engine - upgrade or replace??

[dickster]

there are lots of threads on upgrading your powerplants, turbos, bigger cylinder pistons, etc.

but the common response is to say this is a waste of time, and for your $/HP you would be better off putting a 3.6 in.

thats all very well and i agree to a certain extent but what about:

1. originality

2. spreading the cost over a period

3. nice fresh built engine

you don't get any of those with a secondhand 3.6 do you??

sure it would be nive to have that power, but it may need a rebuild or something......thats why i just don't get it

[dickster]

i emailed a guy in the uk regarding turbos, and he said rather than pissing about with a 3.2 na just put in a turbo motor, and the price he quoted was very reasonable. but then i've got a car with an unknown engine.

i think i would be very tempted by the "using larger pistons/liners" route (esp. if the thing needed a rebuild anyway).

mr anderson's book shows how the power increase in % is directly related to the capacity increase.

thats appealing to me anyhows..............

not that i've got the money to do it

[rob911]

see 930 motorsport and volunteer to be a guinea pig for their new 3.2 supercharger.

The 964 unit already on sale adds ~100BHP and costs £4500.

this is not a plug - I do not know these guys - they seem to have good press though.

BTW if you don't have the money anyway, then why not do a theoretical full teardown and add 3.3 turbo top end. You already have the crakshaft and case.
Maybe you could go the whole hog and add 3.6 jugs and twin plug top end. Throw in a hand made free flow exhaust and bingo - power galore.

[dickster]

EXACTLY!!

now all i need is the frickin funds

[911pcars]

Since originality was first on your list, and assuming it is, then your options are pretty limited to rebuilding yours. Yes? Even a brand new direct replacement wouldn't have the matching numbers.

If this isn't as important, then weigh the difference between buying a late model engine in good shape (have it checked out before buying) or rebuilding yours or a later used engine you can rebuild to suit your needs and budget.

Sherwood Lee
http://members.rennlist.org/911pcars
www.seinesystems.com

[epbrown]

My mechanic is also big on replacing rather than rebuilding. I've pretty much decided that if I ever upgraded the SC, I'd attempt to rebuild it myself, and upgrade it at the same time. If you're curious, I'd basically do as some have discussed on the group: keep the CIS and switch to early SC fuel rails, 3.4 pistons, 964 cams, and SSIs.

If I were paying for a shop, I go ahead and jump up to the 3.6, which would give about the same result, performance-wise, but cost lots more.

As for turbos and supercharging, I've learned that I'm more comfortable with n/a engines. I like that steady pull more than a rubber-band snap.

Emanuel

[Glasgow 911SC]

keep the CIS and switch to early SC fuel rails, 3.4 pistons, 964 cams, and SSIs

What sort of power would this achieve and how would this affect mpg etc? Is this viable for a daily driver?

[juan ruiz]

I face a similar dilema some time back,since you are looking for HP i belive the ORIGINAL part is out the window in my case;
I boroscope the engine myself and i had a good view and i had the engine history so I feel secure with the existing powerplant so i install a turbo in my 3.2 engine,the main reasons Money, i could upgrade little by little and still drive the car the main reasons why not go with a 3.3 turbo first off i had to sell the 3.2 and go to the trasplant in addition to the weak points of the engine like intake manifold and so on,then i had to see how the inside condition was, if the 3.6 was the choice i feel this could be wayyyy to much fabrication and way to painful for ME in addition that i see more and more people that after the transplant STILL looking for a little more hp,I think the best choice will be to install a 3.6 Turbo engine and be done with it then this could be a 3.8 or 4.0 turbo engine which will bring us back to the same issue MONEY,but of course each one will defend their point of why they went that way otherwise they could never done it.
Regards Juan
3.2 Undercover
And as always just my 0.02
http://MY88911.homestead.com/newwebpage.html

Richard

Why this question? Have you had the rolling road test performed? Did a bad result make you think of taking a major step or what?

A friend of mine has a 1987 Carrera 3.2 with a 993 272HP engine in it. The car doesn't feel that brutal compared to my 3.2. No doubt that it has much better torque and yes I can see that it's fast when looking a the speedometer. But it's very civilised and therefore doesn't feel as brutal as I expected. Yes it's quite fast and of course I like that. Just don't expect too much.

I also tried an SC with a 3.4 liter 290HP carburrator racing engine with headers and tiny muffler. Now that was brutal, noisy and fassst

[dickster]

911pcars - well i guess if you got a good original car to start with why wreck it?? mines pretty unmessed, so yeah its probably important to me.

juan ruiz - could not agree more do a bit at time, etc

Mikkel - ah no, the test is on thursday - watch this space. i got the first at 8.30, rush home get the cat. off, back up to the rollers, back home get the muffler off.............

i was just interested in opinions. it seemed that whenever a thread mentions upgrading existing power plants the response seems to be mostly that you're better off putting in a 3.6 etc.

its not the only feasible option though - IMO - depends on personal circumstances i guess.

but it does seem that you can get good power with upgrading, bigger pistons, cams, twin plugging, etc.

maybe its different strokes for different folks. different type of challanges. anyways, its interesting...............

[rob911]

Mikkel

I think richard's car is a euro-spec BUT has a USA motor (from earlier threads) which might explain his dilemma.

Never driven the 993 myself, however my mechanic has driven lots (of customer cars).
He reckons that the 993 "Feels" no faster then the 3.2 Carrera partly due to the 6 speed gearbox. The close ratios do not encourage so much hearty use of the rev range. Maybe it weighs a few (hundred) pounds more as well.
Would the variocam engine "Feel" quicker?

Originally posted by Mikkel

A friend of mine has a 1987 Carrera 3.2 with a 993 272HP engine in it. The car doesn't feel that brutal compared to my 3.2. No doubt that it has much better torque and yes I can see that it's fast when looking a the speedometer. But it's very civilised and therefore doesn't feel as brutal as I expected. Yes it's quite fast and of course I like that. Just don't expect too much.

I also tried an SC with a 3.4 liter 290HP carburrator racing engine with headers and tiny muffler. Now that was brutal, noisy and fassst