3.2SS or Turbo

[Geronimo]

I am planning way ahead, my current motor is at 110K so I have some time before I need a rebuild.

I was thinking a nice hot 3.2ss would be a blast, I currently have 46mm PMO carbs, SSI and M&K 2into1...

But then the evil HP monster says, yea but you could have another 100hp

I was figuring a budget of 12k-15k I would hope to get 250WHP from the 3.2SS a turbo 3.0 should be in the 350WHP.....

So from those that have done either please share your experience pros and cons.

Though I LOVE boost, I lean toward the 3.2ss for the sheer visceral nature of the motor, (from what I have read)


Thanks in advance

[Bob Kontak]

I drove an 89 930 with an only a slightly beefed up turbo charger and other minor mods. Doubt it was 350hp. It was tight.

Scared me to death. Straight line, I was Batman. Twisties, my butt puckered.

It ain't natural. Just saying. A whole separate skill set to drive and it was set up from the factory as a turbo.

Just a one off for me with no real seat time (driving fast) but thinking a NA 50 hp increase is more sensible than a turbo 150 hp increase.

[Bill Douglas]

110K You have ten years left to plan

However.. we all like to plan. I think the 3.2SS is a great game plan. Plus it would work well the the other mods you already have.

['76 911S 3.0]

Why not both!

That being said, the 3.2SS is a great engine and loves to rev, good torque in the midrange too with the right cams. Plenty of power for a street car and keep yourself out of trouble. Slap a turbo on and you have an entirely different animal, and triple digits on the speedo without so much as a blink.

[Geronimo]

Yea, I kinda figured that getting 250WHP out of a 3.2 isn't to big of a stretch, and my car should be 2250lbs. That should make for a lot of fun I think... I just don't want to get into it for all that money and be bored with the performance in 6 months.

[macssc911]

I have a 3.2 SS, never really liked it till I went back in and twin plugged . You will get more than 250 rw. But that’s not the enjoyment it’s so responsive in every situation. Cruzing to all out, if it’s done right you will be very happy

[1979-930]

Originally Posted by Geronimo

I just don't want to get into it for all that money and be bored with the performance in 6 months.

You could build an 800hp monster and you’ll get used to the power and be bored in six months.
It’s just how we are.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OldSpool87]

I have a modded 930 and a stock (and likely a little tired) ‘82 SC. I live in New York. The Turbo is almost too much and with a tall 4spd, it drives almost like an automatic. We don’t have a lot of long open roads to really get that car going.

The SC requires more work but I extract more value from the engagement with the car.

My vote for you and your $$ is the SS 3.2.

[jpnovak]

What kind of roads and driving do you have? Around Central TX there are many small roads that require lots of gear changes (2,3,4 gear) and a highly responsive NA engine is more fun. However, when you get on some of the open backroads with sweeping turns a turbo really starts to come alive.

To me, The tall gearing and massive speed gains on boost favor the more open road where an always ON NA motor with plenty of torque is super fun on the twisty roads.

And yes, I have had a 3.2SS and spent lots of time in built turbo motors. One is not really disadvantaged over the other. But to me, they just shine under different circumstances.

YMMV.

[Tippy]

My $0.02. If you size turbos small enough, and especially twin turbo, you will have a very linear hp curve like a naturally aspirated engine.

Will it sound as good as an NA? No, but you can still have NA pulling engine with a lot more top end.

[Canada Kev]

Originally Posted by 1979-930

You could build an 800hp monster and you’ll get used to the power and be bored in six months.
It’s just how we are.

Yep. The exceptional becomes normal once you become acclimatized to it. But that turbo push sure would be fun!

[Raceboy]

3.2 SS twin-turbo of course.

[trond]

though increasing the bore by 3 mm and slightly more compression will be an improvement over stock, it will not transform your car into a monster. Also if you want to go the turbo route you will want less compression than in a NA setup, and slower cams

[fred cook]

For about the same money, you can build a 3.3SS engine. Use the LN Engineering 100mm slip fit cylinders, Mahle pistons at about 10.5 -11:1, ported heads with twin plug ignition. Using 964 cams will wake it up some also without being too "rump, rump" ! Electromotive makes some nice direct fire ignition systems for reasonable money. It will be torquey and still make good top end power.

