Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Porsche 911 Technical Forum (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/)
-   -   many argue which is better 3.0 or 3.2? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/444817-many-argue-better-3-0-3-2-a.html)

robert walsh 12-05-2008 02:22 PM

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?

4flyboy 12-05-2008 02:31 PM

Uh oh now you've gone and done it..........

RoninLB 12-05-2008 02:42 PM

afai know the 3.2 started the smaller dia rod bolts.




ps: this would be a good topic on the "engine builders" forum

slw911SC 12-05-2008 02:55 PM

Argument? What argument? Everyone knows the 3.0 is best! :D:D

Zeke 12-05-2008 03:02 PM

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.

JMatta 12-05-2008 03:13 PM

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.

robert walsh 12-05-2008 03:14 PM

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.

1982911SCTarga 12-05-2008 03:32 PM

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

KarlCarrera 12-05-2008 04:49 PM

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

old man neri 12-05-2008 05:01 PM

Almost more worth it to argue CIS vs DME.

Anyways, here is a post by Pete Zimmerman that may shed some light

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Zimmerman

he newest SC is a 1983, the oldest 3.2 is an ’84, and a nice ’81 is only five years older than a good ’86. Needless to say, we’re not talking Model As and Mustangs. The first thing we do is throw out the comparables of the two models. The SC and Carrera, through ’86, all use the same clutch, and engine removal is no more difficult on one as the other. The ’87-89 3.2 cars use a different, more expensive, clutch. It is no more reliable, requires additional labor, and the flywheel, if worn, can’t be machined. I think that it’s safe to say that the clutch is a wash.

Starter motors, shock absorbers, tires, suspension components, brakes, etc., are pretty much the same on both models. SCs and ’84-86 Carreras use a clutch cable; ’87-89 Carreras use a slave cylinder and related hydraulics. Those items can be considered a wash because replacement frequency is similar.

Minor and major services on both models are fairly equal in both labor times, parts, and mileage periods; and life expectancy of alternators, motor mounts and oxygen sensors aren’t different enough to mention.

Let’s look at the “replace once in a blue moon” items. They are reference sensors (3.2), oxygen sensor relay (SC), auxiliary air valve (SC), injectors (both), decal valve (SC), idle control valve (3.2), and throttle switch (3.2). Another pretty equal category, I would have to say.

The biggie repairs are ones that a super-sized wallet can make easier. Each model has a glitch in this category; SCs (some more than others) suffer from broken cylinder head studs, and 3.2 cars (some) suffer from high oil consumption. Cost-wise those two jobs are comparable, certainly close enough to not weigh one model against the other.

All SCs and the first three years of 3.2 cars use the same transmission, the 915, so that’s a wash. Enter the G 50, used in ’87-89 Carreras, that’s a bullet-proof unit that should last at least 250,000 miles. So, the ’87-89 cars edge ahead in our “race.” But wait a minute! The typical SC synchro repair will cost between $1500 and $2500 (more for a “rebuild”), while the typical 3.2 car with a G 50 will cost $5,000 - $8,000 more than a comparable condition SC to buy. Of course, you get power seats and improved A/C along with the great trans. But that, in my mind, is not sufficient cause to eliminate an SC (or ’84-86 Carrera) from consideration.

Let’s explore other typical repairs that SCs and 3.2 cars require over time. I’ll mention here that this is pretty consistent through 200K miles, beyond that many “repairs” become “restorations.” We’ll start with the famous SC airbox; replacement will set the SC owner back $1200 - $1400. On the flip side, the 3.2 Carrera’s air flow meter will fail in a way that the car will still run, but fail its annual/bi-annual smog inspection. Replacement is necessary; and the cost will be $800 - $900. CIS fuel injection (SCs) use a part called a Control Pressure Regulator, aka Warm-Up Regulator. The part is rarely replaced, most often when moisture has entered the car’s fuel system. With moisture present all bets are off for both models! The part is available for about $600, and labor/setup adds another $200. On the other side, 3.2 Carreras have a pair of engine compartment fuel lines that require replacement, which, including intake manifold R&I, will remove about $1,000 from your wallet. Back to the SCs, and a part called an accumulator which will cost about $350 (diagnosis and labor replacement is minimal). 3.2 Carreras have two relatively small issues, one can leave you stranded (DME relay); the other will make the car exhibit unusual symptoms (cylinder head temp sensor). The relay will cost you about $50, the sensor about $350 installed. So, at this point, repair costs are $2350 (SCs) and $2150 (3.2s). Have we got evidence yet that SCs should be avoided, or even be reduced to a second-tier car? I think not.

Upgrades. OK, Carrera tensioners. That’s about it, and so many SCs have had this done it’s almost like they were original equipment anyway. Yes, we can mention anti-roll bars with increased diameters, but don’t forget, if you “must do” them to an SC, you also must “upgrade” ‘84/85 Carreras with them also.
I think that this post clearly shows that either car (SC or Carrera) is worth consideration, and that for every potential purchase condition should be the overwhelming factor. Like I said earlier, we’re not talking Model As and Mustangs here.


Nine17 12-05-2008 05:27 PM

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!

JeremyD 12-05-2008 05:43 PM

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.

RWebb 12-05-2008 08:35 PM

Bingo!

Throw them a fish...

BK911 12-05-2008 09:52 PM

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.

Macroni 12-06-2008 03:11 AM

not touching it......:eek:

Zef 12-06-2008 03:38 AM

The more EVOLUATED 3.2

livi 12-06-2008 04:44 AM

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.

don gilbert 12-06-2008 04:56 AM

sc
 
Shane?

Shaun @ Tru6 12-06-2008 05:07 AM

3.2 is better.

Paulporsche 12-06-2008 05:25 AM

How about a 3.0 made into a 3.2?

Racerbvd 12-06-2008 07:23 AM

I own cars powered by both, and when stock, the 3.0 seems to have better low end torque.

Gunter 12-06-2008 08:39 AM

SS 3.2 is the champ because they rev so easily; especially when using an earlier non-Lambda CIS. :)

RWebb 12-06-2008 10:01 AM

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

Steve W 12-06-2008 11:30 AM

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


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.