Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
914World.com _ 914World Garage _ Opinions on big six drivability
Posted by: r_towle Nov 12 2010, 03:58 PM
What are your opinions on the best balanced motor (larger 6) for the 914.
This is not a 4-6 debate...just an overall opinion of how you think the cars handle and drive with the larger motors.
I know Sir Andy has a 3.6, not sure if there are others.
Andy, what is your opinion...is it to much motor for a 914? To heavy?
Autox now not a fun sport with the large motor?
Figure a flared car, but not a super flared car.
Rich
Posted by: mepstein Nov 12 2010, 04:06 PM
I know when I drove the narrow body 3.2 euro six with motronic, I decided right then and there it was the engine for my car.
Posted by: d914 Nov 12 2010, 04:34 PM
3.0 at 180
3,2 at 215
both doable , plenty of power but also livable..
Ive driven a 3.6 914,,,,,,, damn!!!!!!!
Posted by: underthetire Nov 12 2010, 04:38 PM
I drove a 3.2 flared car, 
I had wood for a week.
Posted by: shoguneagle Nov 12 2010, 05:03 PM
I am doing a project 914 Sixer with a 3.2. I am doing it because of the Motronic fuel injection and I live at 7,000 ft. part of the time. I still like the 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4 with Webbers. If I still lived all year round in California, I would have a 1970 with one of those engines and Webbers. I guess I am from the "old school" which means there is nothing like glass packs and carbs to create the "sound". Light car with great exhaust sounds.
To specifically answer your question, I think the 3.2 is ideal along either a 3.0 or a 3.6 as second possibilities.
Steve Hurt
Posted by: MDG Nov 12 2010, 05:33 PM
My 3.2 is on a stand waiting. Most of the paint is done and I'll do all the assembly over the winter. I must admit I loved the old 2.2 with Webers - what a sound!
But the added power of the 3.2 and having the Motronic for cold and damp mornings - anyone who has started a carb car in the late fall knows - to me it's the perfect combination.
I thought of the 3.6 but found the 3.2 out of a wreck with only 32k kilometers on it and couldn't pass it up.
Posted by: scotty b Nov 12 2010, 05:38 PM
3.0 SC for price
3.6 for performance
3.2 for price and performance
I love a 3.0 but the improvement in driveability with the 3.2 is so much nicer 
Posted by: 9146986 Nov 12 2010, 05:45 PM
The 3.2 Motronic engine is a great way to go, no clogged jets, no fouled plugs, reach in and turn the key.
The only complaint I had about my 3.0 carb'd conversion was the idle jets, and the occasional fouled plug. As far as driveablilty, the first time my wife drove the car she started from a dead stop IN 3RD GEAR! It didn't jack rabbit, just a little low end rumble. The 3.0 with carbs is way easier and fewer specialty parts.
Posted by: rfuerst911sc Nov 12 2010, 05:56 PM
I really like my 3.0 with Weber carbs. Simple with good power and driveability. However when going carbs if you have the coin go PMO vs. Webers. I have PMO's on my 83SC with the same 3.0 and the difference between the two carb setups is quite noticeable. The Webers are a pain in the ass in the cold. The PMO's are a pain for 20-30 seconds then smooth right out and drive great.
Posted by: Drums66 Nov 12 2010, 06:04 PM
.....3.2
(drive 1 you'll love it!)
Posted by: patssle Nov 12 2010, 06:06 PM
I really like my 3.0 with Weber carbs. Simple with good power and driveability. However when going carbs if you have the coin go PMO vs. Webers. I have PMO's on my 83SC with the same 3.0 and the difference between the two carb setups is quite noticeable. The Webers are a pain in the ass in the cold. The PMO's are a pain for 20-30 seconds then smooth right out and drive great.
So what is "cold" when you guys say carbs have trouble? I've started my /4 with dual Webers and it starts like a charm in the upper 40 degrees. Hell they always start like a charm, even after sitting for months.
Posted by: scotty b Nov 12 2010, 06:13 PM
I really like my 3.0 with Weber carbs. Simple with good power and driveability. However when going carbs if you have the coin go PMO vs. Webers. I have PMO's on my 83SC with the same 3.0 and the difference between the two carb setups is quite noticeable. The Webers are a pain in the ass in the cold. The PMO's are a pain for 20-30 seconds then smooth right out and drive great.
So what is "cold" when you guys say carbs have trouble? I've started my /4 with dual Webers and it starts like a charm in the upper 40 degrees. Hell they always start like a charm, even after sitting for months.
I regret to inform you sir but you have been had. You do not have a set of Weber carbs. What you have is a Honda.
Posted by: SirAndy Nov 12 2010, 06:25 PM
I know Sir Andy has a 3.6, not sure if there are others.
Andy, what is your opinion...is it to much motor for a 914? To heavy?
Autox now not a fun sport with the large motor?
Too much? No ...
Too heavy? No ...
Fun at AX? Yes ...
A few things about the 3.6L:
First, it's not too much power but it will get you in trouble quicker than you can say 'Holy shit'.