[G450X]

Originally Posted by macssc911

I have a 3.2 SS, never really liked it till I went back in and twin plugged . You will get more than 250 rw. But that’s not the enjoyment it’s so responsive in every situation. Cruzing to all out, if it’s done right you will be very happy

I am saving up the coin to “short stroke” my SC, and I have sourced most of the parts for the build - Mahle MM P&C’s, early CIS and large port heads and dizzy, 964 cams, already have SSI’s and M&K 2/1.

How big of a difference did the twin plug make, and what twin plug system did you go and injection or carbs?

[PMNorris]

I have a 3.2SS running 46mm PMO's, based on a Euro spec 79 SC engine.

Case cleaned and line bored
Cams are near DC60
P/C are 10,5 comp race pistons with ceramic coating and nicasil coated Cylinders, Bore is 98 mm. Originally they were Mahle 95mm Cylinders, bored to 98mm and coated, so no need to change the bolt locations in the engine block.
Port Size is Inlet 39, outlet 35 mm.
46mm PMO carbs
Lightweight tinware
Original Crank, which was polished and within standard tolerances.
Heads refurbished and bored out for twin plugging (just in case). Currently its only single plug.
Carillo ‘copy’ con rods. The builder believes they are from the same factory, but not branded Carillo. They look identical and weigh the same
GT3 oil pump
Steel head studs. Can’t remember which type.
Lightweight flywheel and front pulley wheel
Crank balanced on its own and also with the con rods on
Piston lightened (builder removed some material from the inside of the piston)
Stronger valve springs (don’t remember the details)
MSD ignition
Distributor recurved by Barry at IAE.
SSI heat exchangers
Early (73) Dansk stock muffler.
3.0 SCRS air filter.

Great fun, very revvy and highly recommended. Its in my 70T, which weighs 1000 kg. No idea how many BHP it has, but it leaves my friends 996 C4S for dead.

Next steps: Performance muffler maybe and twin plug. There's no need for either, but the engine builder says it will run smoother and I'll get a few more BHP out it.

I'd love a turbo, but I live in Switzerland and the 3.2SS is perfect for blasting around the Swiss mountain passes.

Paul

[emcon5]

How long you think a 915 will last with 350 HP?

[macssc911]

Originally Posted by G450X

I am saving up the coin to “short stroke” my SC, and I have sourced most of the parts for the build - Mahle MM P&C’s, early CIS and large port heads and dizzy, 964 cams, already have SSI’s and M&K 2/1.

How big of a difference did the twin plug make, and what twin plug system did you go and injection or carbs?

You can check my garage for some engine detail, the difference was night and day, around 50 more rwp . The car is light for an SC less than 2500
The car felt much lighter and responsive runs fine on 90 non ethanol, totally great drivability and when you get to 4K to 7500 it is scary fast
Twin plugging heads about 50 bucks a hole
JB racing twin plug distributor, dual MSDs

46 PMOs
Lot of porting work a couple of days
Engine Balanced and blueprint
Other details in my garage
Good luck

[Josh D]

Originally Posted by G450X

I am saving up the coin to “short stroke” my SC, and I have sourced most of the parts for the build - Mahle MM P&C’s, early CIS and large port heads and dizzy, 964 cams, already have SSI’s and M&K 2/1.

How big of a difference did the twin plug make, and what twin plug system did you go and injection or carbs?

Same exact engine I'm building. With the Max Moritz Mahles wedge dome, you won't gain anything with twin plug. In fact, they were specifically designed with single plug in mind. It's with symetrical high compression pistons that split the combustion chamber that twin plugging comes into play.

[macssc911]

Originally Posted by Josh D

Same exact engine I'm building. With the Max Moritz Mahles wedge dome, you won't gain anything with twin plug. In fact, they were specifically designed with single plug in mind. It's with symetrical high compression pistons that split the combustion chamber that twin plugging comes into play.

Yep @ least 10.5-1