many argue which is better 3.0 or 3.2?

[robert walsh]

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]

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

[RoninLB]

afai know the 3.2 started the smaller dia rod bolts.




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

[slw911SC]

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

[Zeke]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Almost more worth it to argue CIS vs DME.

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

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]

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]

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]

Bingo!

Throw them a fish...

[BK911]

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]

not touching it......

[Zef]

The more EVOLUATED 3.2

[livi]

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]

Shane?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

3.2 is better.

[Paulporsche]

How about a 3.0 made into a 3.2?