911 SC with 3.2 crankcase?

[white-tt]

Hello all,

I have a 1983 911 SC. I recently noticed that the crankcase does not have the same oil sump screen plate that most SCs have. The engine code is *64D3858*. After searching the forums, this corresponds to a US-spec 1983 911 SC with a standard 930/16 engine, which agrees with the stamp on the top side of the engine. Puzzlingly, the crankcase casting number is 930.101.104.5R, which is usually associated with a 3.2. Pictures below.

I have most of the service records for the car and as far as I can tell, the engine has never been out of the car. From the top, the CIS system is definitely of the SC era. "Swapping" a 3.2 crankcase into an SC doesn't make a lot of sense, which leads me to wonder... Is it possible that Porsche started using 3.2 cases in the late SC cars? If so, are there any performance or potential upgrade benefits to having a 3.2 crankcase on an SC?



engine bay:


crankcase:


engine code:


engine type:


fan casting number:


bonus photo visiting a friend's garage

[Bill Douglas]

I think that's normal for a 1983 SC.

[SilverWT]

Yep, normal on late '83 SCs

My ROW '83 SC



I believe they started using the new 3.2 crankcase on SCs in April '83 as the moulds for the SC case were worn out and the 3.2 ones were available.


Mark

[white-tt]

Thanks for the replies, guys. Good to know this is a normal thing on late SCs.

SilverWT - How did you learn about the molds for the SC cases? I'd be curious to hear if there's any more to that story, e.g. other 3.2 parts on SC cars.

I wonder what the differences between the 3.0 and 3.2 cases are and if there's any potential benefit to performance.

[87maniac]

My early (#150) 1983 SC Cab has the round sump plate.

[SilverWT]

Originally Posted by white-tt

SilverWT - How did you learn about the molds for the SC cases? I'd be curious to hear if there's any more to that story, e.g. other 3.2 parts on SC cars.

I have been into this for a long time and various publications and articles have reported this. Potentially, the bottom end may be a bit more resilient long term, but no performance benefits.

I also have an early 3.2 ('84), and it is more a case of a 3.2 having a lot of SC parts than a late SC having 3.2 parts. The early 3.2 is only different in the following significant areas; the engine and it's management, it has footwell blowers, it has slightly larger brakes and a proportioning valve, ROW world cars have an oil cooler incorporated into the transaxle, integrated front fog lights and front valence and different rear spoiler (options) and badge.


Mark