You have to be smooth and careful. Especially on wet roads.
You'll need some rubber. I only run 225x7 street tires and i can spin those at will in any of the lower gears. Again, smooth is the key.
AX is still fun, but i had to relearn about everything i thought i knew.
Remember when they taught you to look ahead a turn and set your car up for it? Well, those days are over. There literally is NO time between corners, let alone time to set up anything. If you don't nail your line coming out of a corner you WILL be in the wrong place for the next one. There is no time for correction ...
Once you hit about 4500 rpm, you're just hanging on for the ride. That thing pulls like crazy up to the rev limiter and still wants to go ...
The low end torque of the 3.6 makes for a wonderful daily driver. Get's good highway mileage too. I average about 24Mpg, and i don't baby that car.
Posted by: Maltese Falcon Nov 12 2010, 07:13 PM
T4 2.0 with euro pistions , great momentum car on the track, 30 mpg on steady cruise and stone reliable.
Marty
Posted by: r_towle Nov 12 2010, 07:19 PM
T4 2.0 with euro pistions , great momentum car on the track, 30 mpg on steady cruise and stone reliable. Marty
I have done the /4 thing...getting bored with it.
Looking for a deal on a /6 motor and the prices seem decent now...
I am looking for this type of car...quoted by Andy
First, it's not too much power but it will get you in trouble quicker than you can say 'Holy shit'.
Rich
Posted by: Maltese Falcon Nov 12 2010, 07:22 PM
3.3 biturbo in the 6...DON'T do it. Too much for a daily driver. On Sundays the roads are open and that's a different story.
Marty
Posted by: rick 918-S Nov 12 2010, 07:24 PM
IMHO there is no such thing as too much engine. Just lack of traction both in excelleration, decelleration and lateral direction. If you set the car up to handle the increase in HP and torque you'll be good to go.
Posted by: r_towle Nov 12 2010, 07:30 PM
One ebay (which I find tends to have higher prices than most places)
A 3.6 can be had for 5-7k
A 3.3 Turbo is 8-10k now.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: Racer Chris Nov 12 2010, 07:35 PM
Too much? No ...
Too heavy? No ...
First, it's not too much power but it will get you in trouble quicker than you can say 'Holy shit'...
Once you hit about 4500 rpm, you're just hanging on for the ride. That thing pulls like crazy up to the rev limiter and still wants to go ...
The low end torque of the 3.6 makes for a wonderful daily driver...
with all of the above.If you have the budget go for it.
Posted by: iamchappy Nov 12 2010, 07:39 PM
I think a 2.8 would be interesting, that said my 3.1 turbo is great around town off boost, 
on boost
Posted by: GeorgeRud Nov 12 2010, 07:39 PM
All these choices are great, but the Motronic certainly makes the cars more driveable on a day to day basis. My 2.7 has Webers, and I second the opinion on cold starting - my old 3.2 911 never had a hiccup on a cold day.
Unfortunately, my knees say that a LS-1 V8 with an automatic box would be nicest!
The nice thing is that a 914 chassis is a great starting point for whatever moves you.
Posted by: Spoke Nov 12 2010, 07:46 PM
I think a 2.8 would be interesting, that said my 3.1 turbo is great around town off boost,
on boost My 3.3 turbo is quite tame under 3K RPM, then puts you in your seat above 3K.
Posted by: iamchappy Nov 12 2010, 08:02 PM
I think a 2.8 would be interesting, that said my 3.1 turbo is great around town off boost,
on boost My 3.3 turbo is quite tame under 3K RPM, then puts you in your seat above 3K.
I know the feeling....cant wait till Spring i think i may be done for the year, a winter storm is brewing......
Posted by: Elliot Cannon Nov 12 2010, 08:15 PM
Ask Ed Morrow about this one. That's him driving it a Willow Springs. 1989 3.2 with Motronic. It's STILL for sale by the way.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: brp986s Nov 12 2010, 08:36 PM
There is a big improvement in a 3.2 motronic vs 3.0 lambda/cis. Sometimes with the cis starting from cold, 5 sec after starting, the rpm falters. If you give it throttle to prevent stalling, it'll backfire and stall. The first couple accels from stop, the power uptake can falter and nearly stall. My cis also does not like to do 10mph rush hour crawls - it'll start surging and bucking unless I disengage clutch in order to settle it. None of these problems with motronic.
Posted by: MoveQik Nov 12 2010, 08:58 PM
Mine is a 3.2 with Motronic. Starts 1st try cold, hot and everywhere in between. I have taken it from sea level to over 12,000 feet and it runs flawlessly. Plenty of power but still allows the 901 tranny assuming you aren't out on the track every weekend.
Unless you plan to go big time with a 915 and flares, the 3.2 can't be beat IMHO. I haven't had a disappointed passenger yet.
Posted by: patssle Nov 12 2010, 09:58 PM
I regret to inform you sir but you have been had. You do not have a set of Weber carbs. What you have is a Honda.
I don't think so...the 914 doesn't look like every other car on the road.
