Basic 3.2 Performace Tips

[KTL]

Or you can find a set of GHL headers. Rarly's box attachments are still undergoing final construction, last time I heard?

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by bklyn

I still run a K&N on my 87 Targa but I do have proof it destroyed the air sensor on my wifes 2002 Boxster. That being said the answer to your SW chip is yes, I had sent my back twice to be re-calibrated when I relized the po had put in up grades. Enjoy.

The "KN filter oil destroyed the air sensor" is a wives tale perpetrated by service departments across the country to avoid paying for a covered warranty repair. Because service departments are considered reliable sources of information the "K&N oil problem" has been passed around until it is common knowledge. Only problem is it isn't true.

K&N has a research department that vigorously analyzes and refutes these claims on their customer's behalf. They take "contaminated" sensors and have them analyzed with a mass spectrometer to see definitively what type of oil is on the sensor. They have NEVER found a sensor that had failed from filter oil contamination. The oil they find is always the oil that is contained inside the sensor that has leaked out. They have forced many service centers to honor their warranties.

As far as filtration problems. If correctly prepared the K&N filters trap particles down to a much lower micron level. They just do not have the reported issues. The limitation is they aren't a completely mindless "replace it" service item but that isn't an issue for most people in this forum. There isn't any issue with using paper filters either. The intake tract isn't a power issue on the 3.2s so reducing filter restriction isn't really an issue. Just keep a clean filter in the car.

K&N is based in Socal (inland empire) so if you live in the area I highly recommend going on a tour of their facility. I really enjoy tours that focus on hard science and engineering instead of marketing eyewash and this is a good one.

---
Back on subject...
From a talk with Jerry Woods: Porsche didn't leave much on the table with the 3.2 Carrera's. There is about 20 HP to be found in the exhaust system of the factory 3.2. They have found that there is zero HP to be found in the intake system. (Fun one: They tested a Autothority hot wire mass air sensor and found after some tuning... that it lost 5 HP.)
They also found that there isn't to much power to be found in chips but there is some great improvement's in response and driveability to be realized.

[jpachard]

All,
My previous car was an '87 Carrera and you can see my dyno results on Steve Wong's website. I had 219Hp at the rear wheels with the following setup. This was on a car that had 70K on the clock with 20K of that being on the track.

1. K and N filter with Cup style airbox modification
2. Stock engine, pistons, rings, cam etc. due to class rules for Club Racing.
3. Lightweight pressure plate.
4. Custom exhaust, I spec'ed it and built it myself with the help of Vince from Burns Stainless. I ended up using 1.5" primaries, custom Burns merge collectors in to Coast fabrication mufflers.
5. Steve Wong custom chip.

The car was absolutely wonderful!!

Cheers, James

[1990C4S]

Let's agree that a K&N might or might not be good and move on....

1. Basic tune-up and make sure the barn door fully opens etc...

2. No cat

3. Headers (or a variant)

4. Steve Wong

5. Elephant Racing front end (to various levels of $)

6. Driving lessons or Auto X or track time

7. Elephant rear suspension

8. Engine work

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by Jim Garfield

You can use B&B headers and still have heat.

The B&B header is sized correctly for the 3.2 but is a disaster of engineering incompetence. (do they even employ an engineer?)

• The tube for the heat outlet runs through the stock tin for no conceivable reason. To install them the splash protection shield must be trimmed back about 1.5" to clear on the drivers side.
• One of the primaries on the passenger side is run through the path of the big oil drain hose between the tank and engine. They have a $195 kludge of a tube that includes a "sink trap" at the end.
• The muffler is a loud ricey sounding thing (personal opinion) and early versions had problems with weld reliability.

After pointing out the issues...
This is what I am running on my car. The price was right, the size was right and I am willing to hack things up on my car. I solved the oil line issue by slightly trimming the tank end of the hose so it is has more clearance and by wrapping the headers with insulating tape. I welded up my own muffler setup using a Dynomax 17725 and section of straight thru muffler to deal with the upper RPMs.
This whole setup makes an noticeable difference in the power of the car particularly in the upper range. It pulls real hard past the rev limiter so you have to watch it.

[whiterabbit]

I am planning to give the gekkatec MAF a go. Apparently its a proven 10hp at the top end as per the article in 911 and Porsche world.

[Jim Garfield]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

The B&B header is sized correctly for the 3.2 but.....[*][/LIST]After pointing out the issues...
This is what I am running on my car.

I agree that the lack of engineering in how they run the headers is ridiculous. The setup was installed by the PO, and not the direction I would have gone. That said, it does seem to work pretty well and the booming sound of the original muffler is largely solved by going with 1.25" pipes out of the muffler.

I'm curious how you know that it pulls hard past the rev limiter, is your limiter disconnected?

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by Jim Garfield

...
I'm curious how you know that it pulls hard past the rev limiter, is your limiter disconnected?

With the stock setup it would start to fall off just before redline. With the header setup it is still hard on it and you really have to watch it because your natural tendency would be to let it go. 140 to 150 definitely happens faster! (I really try to stay out of the redline to limiter zone. I trust those "stretch to torque" rod bolts as far as I can spit upwind in a hurricane.)

Still don't have a Steve Wong chip in it yet. Now that the wife is out of school and employed we can fix that.
(In this house we pronounce "RN" as "earn"!)

[KTL]

Wayne,

I agree that the B&B headers are a shame of needless problematic details, considering what they cost. I'll add that the flexible oil-out line from the engine could have been better designed as well.

