Anyone replaced factory Turbo engine/trans. w/NA setup?

[TheGanzman]

O.K. - Perhaps this represents the HEIGHT of insanity, blasphemy, etc. Maybe you'll be burning crosses in my yard for even MENTIONING such an idea. Hey, I'm a Porsche newbie, so flame away! But for those of you who will perhaps humor me for a minute, here's the scenario: Hypothetically, I find an '87-'89 factory Turbo car in great shape all around, but it's been sitting/rarely driven for the last 15 years. PPI tells me I can anticipate some big $ repairs in the engine room, so I manage to get said car for a pretty damned good price. Would I be a slobbering MORON to gank the entire Turbo drivetrain/transmission/associated accessories from said car, put 'em in careful storage, and install a 3.2 engine/G50 trannie in my now DD? Would I be the Lone Ranger if I did this, or has anyone else here on the Board gone here already, and NOT gotten struck dead by lightning? Yeah, I got a thing for big hips (and my wife is THANKFUL!)...

[Britwrench]

If the engine runs, or can be made to run, why bother changing anything?

Don't forget that all the brake calipers, hoses and master cylinder will need rebuilding and replacing anyway. The fuel tank, pumps and filters, tires, ac and a bunch of other stuff will all need attention.

[ZAMIRZ]

What you should do is to go through the car and fix all that's wrong and get it in mint mechanical condition and sell it (or keep it, 930s are movin on up in value these days). Then go buy your daily driver Carrera or whatever you want.

[aigel]

Usually it is sad stories you read about of former Turbos converted to N/A and the turbo drive train gone missing. My vote is for keeping it stock and possibly rethinking the purchase, if you are that strapped for cash.

Keep it stock - you will need the power to push the wider and heavier body.

George

[Les Paul]

This has to be a joke. Kind of like some famous porn star dude that cuts his nuts off because he is tired of the porn gig?

[mede8er]

Absolutely...that platform with a 3.6 (or 3.8!!!) would be an excellent Street/DE vehicle.....

[PcarPhil]

I've heard a 930 owner mention they were thinking about doing something similar. He talked about pulling out the turbo engine and 4 speed trans and replacing it with a NA 3.6 engine and 5 speed G50.

I'm not quite sure why....but he mentioned it. I think it had something to do with his dislike of CIS and also off-boost performance at legal speeds.

[Garen]

930's are fun. Not for everyone, but fun. The question is, unless you already have a 3.2/G50 combo gathering dust in your garage, how much money will you save by doing the switch? My guess is that you would spend somewhere around 6-8K for a good 3.2, and somewhere around 1.5-2K for a G50 w/ LSD. Then you would spend a fortune trying to shoe-horn the G50 in the car, 'cause the 76-88 930 torsion bar tube won't allow a direct bolt on (89 will work, however). Then, you would have to wire the new engine up, change to a hydrolic clutch, etc etc.

There have been many cases where people have done just that, and the factory even did it with the turbo-look option. Ultimately, it's your call (cash), but along with others on this thread, I agree that 930's are actually climbing in value, especially the rare, 5 speed '89 model.

Being that you can probably get a clean, well-kept turbo look car, you might be setting yourself up for a much lighter wallet than it seems if you get the 930 and convert. Plus, all of the other stuff like calipers, gas tank, etc will add up.

[PcarPhil]

Originally Posted by Garen

930's are fun. Not for everyone, but fun. The question is, unless you already have a 3.2/G50 combo gathering dust in your garage, how much money will you save by doing the switch? My guess is that you would spend somewhere around 6-8K for a good 3.2, and somewhere around 1.5-2K for a G50 w/ LSD. Then you would spend a fortune trying to shoe-horn the G50 in the car, 'cause the 76-88 930 torsion bar tube won't allow a direct bolt on (89 will work, however). Then, you would have to wire the new engine up, change to a hydrolic clutch, etc etc.

Your $$$ number for the 3.2 sounds reasonable. I'm fairly new to the G50 world and recently checked on G50 conversion costs. The cost is staggering.

[stevemfr]

mede8er - a 3.6+ conversion sort of defeats the purpose of saving money...

Ganzman, if all this is just hypothetical... why the question? Have you run across lots of great 930's with bad motors? I'd think your chances of finding exactly that aren't all that high. A ratty 930 in need of a full redo - maybe - but, unless you're going to do the work yourself (and enjoy it!), I'd go with Bruce Anderson's buying advice and in a case such as that: buy the best, newest car you can afford. Otherwise you'll lose $$$.

And, unless you find a 930 needing a full rebuild, a conversion is going to cost more and bring less.

[GH85Carrera]

The factory made that very car. It was called the turbo look. It was 100% the same car as the turbo except for the engine.

[88911coupe]

Just don't leave "Turbo" on the back! LOL!
As GH85Carrera pointed out, the factory did exactly what you are contemplating, sort of...they skipped a few of the steps you are planning. Keep in mind though that an old 3.2 is not maintenance free, ask me how I know...you're still looking at either maintaining it yourself OR paying someone to maintain it. That's on top of the conversion and acquistion costs which may be a little hard to pin down. Hard to say whether it makes sense economically, unless you just steal the 930. "Steal" being a relative term and if you really can steal the car I'd just bite the bullet and fix the 930. You may just try and find a "Turbo Look" since the net out of pocket may end up being the same after it's all said and done. Helluva lot simpler too...

[aigel]

That the factory did it doesn't make it better: The widebody 3.2 had much to do with the unavailability of the Turbo in those years in the US. I think a lot of buyers would have preferred the turbo instead!

George