Posted by: Maltese Falcon Nov 13 2010, 09:00 AM
We are currently building a 3.6 varioram ('97 993) into an original 6 , and the fun part will be the new engine lid. The v-ram is a bit taller than the bosch flapper style efi. Engine was sourced from L.A. Porsche Dismantlers for $7k.
Pics posted as we go 
Marty
Posted by: Series9 Nov 13 2010, 09:31 AM
From my perspective having a 3.6, some of the fun is lost in additional responsibility.
It's very fun to drive, but you need to take it seriously.
For balance, I'd have to vote for the 3.2 being the perfect 914 engine.
Posted by: sean_v8_914 Nov 13 2010, 10:30 AM
installation cost/complexity should also be mentioned.
3.0 w cis plug and play (kinda)
3.0 carbs eliminates cis that frustrates the part time Porsche mech
3.2 better efi still easy to install
3.6 is not a stab and go. the EFI , wiring and fit are more challenging. best low end for DD
Posted by: pete-stevers Nov 13 2010, 03:26 PM
i love my 3.0...but wish i had ponied up for a 3.2
Posted by: r_towle Nov 13 2010, 04:14 PM
That is a balanced answer, but I request more of an explaination please.
From my perspective having a 3.6, some of the fun is lost in additional responsibility.
It's very fun to drive, but you need to take it seriously.
For balance, I'd have to vote for the 3.2 being the perfect 914 engine.
Posted by: Steve Nov 13 2010, 05:22 PM
I'm currently running a 3.2 with a 901 stock gear box. Love the car, same opinion as others. The previous motor was a 2.7 with webers. The only downside with a 2.7 motor or bigger is the throttle induced overseer. Very dangerous on the street unless you baby the car around corners. I quickly put rear flairs on the car with bigger tires to control it. With the 2.7 I was running 225 in the rear. With the 3.2 I now run 245 with a limited slip. The car is very safe and controllable now.
Posted by: r_towle Nov 13 2010, 05:32 PM
I'm currently running a 3.2 with a 901 stock gear box. Love the car, same opinion as others. The previous motor was a 2.7 with webers. The only downside with a 2.7 motor or bigger is the throttle induced overseer. Very dangerous on the street unless you baby the car around corners. I quickly put rear flairs on the car with bigger tires to control it. With the 2.7 I was running 225 in the rear. With the 3.2 I now run 245 with a limited slip. The car is very safe and controllable now.
How wide are 245 rubber, not the wheels alone?
Rich
Posted by: dion9146 Nov 13 2010, 05:51 PM
I'll add another vote for a 3.2 for all of the reasons mentioned, but conversion cost was the deciding factor for me. I had a line on a 3.6, but the conversion was much more $ with the biggest expense being an upgraded tranny. I'm running the 901 with the 3.2, and as long as I keep my foot out of it in 1st, it's all good.
I've been considering selling it, but every time I drive it I can't get the smile off my face.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Posted by: pcar916 Nov 13 2010, 06:50 PM
I have a 3.6L motor with a 914 transaxle and have run it that way since 1999. Before that I had a very strong 2.7L motor and loved that as well. It's a daily driver and track car as well and has been nearly 100% reliable when I execute the design-work right. I've driven delightful 4-cylinder cars and almost everything in-between. One thing is perfectly clear to me. As long as the suspension is outstanding, all motors are wonderful in this car. I also think that more power is good and there's never enough of it!!!!!! 
The 3.6 has been superb and I chose the '95 because I didn't want to hassle with the two computers required by it's succcessors... I'm good with just one. The car has been a fun testbed for me to;
- convert the car to a 5-lug when I bought it (partially done by the excellent PO).
- make it stiffer.
- build and learn how to deal with CG changes and spring-rates as car evolved.
- increase the oil cooling capacity since the 993 motors have no on-board cooler.
- fabricate cockpit systems like heat, ventilation, and ergonomics.
- fuss with transaxle stuff like gear ratios, LSD, TBD, bigger CV's, etc.
- install lots of electrical stuff... not for a sound system, but instrumentation and additional fans for cooling.
- make it all happen with professional execution.
- put in a lot of seat time to learn to drive better and test all of the above!!!
S'been a BLAST mostly! Although I do miss the sound of the carburated 2.7L with a sport muffler... can't get that timber with a big motor. That said I wouldn't go back. I'm thinking 400 hp is about right.
Posted by: Racer Chris Nov 13 2010, 07:24 PM
I'm thinking 400 hp is about right.
Yah, 500 is too much. I never did get my right foot all the way to the floor.
Posted by: kg6dxn Nov 13 2010, 07:52 PM
Ask Ed Morrow about this one. That's him driving it a Willow Springs. 1989 3.2 with Motronic. It's STILL for sale by the way.
I'll give you $5. That is, if you will accept an IOU. I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for your Porsche toady
Posted by: Rleog Nov 13 2010, 07:52 PM
Ahhhh, the toys you play with!
