They don't, but space is tight


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1454718920.jpg

3.2L to 3.8L...

Here are the mods:

997 GT3 crank, knife edged, cross drilled and balanced
997 GT3 Pankl titanium rods, all weighted and balanced (with stronger ARP bolts)
997 GT3 oil pump
997 GT3 Cup intermediate shaft and gears
102mm LN Engineering NiCaSil cylinders
102mm LN Engineering special light weight pistons with titanium wrist pins (balanced to +/- 0.1 grams)
Engine case spigots bored for the bigger cylinders, machined for the oil pump and internals boat tailed
Cylinder heads machined for twin plugs, intake and exhaust ports bigger and polished.
993 RSR valves, 52.5mm inlet and 44mm exhaust, titanium retainers and race double springs
Combustion chamber and exhaust port ceramic coated
Piston tops ceramic coated
Elgin race camshafts, 325 degrees inlet, 318 degrees exhaust (I can't remember the lift)
Pauter racing valve rocker arms
Fabspeed stainless steel equal length headers (42mm ID)
997 GT3 4.0L titanium muffler with center exhaust
48mm Jenvey ITB's with special tapered manifolds (like the picture in a previous post)
LWF and Sachs racing clutch
The ECU is a Canems from the UK, plug and play to replace the old Motronic

This is probably as far you can stretch a naturally aspirated Carrera engine...

Gear Box:

Lower 3-4-5 gears from Guards Transmission
Steel shifter forks and synchros
GT limited slip diff.

I want to keep the 911 as a matching numbers car (VIN+Engine+Gear Box), and with no (visible) modifications on body panels and (impact) bumpers. However, at a later stage I will change all body panels and bumpers with fiber glass or carbon fiber parts, and lexan windows. My goal is 1000kg/2200lbs with the (heavy) roll cage.
Suspension is already Rebel Racing/Bilstein Coil Overs with matching year (1987) 930 Turbo brakes and Pagid Black pads.
I love the "wolf in sheep's clothing" concept, where the car looks completely original on the outside, but what the (untrained) eye can not see, is something completely different!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1454721475.jpg

^^^^Thats a sleeper for sure! Very nice. any idea of HP?

I'm hoping for 380 crank HP, but my engine builder estimates over 400... It all depends on the dyno tuning of the ECU! Anything above 325Hp on the rear wheels would be good!

That is just cool. Would love to pick the brain of that builder.

Nice build. If I ever get rid of my wide body thats what i'd like to build, an sc flaired sleeper.

Hello Fly911
This is going to be a fantastic engine!
When Bill Rudtner dynoed my 3.2 to 3.746 with the ITBs and Haltech management it came to 415hp at the crank at 8,000 RPMS so you are looking at very similar numbers. I eventually changed to 50mm PMO carbs because the engine went into my 1971 911T narrow body "Sleeper" and I wanted to keep it looking period-correct. Mind you, I'm using it as a street engine so I'm keeping it limited at 7200 RPM.
I have been using it with only a longer first gear to make the extra torque less jerky and drivable at street situations and all other gears stock. With this much torque, the stock 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th run out of space really quick.
Oh boy you're going to have so much fun with this engine!
Triple cheers !
MD

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat6.gif

+1
Subscribed. Could not be a more timely thread. With budget in mind, I'm at that point in my life to upgrade the SC I have or just trade on a Cayman GTS before MY mileage expires! http://forums.pelicanparts.com/suppo...leys/angel.gif

That's a nice(and expensive!!) motor

I'm wondering why a 3.2 case and heads are used
the 3.0/3.2 cases w/ 86mm*stud*spacing*oe use heads w/ up to 39/35 ports and 49.41.5 valves on 3.0s and up to 40/38 ports and 49/41.5 valves on 3.2

the meat at the cylinder bases of the 3.0/3.2 gets awfully thin w/ 100mm bores(3.5l on the long stroke 3.2 crank). I'd limit it to 3.4l, using 98mm p/c and the long stroke 3.2 crank(JMO).

the 3.6 964 moved the*head*studs out to 90mm, these are good for 3.8L w/ 102mm p/c sets, w/ these it's advisable to use 109mm base bore rather than the stock 3.6 107mm. Both are available the 109mm base is just stronger.

Bill, can the studs be moved in the 3.2L? I know of someone who wanted to put 3.5 964 cyls into a 3.2 and it was advised not to go this route as the studs need to be moved, can anyone in the industry move these studs reliably? or is it simply not possible?

