change from hp to torque is done by changing the valve overlap between intake and exhaust valves, so I think that twin cams are required. I'm afraid that our wonderful SCs are a little to antiquated for all this!

Porsche did change the timing of the SC-cams between the Carrera 3.0, SC and Carrera.
But as you say, I think twin cams are needed to make it meaningful.

[vmax]

The 81-83 9.8:1 Euro SC engines used the large port intake runners and large port heads. Bruce Anderson's book is incorrect about this. I have rebuilt a few a these engines and all had the large heads/runners. Here is a link to a thread on Pelican about this. Did I get a special SC motor from the factory?

[911st]

This is just some guessing but if you look at the difference in total TQ, HP, and the rpms they are quoted at something is up.

I would guess if the motors are identical except for cam timing the total TQ would stay about the same but move up the rpm range.

However, TQ increases about 7% with the Carrera 3.0. indicating a substantial increase in efficiency between the two motors.

And, Porsche quotes TQ peak at the same rpm for both motors.

The 3.0 Carrera quotes 188# @ 4200rpm.
The SC quotes 175 # @4200.

Why would they quote TQ at the same rpm but quote HP peak at 5500 for the SC and 6000 for the Carrera 3.0? If the HP peak looks to have moved up 500rpms. I would think the TQ peak should have moved up about the same.

Something is fishy with the quoting of TQ at the same RPM with both motors.

While TQ increased 7%, HP increased about 10%. This seems to be an indication that the 3.0 Carrera motor is holding its effecency better w increases in rpm.

Something more than cam timing looks to be involved in the difference between the two motors.

Maybe Porsche played w the tune w the SC to meet smog requirements.

Or, Porsche could have been playing with the numbers to a degree for some reason.

Again, the 3.0 Carrera made about 7% more power with each stroke, did so about 500rpm higher in the power band, and the efficiency's did not fall off as fast with increases in rpm.

Besides cam timing this could be due to ignition timing or A/F ratios.

It is intereasting that with Porsche's increase of the CR of the later US SC motors and droping of the air pump should have showed up as an increase or change in the peak TQ and Hp numbers but no change was quoted.

I think Porsche was to at least some degree playing w the quoted numbers.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by 911st

I think Porsche was to at least some degree playing w the quoted numbers.

I have though this as well. Not only with the power and torque numbers, but with the weight.

Also, note that the ROW SC in 1978 had more torque (195 or so) than the Carrera 3.0.

JR

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by vmax

The 81-83 9.8:1 Euro SC engines used the large port intake runners and large port heads. Bruce Anderson's book is incorrect about this. I have rebuilt a few a these engines and all had the large heads/runners. Here is a link to a thread on Pelican about this. Did I get a special SC motor from the factory?

Interesting if true, probably is from the part #s
all I know for sure is
US SC cyl head w/ valves reary for installation
'78 930.104.019.05
'79 930.104.019.08
'80 930.104.018.03
'81-930.104.018.05

looks like a major redesign for 80 up, possibly small intake port

RoW SC
-'80 930.104.019.05
81- 930.104.019.08

looks like all the RoW used the same head as the '79 US

It sure would be interesting to know exactly what changed w/ the minor and major revisions

[safe]

Originally Posted by 911st

I think Porsche was to at least some degree playing w the quoted numbers.

Very probable. Take the example och the 3.2 and the 3.6 engines.

ROW numbers:
The 3.2 quoted at 231 hp => 72.2 hp/liter
The 3.6 quoted at 250 hp => 69.4 hp/liter

The 3.6 has higher compression, twinplug and a hotter cam....

I think Porsche has a history of sticking convenient #s on their engines.

The bump from 180 to 188 hp in -80, is probably more of an "paper upgrade" than from the small compression increase.

[911st]

Also droped the air pump in 80 that had to use some HP.

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by safe

Very probable. Take the example och the 3.2 and the 3.6 engines.

ROW numbers:
The 3.2 quoted at 231 hp => 72.2 hp/liter
The 3.6 quoted at 250 hp => 69.4 hp/liter

The 3.6 has higher compression, twinplug and a hotter cam....

I think Porsche has a history of sticking convenient #s on their engines.

The bump from 180 to 188 hp in -80, is probably more of an "paper upgrade" than from the small compression increase.

DIN spec, which are the only hp #s I've quoted here is not subjuect to manipulation or interpretation, those are take it to the bank #s.

a cam w/ longer duration and or lift is not necessarily a 'hotter' cam when used in a larger engine.

the initial prblem w/ 964 was high heat in the heads, this really lilmited hp potential. They eventually went to the RR530 alloy used in 930 heads for the 993