Posted by: Steve Nov 13 2010, 09:52 PM
I'm currently running a 3.2 with a 901 stock gear box. Love the car, same opinion as others. The previous motor was a 2.7 with webers. The only downside with a 2.7 motor or bigger is the throttle induced overseer. Very dangerous on the street unless you baby the car around corners. I quickly put rear flairs on the car with bigger tires to control it. With the 2.7 I was running 225 in the rear. With the 3.2 I now run 245 with a limited slip. The car is very safe and controllable now.
How wide are 245 rubber, not the wheels alone?
Rich
I'm running 245-40-17 tires on 9" Fikse FM10 rims. In the front i'm running 225-45-17 Tires on 8" Fikse FM10 rims. The car just slides sideways with a little bit of understeer. I am very happy with the setup.
Posted by: Eric_Shea Nov 13 2010, 11:59 PM
OK... I'll bite and play Mr. Contrair in a pool full of 3.0+ guys
I've seen quite a few 914 chassis literally torn apart. Granted most were rode hard and put away wet but the chassis has it's limitations. So, while it can be a great "starting point" it should be strengthened and modified if you plan on utilizing all that torque.
To the original question; drivability? How could you go wrong with (almost) any of them. Quite simply, the more torque, the better it is in the drivability department. That's said, it's hard to beat a bigger motor.
I just don't think a 914 is very well suited for anything over a 2.7 (long term) Matt (hasaramat) was over today and we were discussing just that. For a driver, a 2.7 with E-Cams would be a dream to drive.
So... I'd say a street driven car with any motor you desire would be great. The 3.2's or the 3.6 would be tops on my list becaue of the "turn the key... go pick-up a gallon of milk" usability of the later fuel injection. Just keep in mind, if you get crazy with the right foot, all that torque will eventually cause some rips and tears unless you're fortified (and even then, it's questionable whether you can tame the beast).
Bottom line for me; I doubt if "I'll" ever put anything bigger than a 2.7 in a teener but... I could very well eat those words with a big happy smile on my face some day.
Posted by: ConeDodger Nov 14 2010, 12:05 AM
Ah but Mr. Contrair, while I have seen the 914 chassis torn apart it hasn't been from the torque of the motor in most cases. We have a local 914 4 cylinder with big racing slicks that probably has a whopping 130hp, maybe. It was the slicks that tore this chassis. And when Mr. Contrair says "tears the chassis" he does mean tears. It literally rips it back by the suspension in the rear. Not from rust but from those big ass tires...
Just another viewpoint...
Posted by: Eric_Shea Nov 14 2010, 12:27 AM
Torque occurs when a force is applied perpendicular to the an object's axis of rotation. Slick's = Torque on the chassis. 
Posted by: Racer Chris Nov 14 2010, 06:32 AM
It was the slicks that tore this chassis.
It just happens quicker with a big six (or other hi-torque engine) installed.
If one takes meaningful steps to minimize flex of the rear suspension pickups and twisting of the chassis the cracks will never appear.
Posted by: SLITS Nov 14 2010, 09:01 AM
I'll take my CIS 2.7L .... starts everytime, anywhere (unless the fuel pump gives up) and has enough power to get in trouble. About as close to plug and play as you can get.
I may build a 3.0L 'cause I have one ... but I'm in no hurry to take it off the shelf.
And yes, I use a "T" for the rear brakes 
Posted by: computers4kids Nov 14 2010, 09:53 AM
One of the questions asked was the weight difference adding a larger six and it's impact on drivability. I really don't have any first hand experience driving a big hp six so I'm trying to compare only what I know, which is a v8 teener. My mild conversion added 250 lbs to my car, including the AC and I know how it handles with its hp.
300 hp seems to be a nice fit for a daily driver, but I must admit I don't AX and don't drive it like some of you do...just enjoy the power and windy roads.
I would like to do another conversion and the LS1 automatic is at the top of my list. A big six sounds great as well, but I'm not to sure I want to spend that kind of money in a 914.
Not to get off track, but does a big six really need to have the extra tire width thus the flares? I'm probably one of the only people on this planet that prefers a narrow body teener but with the extra power. I don't seem to have a traction problem, it just goes. Is that because of my extra weight? ...and my little old lady right foot.
Posted by: pcar916 Nov 14 2010, 10:40 AM
How wide are 245 rubber, not the wheels alone?
245mm / 25.4mm per inch ~ 9.6in. Then a little for the sidewalls.
As for the question about a wide tire requirement... I think so. Although relatively skinny tires are better in the rain, there's a price you'll pay for them. You'll spin the car on wet pavement eventually.
If you are going to use skinny ones, even if it's strictly a street car, then only use very sticky compounds. In any case, only the best tires will do. The rest is up to your and your driving skills. On dry pavement they will be ok but the negative camber you'll need may wear them out sooner.
Posted by: Steve Nov 14 2010, 10:41 AM
One of the questions asked was the weight difference adding a larger six and it's impact on drivability. I really don't have any first hand experience driving a big hp six so I'm trying to compare only what I know, which is a v8 teener. My mild conversion added 250 lbs to my car, including the AC and I know how it handles with its hp.
