3.2 vs 3.6 seat of the pants

[brighton911]

I'm interested in getting a 964. My current 911 has a 3.2 with 964 cams, cat delete and Steve Wong chip. Very happy with the power and how it comes on at 4500 and above. I have tried out a couple of 964's and I expected the bigger 3.6 and much higher compression to deliver a noticeable greater HP feel than my 3.2 but no way. Cars felt rather anemic with no power rush at any RPM, just linear and not all that exciting.
So, the question is, is something not right with the cars or is the 3.6 not as perky as a 3.2 with slight mods? Thanks

[Fly911]

The increased power of the 964 3.6L does not compensate for the additional weight of the car. Contemporary tests show pretty much the same 0-60MPH times.

[jamesjedi]

Put the 964 engine in your car.

[kreeshp]

3.6 liters versus 3.2 liters is only 12.5% more mathematically.

Lots of folks who have 3.6L engines and are contemplating upgrading to 3.8L rebuilds fail to grasp that this mod is only a 5.5% increase.

Not sure what you expect a 12.5% increase to feel like but it's generally accepted in the 964 and 993 communities that you'll feel a much more dramatic change by re-gearing the transmission. The cost:benefit ratio is much more in favor of a re-gear than a bigger engine only. If you have money to do both, that's a whole other scenario.

[Victory1]

wow this is interesting. I'm interested in this whole rehearing thing..

[dwelle]

i have a 3.2 in my '76 911 and a 3.6 from a 993 in my 914.

the 911 is quick. the 914 is fast. real fast.

pretty hard to get into trouble in the 911 without really trying. impossibly easy to get into trouble with the 914.

i reckon 50 HP difference between the two.

weight loss and gearing are huge in these cars, and usually cheaper than HP.

if memory serves, the 993's had more HP than the 964, no?...

[HorstP]

a modified 3.2 and a bone stock 964 are at quite similar levels on the street, on the track the 964 will be better due to the better suspension.

with a few modifications, specifically on the exhaust, the 964 will really wake up and leave the modified 3.2 behind.

Why do I say that? Because I had the modified 3.2 and was driving against stock and modified 964. I got tired of it and put a 3.8l into my 1987 since.

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by brighton911

I'm interested in getting a 964. My current 911 has a 3.2 with 964 cams, cat delete and Steve Wong chip. Very happy with the power and how it comes on at 4500 and above. I have tried out a couple of 964's and I expected the bigger 3.6 and much higher compression to deliver a noticeable greater HP feel than my 3.2 but no way. Cars felt rather anemic with no power rush at any RPM, just linear and not all that exciting.
So, the question is, is something not right with the cars or is the 3.6 not as perky as a 3.2 with slight mods? Thanks

The feel will depend on
health of the drivetrain
gearing/tires
weight
motor characteristics

Here are the acceleration curves of an E series 911 w/ either a highly modified 3.2 or a stock 993 3.6, all else is unchnged


The motor chosen makes a difference,
here are rear wheel torque curves for 3 motors in n the same chassis


transmission makes a difference
thrust #s for 964 g64/00 compared to the same motor w/ a 993 G50/21



not all 964 are the same
964 w/ g50/03 compared to same car w/ g50/05 or 993 g50/20


another trans comparison
993 w/ US g50/20 compared w/ same car w/ Row 993 Rs g50/31



tires make a difference

[jamesjedi]

Something that gets lost in this kind of conversation is that these are very old cars. Fast in their day. There is much more to a vintage 911 than just performance. I have a 964 engine that I am going to get running this fall. I am considering selling it to have a 3.0 or 3.2 - it just seems more period correct for a torsion car. I need to get it in the car first, then I will see.