RE the muffler issues, I think a big part of their failure is not necessarily the muffler itself. Rectangular mufflers have been around a long time and they usually don't fail like B&B's. Take a look at your muffler bracket and add some angled supports to the 90 deg. bends. I've seen a number of these brackets tear and bend very easily, indicating that the metal is just ordinary steel. If the muffler is better supported, it wouldn't be developing the cracks at the inlet tubing and the case seams.

[chuckr]

My 3.2 has the K&N cone filter, Extrudehoned Plentums, flow matched injectors, Fabspeed Euro Pre-Muf and dual out muffler, Magnacore wires and a Steve Wong chip. Runs great, gets good mileage and sounds fantastic !

[JeremyD]

3.4 Mahle 9.8 to one P & C
Extrude hone intake
993ss cams (Dougherty Racing Cams)
ARP rod bolts
Supertech Head Studs
Enlarged throttle body
Competition springs and retainers (EBS)
New rocker shafts
New RSR Rocker Shaft Seals
New teflon lined Carrera fuel line
New Carrera tensioner lines
New oil sensor
993 Flipped Flange Heat Exchangers
MK 993 Bischof flange muffler
Steve Wong custom chip to pull it all together
Dyno tested on Dynojet 248c - adjusted to 244.3 RWHP - so 287 hp at the flywheel corrected. Nice flat torque curve

Of course - you won't pass cali smog with this

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

... header stuf ...
Still don't have a Steve Wong chip in it yet. ...

Which size B&Bs do you have? When I installed their 1 3/4" headers, my car ran like crap until I put a SW "header" chip in the car.
I loved the headers... but got sick of the oil line problems and getting steam in the heater every time I drove through a puddle.

[Quicksilver]

Originally Posted by gtc

Which size B&Bs do you have? When I installed their 1 3/4" headers, my car ran like crap until I put a SW "header" chip in the car.
I loved the headers... but got sick of the oil line problems and getting steam in the heater every time I drove through a puddle.

I have the 1-5/8" version. 1-3/4 would be better for full track but the 1-5/8 makes a bit more sense for mid range. The real reason for them is the price was right. If a set of the 1-3/4 had popped up for what I got these for I would be running those.

On the oil line I had originally built an insulated heat shield but when I rearranged the muffler setup I went with wrapping the headers and have kept a close eye on it. It has worked fine with zero visible problems so far.

I did switch over to the Elephant Universal Oil Line so I can switch back and forth to the stock exhaust easily. Turns out the line has fitment issues on the G50 cars. I had to trim more of the splash tin and the rib along the top of the bellhousing had to be ground down to allow the pipe over. I'm glad I did it but it involved a couple calls to Chuck to see if I had lost my mind and took an extra day...

[jpachard]

1.750" would be way too big for a non modified engine. I had 1.625" and even those were too big so I went down to 1.5". I picked up almost 2 sec. at Watkins Glen changing over to the smaller setup.

An ideal setup would be a progressive header with a 1.5" tube at the exhaust valve port tapering up to 1.625" then in to a proper merge collector for each bank.

Cheers, James

[DG624]

The real question is not can more power be available but at what price and what is most cost effective? I think the exhaust and chip would be a starting point with maybe more intake flow with an extrude hone manifold.

Will the Throttle Body also need work to allow gains from opening the intake manifold?
Are the SSIs comparable to the 993 exhausts?
Do the 993 exhausts require new oil lines like the SSIs?
What is the cost per HP gain?

[Zeke]

I have heard conflicting info about extrude hone. I'm sure someone has dyno numbers.

Now this guy claims some major HP gains if you have the money for fancy heads:
Welcome To CMW Motorsports "We Build Real Horsepower"

[DG624]

I talked with Extrude Hone and they said:
"expect about a 20 HP improvement with the 3.2 L engine ...there is no need to enlarge the TB if you are not going above 3.6L and there is no need for changing the cam to achieve improved flow." This is generally what they said and I was suprised they would claim a 20 HP improvement with just the intake manifold hone. I would like to use SSIs but also don't like to lose the CAT...this is only a 2-3 HP loss.

[jpachard]

Originally Posted by DG624

I talked with Extrude Hone and they said:
"expect about a 20 HP improvement with the 3.2 L engine ...there is no need to enlarge the TB if you are not going above 3.6L and there is no need for changing the cam to achieve improved flow." This is generally what they said and I was suprised they would claim a 20 HP improvement with just the intake manifold hone. I would like to use SSIs but also don't like to lose the CAT...this is only a 2-3 HP loss.

I would really like to see some data to back up those claims by extrude hone.

I would imagine that having the surface super smooth might cause the air to actually slow down. Think of a golf ball, it has dimples for a reason.

James

[LJ851]

WOW. 20 horsepower ! I hope whoever designed that manifold at porsche did not stay employed. That sounds pretty unbelievable considering they are just modifying the stock component. Does anyone have dyno proof that just the extrude hone manifold is worth anywhere near what they claim ?

[JeremyD]

I did a ton of research on this topic when I rebuilt my 3.2 into a 287 single plug 3.4.

From people who are much more knowledgeable than me - and many that don't post, but build race motors for a living (go figure). The consensus was that you used the extrude hone process for marginal flow improvement and HP gains (5-10hp was often quoted) - but what you really gained was matched airflow in between all cylinders. apparently both the 3.2 and the metal 3.6 intakes were notorious for uneven air flow volumes to different intakes. This was fixed with the plastic intakes.

From my own personal observation (and sorry I don't still have the paperwork, sold the car) but I do remember that two of the intakes were substantially different in their [before] air flow (maybe 3 & 4?) than the rest of the intakes.

And if I fitted a higher duration cam (I had the 993ss Cams) that I should enlarge the TB marginally (2-4mm?)

Anyway - it all seemed to come together well in that engine...