![]() |
many argue which is better 3.0 or 3.2?
I have heard all sides on this one, but what do you really feel is the better porsche engine of the two? Which one is the most bullet proof? Studs, valves, etc all fair game on this one. Please exclude the 915 vs G50 tranny on reasons why is better. Is 27HP enough of an answer? Or longevity and peak of the breed the true answer?
|
Uh oh now you've gone and done it..........
|
afai know the 3.2 started the smaller dia rod bolts.
ps: this would be a good topic on the "engine builders" forum |
Argument? What argument? Everyone knows the 3.0 is best! :D:D
|
235,000 mile Carrera here with all the paperwork back to day one. Never been touched. One of many high millage cars still in the hunt. I cast my vote for 3.2.
BTW, the "argument" around here has been all but in jest. |
I've owned numerous examples of both. I'll admit, I never had a big problem with either motor; I think it all comes down to a very subjective feeling. I, for one, always liked my '83 triple black SC over the Carreras, but that doesn't mean it was better.
|
What about the late '83 cab engines with the 3.2 case and 3.0 top end, just for interest, perhaps all late 83 engines had this combo, not sure.
|
All late-production SCs got the new Carrera (no sump plate) case. It's a bonus in my view -- one less gasket to worry about leaking.
I'm not rendering an opinion on this which-is-better question. I've only owned a 356B T-6 coupe and my current stable of SCs, so anything I could add would be extremely narrow. Brian |
With proper care, maintenance, and exercise (lots) both seem to be "bulletproof" IMHO. Dad has had a 79 SC coupe for about 9 years (109,000 miles) and with the exception of regular maintenance there have been zero issues. A couple spots of oil on the cardboard (really needs to drive it more), and no smoke on start up. His does not have the chain tensioner update. Mine is an 88 Targa with 120,000 and I also have had zero issues. But,... I guess I'm partial to the 3.2
Karl 88 Targa |
Almost more worth it to argue CIS vs DME.
Anyways, here is a post by Pete Zimmerman that may shed some light Quote:
|
I like that you can "chip-tune" the DME in the Motronic Carrera and the bigger A/C vents. The SC's are still quite a bit cheaper to buy. I've got an '88 Carrera and my buddy garages his '79 SC 40 feet across the drive. Both great cars!
|
Carrera - because it's not CIS. Because it ALWAYS cheaper to remove weight (and sell) than to increase HP. Sure the rod bolts are smaller - but in the whole scheme of things - unless you are spending all your time bouncing off the rev limiter - I'm not sure you will notice or have an issue with them.
|
Bingo!
Throw them a fish... |
I don't thing you can go wrong with either. Both are awesome engines. But if you are looking for 99% perfection over 99.1% perfection, I would go with the 3.2 because of the induction. If PMOs were used, tough call. Whichever you got the best deal on. If a track engine, the rod bolts def favor the 3.0. But again, you really can't go wrong with either.
|
not touching it......:eek:
|
The more EVOLUATED 3.2
|
Even race but,
if newer is better, then 3.2 if bigger is better, then 3.2 More important finding a healthy engine of either kind. Personally? Biased. 231 bhp ROW 85 in favor. |
sc
Shane?
|
3.2 is better.
|
How about a 3.0 made into a 3.2?
|
I own cars powered by both, and when stock, the 3.0 seems to have better low end torque.
|
SS 3.2 is the champ because they rev so easily; especially when using an earlier non-Lambda CIS. :)
|
if you "expand" a 3L., you still have the CIS issue vs. the ability to eke out a few more hp with a modified chip for the DME -- see the 2 responses just above my Bingo comment on the last page.
if you are going to increase displ. - you can easily go to 3.4L with the 3.2 - and even a tad higher - it is not a cheap way to get hp. then there is the issue of seeing high Et-OH levels in gas in the near future... so the 3.2L wins on all of these motor issues: 1. low buck power increase 2. high buck power increase 3. lower emissions, stock 4. near-term future fuels compatibility Non-motor issues: 5. easier to sell off heavy luxo-barge crap to achieve light wt. than to do other things (low buck perf. increase) 6. better brake system the only reason to go SC/3L would be if the price were much lower - then you have to quantify the value of the benefits |
Much of the perception that a SC 3.0 is a quicker more responsive car is the comparision between a 3.0 CIS car that has had it fuel mixture richened up increasing the low mid rpm throttle response, and a completely stock 3.2 that by default runs a stoichiometric lean 14.7:1 afr at low and mid rpms, which creates the perception that the car is not as responsive, heavier and slower. Stock 3.2s have have the sub 4000 rpm lag. Once you chip it though, the lag is gone, the car feels 500 lbs lighter, and has much more throttle response, closing the response gap between a 3.2 and 3.0, while still getting 18-28 mpg city/hwy. In fact I can chip a car to run like a 3.0 with the CIS adjusted rich, and make it respond as such, basically something like a European car, running open loop, but the emissions and fuel efficiency would go out the window.
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website