300 hp seems to be a nice fit for a daily driver, but I must admit I don't AX and don't drive it like some of you do...just enjoy the power and windy roads.
I would like to do another conversion and the LS1 automatic is at the top of my list. A big six sounds great as well, but I'm not to sure I want to spend that kind of money in a 914.
Not to get off track, but does a big six really need to have the extra tire width thus the flares? I'm probably one of the only people on this planet that prefers a narrow body teener but with the extra power. I don't seem to have a traction problem, it just goes. Is that because of my extra weight? ...and my little old lady right foot.
You would think the added HP would help you in Autocross. I should of learned the art of autocross with the 4 banger before going to a six. I spend too much time power sliding in the corners, which is a lot of fun!! It might also be the weight and lack of driving skills, but the 4 bangers kick my ass in a tight corner autocross. They can't touch me at streets of willow due to the long straights though. Lots of other variables, including street tires versus soft rubber racing tires and how often you autocross.
Posted by: PRS914-6 Nov 14 2010, 11:03 AM
Of the 914's I have owned they have had 2.0 four's and 2.0, 2.4, 2.8 and 3.6 engines.
The 3.6 is worth the time, money and energy in my opinion. Yes, you need to do some chassis reinforcing but in the $$ standpoint it really doesn't cost much to do, just time...but it's fun!
The 3.6 for all around enjoyment just can't be beat. Computer controlled, gobs of torque, Porsche's best improvements to the air cooled engines. Choose a 95 3.6 and you get hydraulic lifters and OBD-I where you can drop in a performance chip in minutes and never deal with a valve adjustment.
Driving a 3.6 is great! You can stop worrying about what gear you are in as it doesn't matter.... it just pulls everywhere! Drop it down a couple of gears and you can smoke most anyone on the road.
In closing, a 3.6 is a true sleeper. You can cruise around like grandma's buick with barely a sound or scare the piss out of your passenger with eye blurring performance....a wild range of abilities and the ultimate car in my opinion. Other than the $$ to build I see no downsides. I love it!
Posted by: J P Stein Nov 14 2010, 11:09 AM
Here's a pic of Gary Chapman's sweet ride. Fully street legal, complete interor, with a chipped 3.2 & 915 box & yada....it ain't light. He made a huge jump at AX going to the flares & big stickey rubber (from small stickey rubber). He *will* blow your doors off at AX (and his wife Pam might also).
He also uses it for track days & drives it to both types of local events.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: Racer Chris Nov 14 2010, 11:24 AM
Here's one way to add rear tire capacity without changing the overall appearance of the car too much. The rear flares are 2 1/2" wider than stock.
This car has a '95 3.6 with a chip, producing 250whp, and has excellent manners around town.
The owner has already suggested the engine isn't powerful enough. 
Posted by: campbellcj Nov 14 2010, 12:02 PM
How wide are 245 rubber, not the wheels alone?
Rich
Nominally 245mm / 25.4 = 9.65" but in reality you have to check the specs for each particular tire as mounted on a certain size wheel. They vary a lot...
Posted by: pete-stevers Nov 14 2010, 12:51 PM
OK... I'll bite and play Mr. Contrair in a pool full of 3.0+ guys
I've seen quite a few 914 chassis literally torn apart. Granted most were rode hard and put away wet but the chassis has it's limitations. So, while it can be a great "starting point" it should be strengthened and modified if you plan on utilizing all that torque.
To the original question; drivability? How could you go wrong with (almost) any of them. Quite simply, the more torque, the better it is in the drivability department. That's said, it's hard to beat a bigger motor.
I just don't think a 914 is very well suited for anything over a 2.7 (long term) Matt (hasaramat) was over today and we were discussing just that. For a driver, a 2.7 with E-Cams would be a dream to drive.
So... I'd say a street driven car with any motor you desire would be great. The 3.2's or the 3.6 would be tops on my list becaue of the "turn the key... go pick-up a gallon of milk" usability of the later fuel injection. Just keep in mind, if you get crazy with the right foot, all that torque will eventually cause some rips and tears unless you're fortified (and even then, it's questionable whether you can tame the beast).
Bottom line for me; I doubt if "I'll" ever put anything bigger than a 2.7 in a teener but... I could very well eat those words with a big happy smile on my face some day.
...............................
perhaps "mr contrair"
could explain the economic feasability of a build up of a 2.7 on a tired ole mag case that has seen more milage/streses as opposed to a tough alum block...
the job of supporting a chassis/rear suspension is really not that much work when a motor is out...be it on a four w big slicks, or a big six
but i do agree that even a early 3.0 has a lot of torque, and i cant see myself needing any more, torque helps streetablility, as opposed to a peaky small bore screamer. but the simplicity of the install of 3.2 with motronics, would be my pick for an install now over a 3.0 w cis, unless going with carbs (the cis clearance being the issue)
but then there are divlar studs......
