3.2 reliability?

[andybullen]

hey guys..... I have a '79 911 SC coupe with no engine or transmission.
I have been thinking of which engine would get me the most reliability, and relative ease of maintenance.

after careful consideration, I have finally decided on going with a 3.2 carrera engine mated to a 915. what have been your experiences with carreras in the long term, and what are the main weak points I should watch out for?

thanks for your input....

[kinein]

my 3.2 went 530k with no rebuilds. just maintenance and real porsche driving not this only on the weekends stuff

[ZOA NOM]

238k and counting...

[aircooledmagic]

My 1984 Carrera 3.2 has 234,000kms and still going strong,, use it almost everyday and cover approx 200kms per week, provided you warm then up before you jump on the revs and service regularly they are pretty reliable, and the 915 box once you get use to it is great.. Like most 911 engines of that period they are prone to breaking head studs if they are dilivar type...Overall from what i have read and heard the 3.2 engine is one of the most reliable and has the lowest operating cost.

[Targa Me]

214k on my 3.2 and counting.

[andybullen]

thanks guys, this all sounds very good...... in reference to aircooled magic's statement, how can you tell if dilivar head studs are used - do they look different physically?

[E Sully]

Weak point would be valve guides can wear early. Other than that a great engine. The dilivar's are black and used on the exhaust side.

[aircooledmagic]

Dilivar studs also been none steel, a magnet wont stick to them, another good way to see if they have been replaced, and not just painted black.... I had often wondered why they used dilivar on the bottom and steel studs on the top... One independant Porsche specialist once told me, that due to salt been used on roads in Europe during the winter, dilivar was substituted for steel to prevent corrosion, but seems the constant heat cycles and earlier cars with magnesium heads caused them either to break or pull..

[Tsunamiboy]

This is what a 3.2 (1987) looks like in a 79SC!!! Swapped my 3.0L for the 3.2L at 207,000 miles, no more air pump or fuel system accumulator. I also appreciate the fully electronic ignition and fuel system. Add a performance chip to the ECU and you reap low cost performance enhancement. Whats not to like?

[Nick Triesch]

tsunamiboy, what did you use on your fan to get it to look so great? I used scotch brite and it looks good. Holy smokes, yours looks terirfic! Nick

[EMJ]

184k miles and still going Strong. 50-plus miles a day...

[70S Targa Guy]

Originally Posted by Tsunamiboy

This is what a 3.2 (1987) looks like in a 79SC!!! Swapped my 3.0L for the 3.2L at 207,000 miles, no more air pump or fuel system accumulator. I also appreciate the fully electronic ignition and fuel system. Add a performance chip to the ECU and you reap low cost performance enhancement. Whats not to like?

10-4 brother! Rumor has it that if you transplant that chipped 3.2 and "add lightness" to the car (ala 2100 LB longhood) good things start to happen when you are at < 8 LBS/HP! Ask me how I know that!

[andybullen]

that thing is cleaaan tsunamiboy...... how does perform compared to your old 3 liter?

[Tsunamiboy]

I love the way the Motronic works on cold start with a Very even idle right away. The power band is not just at the top of the RPM's but starts earlier then my 3.0L did. On paper there is about 37 more HP with a 3.2L and I think the evidence for me is that it jumps to 100 MPH so damn quick I have to pay attention when squirrelling around.

Another advantage to the 3.2L is that if you decide to modify your motor the 3.2L is a much better platform to start with.

[a914622]

You were looking at a porsche engine right?? You could go subaru ej3.3 and put 240hp to the wheels. There are tons of vanagons getting them. super reliable , but they do need water cooling.

jcl