I have been clearly told that this is possible. I am in the process to decide which route I want to go and it was advised, that while the 3.4l is a plug-and-play upgrade, it will not yield the gains I am expecting. Moving to 964 P/C and installing a GT3 crank is what I should do. I was also informed about which experienced builder would do that conversion including moving the studs but frankly I have not contacted them yet (of course somebody in Germany...)

Bill, I'm fully aware of the "thin meat" at the cylinder base. I did a lot of research about this, and got very different answers from several reputable Porsche engine builders. I chose to trust my engine builder (Rennspoirt Porsche Works, Sealy Texas), and also LN Engineering. The alternative was 100mm p/c's (3.6L), and LNE had no issues with the 102mm vs the 100mm. They claimed that they had not seen issues with oval cylinders due to thin wall thickness. They also claim that the alloy they are using is stronger than the OEM cylinders, and have far better heat dissipation, with fewer thermal issues. So I hope I have followed the right advice.

The reason why I'm building on a 3.2 rather than a 3.6, is that I want to have a matching numbers car, with a COA from Porsche. Also, buying a 3.6L would cost $8k, and the total build cost would be even more expensive. The cost is crazy enough as it is, I could have bought a brand new and well equipped Boxster for what I'm putting into the engine and gear box!

Man, I just had drool come out of lower lip. I'd love your engine Fly911, but with lower compression to turbo.

You realize 4-digit hp wouldn't be that hard to hit with a turbo and moderate boost levels?

I understand the need for stock look, just thinking aloud. :)

Do you need to move the studs to fit these cyls? If so who's doing the studs? I ask because I'm working on a motor that we'd like to know if moving the studs is a option.

Thanks.

Scarceller, the studs don't need to be moved. LN Engineering makes up to 102mm cylinders for the 3.0 and 3.2 cases with the original stud spacing.

Mauricio, I am so glad that you are happy with that engine. She is scary fast for sure. The low end is amazing and the fact that she can go to 8600 rpm is impressive. We took a lot of time in picking the right components for it to have great power and maximimum longevity.

Best Regards,
Mike

I've seen a lot of 3.2s upped in displacement and twin plugged but why don't I see any pistons that resemble the 964 piston with the bowl shape on top? That 964 piston bowl was designed by the factory specifically for twin plug, it results in effectively reducing the bore at the top of the stroke and usually allows for less ignition advance to achieve peak torque.

I guess I'm asking if anyone makes a piston like the 964 piston for a 3.2L to 3.4L twin plug upgrade?

Borrowed the pic from another thread:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1099249942.jpg

Here's yet another one for the 964 RSR with valve pockets for high lift cams:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1099250017.jpg

And here's a 993, same basic shape:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZEYbsV2306...0/tff_1479.jpg

thats a great scarceller.

i have a 3.2 twin plug that may need pistons replaced. does mahle (preferred)or any one make a twin plug piston in 95mm or 98?

What pistons do you currently run in that 3.2 twin plug?
And what cam?

A lot of folks use the J&E 10.5:1 pistons but depending on your cam choice you could also benefit from 11.5:1

I'm currently helping on a Twin Plug 3.2L at 11.5:1 with J&E pistons and factory cyls. This motor will have a dynamic compression of 8.9:1 on 93 octane. We'll see how this one does on the dyno.

Here's another build, twin plug 3.4L with (soon to be) J&E pistons at 11.5:1 and a more aggressive DC43 cam with dynamic compression at 8.5:1. Engine currently awaits the new pistons and cams. This thread has the engine with the 10.5:1 pistons and the DC21 cams but those are going to be changed very soon:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/911-engine-rebuilding-forum/871561-1985-3-4-build-using-maf-279-56-hp-237-63-rwhp.html

My points above are that, even though we've seen good results using J&E I question the design when compared to the 964 and 993 factory piston shape.

hi sal

stock usa or euros... hard to tell when the slugs are still in the car.

my first priority is reliable build spec not an all out track motor. prefer mahles, since they were a stock oem company but he shape isn’t correct for twin plug. JE is an option with nice flat tops but I hear folk are weary of the expansion capability of the alloy with the stock jugs that may cause piston slap or knock until warmed up. Any other alternatives for pistons?

Not looking for anything near 11:5CR since im being conservative with poor quality fuel in regions of the usa. No knock sensor, stock cams and stockish motronic (for now) I would like somewhere 10:1 or 10:3 CR. Down the road I may do cams and intake (MAF or ITB)

Ive been down the high CR roughly 10.5’s road before and had to reduce the advance and made the motor sluggish on the low end. the car did make A LOT more power up high though...

regards pf