Posted by: Steve Nov 14 2010, 02:00 PM
There are tons of advantages with the 3.2. It uses an early fan shroud, so all the 914-6 heat exchanger plumbing bolts right up. Same thing with the engine sheet metal. The wiring is also a joke. Most of the colors match up with the stock wiring. You can even dump the relay board in the engine compartment. Just get a haynes manual for the 914 and a a haynes manual for the same 911 and your done or do a search in the archives. I am using stock 914-6 heat exchangers and everything bolted right up. Still have plenty of power and the engine runs great. However I agree with Paul, you can never have enought HP and not having to adjust the valves anymore would be a plus. The downside with a 3.6 is the aftermarket heat exchangers suck. Notice he went with heated seats instead. Probably fine for our wimpy winters in California anyway. There is also more initial work with the tin around the engine and with either a 3.2 or a 3.6 you are better off with a properly built 915 with a wevo versus a 901 used as a four speed and skipping first gear. I also agree with Paul's statement, do it once and do it right so you don't have buyer regret and want to touch it again later. When I bought my 3.2 back in 2000, it was only $5200.00. The 3.6 back then was around $12k. The 3.2 price is still around $5k and the 3.6 has dropped to around $8k. IMHO the 3.6 is a better deal right now, just a little more initial work and money over the 3.2, but you will be much more happier in the long run. Also since the economy sucks right now there is some nice 3.6 conversions selling for around $25k. It could cost up to twice this price to build one from scratch!!
Posted by: Eric_Shea Nov 14 2010, 02:21 PM
could explain the economic feasability of a build up of a 2.7 on a tired ole mag case that has seen more milage/streses as opposed to a tough alum block...
Sure... they're cheap. Done properly, it should cost any more than a 3.0 or 3.6
I didn't say "I" would do it... I just said I probably wouldn't go any bigger than that.
Mine's a 2.5 built on a tired ole sand cast AL case.Again, torque is cool... I just have my opinions, right or wrong.
Posted by: mepstein Nov 14 2010, 02:37 PM
Mine was 4K. I still need a DME and harness ~500. But it did come with a Steve Wong custom chip since PO built it with euro compression. and 964 cams. He told me it was shy of 3.6 power but more kick than stock.
Posted by: pete-stevers Nov 14 2010, 03:32 PM
could explain the economic feasability of a build up of a 2.7 on a tired ole mag case that has seen more milage/streses as opposed to a tough alum block...
Sure... they're cheap. Done properly, it should cost any more than a 3.0 or 3.6
I didn't say "I" would do it... I just said I probably wouldn't go any bigger than that.
Mine's a 2.5 built on a tired ole sand cast AL case.Again, torque is cool... I just have my opinions, right or wrong.
i just remeber somewhere long ago, someone talking about a 2.5 with s cams...saying driveablity on the street was an issue
peaky high reving lil screamers might be good for the track..
but a dual porpose, or straight street car, i think that "grunt" puts a bit of a smile on ones face at stop lights
yet i tend to agree with your thought process and hope to build a a 3.2ss with 964s on cis...
Posted by: Eric_Shea Nov 14 2010, 03:41 PM
It can be a pain in the ass to drive on the street. That's why I opted for the "Airport" torque multipliers (and that's why I mentioned E-Cams above).
Sure does sound good though...
Posted by: ConeDodger Nov 14 2010, 03:52 PM
Steve,
I have experienced those seat heaters first hand in Paul's car. HEAVENLY!
I am not sure I would want to drive a 914 in anything worse than a wimpy California winter though...
There are tons of advantages with the 3.2. It uses an early fan shroud, so all the 914-6 heat exchanger plumbing bolts right up. Same thing with the engine sheet metal. The wiring is also a joke. Most of the colors match up with the stock wiring. You can even dump the relay board in the engine compartment. Just get a haynes manual for the 914 and a a haynes manual for the same 911 and your done or do a search in the archives. I am using stock 914-6 heat exchangers and everything bolted right up. Still have plenty of power and the engine runs great. However I agree with Paul, you can never have enought HP and not having to adjust the valves anymore would be a plus. The downside with a 3.6 is the aftermarket heat exchangers suck. Notice he went with heated seats instead. Probably fine for our wimpy winters in California anyway. There is also more initial work with the tin around the engine and with either a 3.2 or a 3.6 you are better off with a properly built 915 with a wevo versus a 901 used as a four speed and skipping first gear. I also agree with Paul's statement, do it once and do it right so you don't have buyer regret and want to touch it again later. When I bought my 3.2 back in 2000, it was only $5200.00. The 3.6 back then was around $12k. The 3.2 price is still around $5k and the 3.6 has dropped to around $8k. IMHO the 3.6 is a better deal right now, just a little more initial work and money over the 3.2, but you will be much more happier in the long run. Also since the economy sucks right now there is some nice 3.6 conversions selling for around $25k. It could cost up to twice this price to build one from scratch!!
Posted by: PRS914-6 Nov 14 2010, 06:05 PM
As you price compare the differences keep in mind that if you get a complete 3.6 from a dismantler demand EVERYTHING!!! Things like the exhaust, flywheel, cruise module, air box, starter etc gets good prices on eBay. I made back almost $1000.00 by selling off the items I didn't need. You should be able to buy a 95 3.6 for around $75-$7800. Sell off $1k and you are now at $6800 or less.
