3.6 Engine Upgrade?

[Glen]

Hi All
Question for those of you that have installed a 3.6 into a SC. Hows the car feel compared to the stock 3.0 or later C 2's. I've test driven a few early 90' l3.6's lately thinking to upgrade but haven't really felt them to be that much faster than from my 82 SC. Are you guys happy with the transplants, worth the effort or would you sell and buy newer?
Thanks
Glen

[82SC]

just to help out a fellow SC'er

I have been torn apart by this decision for a while...

My motives may be different from yours because a big part of my decision is that I want to rebuild my own engine while improving upon my car...

I thought of the 3.6 upgrade for a while...from what I hear it is a great upgrade...SUCH an increase in power and torque...

3.6L may not have seemed fast b/c of the weight, but your shell is 100's of pounds lighter...

check out www.instant-g.com good FAQ's

But in the end I decided to go with a 3.4L upgrade of my SC core...I think the characteristics differences of staying with your core or using a more modern engine is that the early engines are a little peakier and somewhat viseral...
While 964 or 993 are more civilized but pack a massive punch...obviously with upgrades and such the 3.6L can be powerful and visceral...but with a straight upgrade you get a awesome modern powerplant...good emissions...none of the finiky FI systems of old and great power...

Also some members have found that a 3.2L swap is somewhat cheaper and has a equal is not better power to weight ratio of the 3.6L upgrade...

But enough of my blabbering I will let the guys with firsthand knowledge chime in...

[widebody911]

You can't really compare a C2/C4 to an earlier car with a 3.6; you just can't. Come out to Thunderhill this weekend and I'll give you a ride in mine!

[Jack Olsen]

Torque. There is no substitute.

You 'feel' a lot of things driving a 911. Some of them feel fast. Some feel fast... and actually are fast.

My car felt faster with softer (19/26) torsion bars than it did with stiffer (22/31) ones. Why? With the softer bars, you 'feel' acceleration like you're sitting in a rocking chair and someone's lifting up on the front rockers -- throwing you backward. Your body registers this feeling of being back as acceleration and decelration -- but that's only partly true.

'Peaky-er' motors can also 'feel' faster. Winding the engine out to 7400 rpms on a smaller displacement engine provides a lot of visual (look at that crazy tach!) and audio (whoa, is that a chainsaw strapped to the back of my neck?) feedback.

When I have to put a quieter muffler on my car for Laguna Seca, the car 'feels' significantly slower. But it's really only marginally so. Again, what the things hearing trick my brain into thinking there's less going on when the stock muffler is eating up all that glorious sound.

Numbers don't lie, and the hp and torque curves of a 3.6 make a very compelling -- and indisputable -- argument. Take Thom up on his offer, and you'll see. The 3.6 is one hard-rocking powerplant.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. I call this little drama "Mr. 3.6 Swap meets Mr. Stock SC":

Quicktime 700K Pudding

AVI 1 Meg Pudding

(For the record, the video is actually a cheap, emotional argument. But it's a good'n!)

[jkeyzer]

Originally posted by JackOlsen
Torque. There is no substitute.
'Peaky-er' motors can also 'feel' faster. Winding the engine out to 7400 rpms on a smaller displacement engine provides a lot of visual (look at that crazy tach!) and audio (whoa, is that a chainsaw strapped to the back of my neck?) feedback.

Hahahaha so true. ROTFL.

[curtisaa]

You must take Jack at "face" value. He's absolutely correct. 3.4 "could,may,mite" feel perkier, but for an aspirated motor there is truly nothing that would currently compare. Do the right thing....