[brighton911]

Thanks to all for your replies. Bill, you really went all out, a special thanks. I was thinking more about this whilst sleeping (bad habit) and certainly the heavier car, especially a C4, would contribute to the rather boring performance. And I also think my combination of 964 cams, more open exhaust and SW chip has really worked for my particular car and engine, so I have been spoiled. But, by the sound of it, and it makes sense, waking up the 3.6 would not be all that difficult. I must say my lighter, simpler car has a visceral feel that my Cayman and the 964 lack. I guess that's "progress" but sometimes old is good. And that's precisely why I kept the 911 even after getting the Cayman (which I also really like). Too many cars to like, but it's not a sickness!

[Bill Verburg]

Cayman S, GTS & particularly GT4 are much quicker cars

The only one I have on hand is the acceleration curves for a GT4

[quattrorunner]

Turbo

[Tippy]

This is a basic hp-to-weight ratio issue.

Put that 3.6 in a light chassis and it'll feel zippy as the 3.2 I'd bet.

[Trackrash]

I have ridden in and driven a couple of RS Americas. Both had great performance. 964s are "sleeper" cars. In other words with a little work they can be great performers.

Put a 964 on a diet, update the exhaust and chip, then you won't be disappointed.

One of the RSAs in particular had a 3,8 conversion and on the track was similar in performance to GT3s of the time. (this was 8 years ago, so don't flame me please).

Must be a reason for Singer to be buying them all up.

[Derek911]

Apples and oranges! Compare a bone stock 3.2 to a bone stock 964 and then see which one feels tired. The 3.2 in your test probably didn't have A/C components, because it rarely works, while the 964 probably had a working A/C. Which transmission did the 3.2 have? There are too many variables.
Mod a 3.2 and mod a 964 and I would take the 964 solely based on suspension options alone. The 964 will out handle the 3.2.
I found the exact opposite in all my driving experience. The 3.2's were "tired." The 964 is a better driving platform... And my A/C blows cold air while doing it. Lol. And don't even bring a 915 transmission into the discussion.
A 964 with a Steve Wong chip, lightweight flywheel, cat delete, fabspeed headers and exhaust, kw3 suspension, lightweight BBS racing wheels, and any number of lightweight measures ie ac delete, rear seat delete, rear wing delete, and I would put that up against ANY 3.2 with confidence.
Honestly, I wouldn't compare the two, they are completely different cars.

[3rd_gear_Ted]

When I installed my 3.6 with a S.Wong chip and headers, I didn't have the full throttle switch being properly actuated and I was able to keep up with a 3.2L on the track. When I fixed the switch, it was see ya later all the time, very happy

Also, Its a lot more fun NOT being period correct, what's wrong with a hybrid car with the best Metzger motor in it ever built, it fits perfectly

[jeffbottman]

Originally Posted by 3rd_gear_Ted

When I installed my 3.6 with a S.Wong chip and headers, I didn't have the full throttle switch being properly actuated and I was able to keep up with a 3.2L on the track. When I fixed the switch, it was see ya later all the time, very happy

Also, Its a lot more fun NOT being period correct, what's wrong with a hybrid car with the best Metzger motor in it ever built, it fits perfectly

Absolutely NOTHING wrong with a hybrid car of that sort! What's wrong is my piggy bank is too light to allow a transplant with current price and availability of 3.6 motors; it's becoming obscenely expensive these days as I understand. But wish I could.

[Busta Rib]

This. 964 is heavy compared to a G body. When you are only pushing 2700 lbs or less, a 3.6 will feel more than adequate and very quick.

Originally Posted by Tippy

This is a basic hp-to-weight ratio issue.

Put that 3.6 in a light chassis and it'll feel zippy as the 3.2 I'd bet.

[jeffbottman]

A question: Any estimates of all-in cost these days to procure a 'solid' 3.6 v-ram engine and have it turn-key installed by a good mechanic?

What's that cost in dollars per incremental HP over a standard Carrera 3.2?

[Trackrash]

Originally Posted by jeffbottman

A question: Any estimates of all-in cost these days to procure a 'solid' 3.6 v-ram engine and have it turn-key installed by a good mechanic?

What's that cost in dollars per incremental HP over a standard Carrera 3.2?

This is a rhetorical question, right?