Heat on a 6? If you want the stock heat exchanger for a 6 you'll pay dearly for them and the diameter is too small for a 3.2 or 3.6 and I would question their use on even a stock 2.7. That leaves aftermarket.....or just regular headers and the cost is not much different on any size you want.....
The tin for a 3.6 is not tough to fabricate but takes an afternoon of patience
Oil cooling.....A 3.6 will need more cooling than a 3.2 as there is no engine mounted cooler. On the other hand unless you live in Alaska, anything above a 2.4 will need a cooler. While those might argue they have no cooler on their 2.7, the magnesium cases warp like butter when hot and it only takes once to ruin it! Bottom line.....Most 6's need a cooler and require one in a state like California.....Yeah, Yeah there will be those that say they have no cooler and you don't need one but any power producing 6 needs one in a 914. To upgrade from a cheap cooler to a larger cooler is only a couple of hundred. The other expenses are there anyway.
One of the big expenses is the clutch and flywheel. A 3.6 conversion flywheel and clutch will add $500.
So what am I trying to say? A 3.6 will cost a few grand more to build but gives you a better engine, no valves to adjust, more fun to drive, a killer torque monster, less oil leaks, factory twin plug and less interest in modification when finished. If you later spent that $2k on a smaller engine what would you get? Perhaps the performance of a stock 3.6 but without the factory engineering? Get the point?
Bottom line....save more and pay it up front and be done with it, the benefits are worth it. However, that's just my opinion......
Posted by: Steve Nov 14 2010, 08:49 PM
Thanks Paul for the additional feedback. All good points and valuable feed back. Love your Project 914 3.6 articles in Excellence. If I was going to build one today It would be exactly like yours. Still debating about Black though!! When can we expect the next article? It would also be nice if you came out with a book with more details and pictures. I have all of the articles so far and put them in a binder. Good point about the stock 914-6 heat exchangers. I would not suggest that anyone go out and buy them for a big six conversion. I got mine for free back in 1988 from a concours buff that bought a new set for his real 914-6. From what I have read a 3.2 should be running 1 5/8" headers and a 3.6 should be running 1 3/4" headers. I think the 914-6 heat exchangers are 1 3/8". My 3.2 runs fine on the stock heat exchangers and from what I have read I am losing about 8-10 hp over 1 5/8" headers. My car also has no catalytic converter like its 911 counterpart and i'm running a bursch muffler, so I doubt its worse than the 911 it came from. My motor also came with everything you mentioned including the oil tank and all the lines. I also got back around $800.00 for the stuff I didn't need. I love the heat with my heat exchangers, but I am temped to sell them to help fund the WEVO trans, paint job, etc.... If i get rid of them I will go with headers and get heated seats like you did.
Regarding oil leaks, my 3.2 has never been rebuilt. The only thing I added was 930 lower valve covers and replaced the oil return tubes. My car now barely leaks a drop once a week from one of the oil lines not the engine, however my 1996 993 is a mess. My 993 only has 95k miles on it, compared to 150k on the 1984 Euro 3.2. The 993 is leaking from the cheasy lower valve covers and is also leaking really bad from the cam chain covers. When I pull up to the light people think the car is on fire. If anyone is planning on putting a 3.6 motor in there 914, I would suggest replacing all these seals first whether there leaking or not. I talked to Hergesheimers and they said they are resealing quite a few 993's. They wanted $1400.00 to reseal my 993. Mainly because its a pain in the ass to get to the seals with the engine in the car.
Posted by: PRS914-6 Nov 14 2010, 09:32 PM
Still debating about Black though!!
When can we expect the next article?
I would suggest replacing all these seals first whether there leaking or not
Black.....Tough decision. Looks awesome when it's clean....Dirty in minutes...I still love it! It's a lot of work though.
The next Excellence should have Part 17 in it.
Oil leaks.....Do you have a 964 or 993? I agree, change any seal you can get to before installation regardless of mileage. That should be done with all engines. The 993/964's were tortured with all that A/C, weight, traffic and pan that trapped heat. It tortured the valve guides on those engines as well and is something that should be automatically assumed as needed and built into the price. My engine had 43k miles and the valve guides were shot (you'll get to read a story about that incident). Guides is one area that a used 3.2 might do better than a 3.6 but a lot depends on where and how the car was operated.....I would look into a top end on any of these engines before installation, that way you get fresh guides and seals at the most leak prone areas. Yes, it's never ending wallet draining fun.
Posted by: pcar916 Nov 15 2010, 09:34 AM
It took 10 years for my 914's 3.6 valve covers to start leaking , and the timing covers weren't far behind. Except that the covers are a PITA to clean, they really aren't too much of a pain to replace. Timing covers need attention now as well as the front (pulley) crankshaft seal, but I have a much bigger issue with that otherwise great motor. Cracking insulation on nearly all of the engine wiring. It's all over the harness. 
This car is a daily driver since 1994. What caused me to notice was the rain. Before I finally saw that the injector wires were bare, I thought I was having water problems in the intake or that the O2 sensor was getting over-cooled by the water jetting from the right rear tire. The engine missed like crazy. It can be dangerous when you only run smoothly over 4500 rpm with NO power below that. Imagine modulating that on wet pavement. Stopped or sideways throwing rooster-tails. Hmmm, OT here. Back on the topic.
I haven't had this problem on my '84 911's 3.2 motor. It's more protected under that engine cover than the exposed 914 lid, but it's 11 years older too! Dang!
Posted by: PRS914-6 Nov 15 2010, 10:31 AM
Cracking insulation on nearly all of the engine wiring. It's all over the harness.
There was a Porsche recall on the wiring harnesses for the 993. Poor insulation that caused fires. Don't know if you had one of the bad years but if you have the engine # a Porsche dealer can match the # to a chassis and tell you if it was repaired under the recall.
Posted by: SirAndy Nov 15 2010, 12:03 PM
Cracking insulation on nearly all of the engine wiring. It's all over the harness.
There was a Porsche recall on the wiring harnesses for the 993. Poor insulation that caused fires. Don't know if you had one of the bad years but if you have the engine # a Porsche dealer can match the # to a chassis and tell you if it was repaired under the recall.
Get a replacement NOW!!!I actually found a dealer who got me the replacement harness for the recall price. The full sales price is out of this world ...
My harness fried to a crisp. That could have easily burnt the car to the ground.
There's a thread here somewhere with pictures, it's not pretty.
Posted by: SirAndy Nov 15 2010, 12:06 PM
Found the thread:
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=80793
Posted by: Twise Nov 15 2010, 12:20 PM
I will second that - 2.2 with webers and S cams. Sometimes I wish it had a honda motor. Then I wind up second and third, and it is all worth it...
Posted by: pcar916 Nov 15 2010, 01:51 PM
Get a replacement NOW!!!Reckon I'll get right on it. I've taped up the (visible) offending little beggars, and followed them up into the harness as much as possible. But it's obvious that it's crappy up where I can't see it.
Easier to drop the motor, check the exhaust valve guides/seals, replace the harness and a few other seals and stick it back in there.
Thanks guys!
Posted by: r_towle Nov 15 2010, 02:29 PM
Here's one way to add rear tire capacity without changing the overall appearance of the car too much. The rear flares are 2 1/2" wider than stock.
This car has a '95 3.6 with a chip, producing 250whp, and has excellent manners around town.
The owner has already suggested the engine isn't powerful enough.
he needs to sell me that car and build a new one.
Or, sell him that white V8 car...BTW, did you sort him out? he has had alot of bad experiences with shops...I steered him to you...
Rich
Posted by: Elliot Cannon Nov 15 2010, 06:02 PM
This is an interesting thread because Mercedes is having the same problem. My Merc. mechanic showed me a ten year old Mercedes wiring harness that had breaks in the harness with copper showing EVERY THREE INCHES. There has been talk of Mercedes suing it's vendor.
Cheers, Elliot
Posted by: MDG Nov 15 2010, 08:18 PM
I will second that - 2.2 with webers and S cams. Sometimes I wish it had a honda motor. Then I wind up second and third, and it is all worth it...
I could have written that exact sentence. I'm sure come March when I want to go for an early Sunday drive my neighbors will enjoy the Motronic as much as me. I'd guess they got pretty tired of listening to me feathering the throttle in my driveway at 6:30 am . . . . . .
Posted by: Steve Nov 15 2010, 09:02 PM
It took 10 years for my 914's 3.6 valve covers to start leaking , and the timing covers weren't far behind. Except that the covers are a PITA to clean, they really aren't too much of a pain to replace. Timing covers need attention now as well as the front (pulley) crankshaft seal, but I have a much bigger issue with that otherwise great motor. Cracking insulation on nearly all of the engine wiring. It's all over the harness.
This car is a daily driver since 1994. What caused me to notice was the rain. Before I finally saw that the injector wires were bare, I thought I was having water problems in the intake or that the O2 sensor was getting over-cooled by the water jetting from the right rear tire. The engine missed like crazy. It can be dangerous when you only run smoothly over 4500 rpm with NO power below that. Imagine modulating that on wet pavement. Stopped or sideways throwing rooster-tails. Hmmm, OT here. Back on the topic.
I haven't had this problem on my '84 911's 3.2 motor. It's more protected under that engine cover than the exposed 914 lid, but it's 11 years older too! Dang!
My 3.2 is also an 84 and has been in my 914 for over 10 years. No leaks except for the oil return tubes which was a simple fix. However my 1996 993 has exactly the same problems you mentioned. As soon as I fix the leaks on the engine the car is going up for sale. Anyone want to buy an Adventurine Green 1996 993 C2 Cabriolet Tiptronic? The tiptronic also adds additional leaks and you lose two gears and a whole second 0-60. However it's quite the cruiser going down bumper to bumper PCH with the top down. Zero stress versus shifting the 914 in bumper to bumper traffic sucks.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)