3.2 liter six, When you say fast... Options

[rcarpen22]

Every time I see 3.2 liter cars for sale it always says "super fast!" or "holy crap this car is so fast!" and other such exuberant claims of speed. I recently bought a '71 with a fuel injected 3.2 (complete with DME and autothority chip) and it is a blast. It is not what I would really call fast. It's quick for sure, and seriously fun, but my 944 turbo (with chips and MAF) would bury it on a track. Of course it all depends on your definition of the term fast but the math on the power/weight ratio seems to support the theory that these cars are pretty quick but not really terribly fast. Am I missing horsepower or is it simply the ambiguity of the word? Either way I love the car and if one had to go it would be the turbo!

[lapuwali]

It's all relative. Your 944T is a complete slug compared to an F1 car, or even a well-turned-out Formula Ford. A 3.2-equipped 914 would be absolutely smoking fast compared to a bone-stock 1.7 with it's mighty 80hp.

[Rough_Rider]

Have to say fast, quick, or any other adjetive is relative to the person. As you've experience with a 2.5L Turbo pumping 250-300hp a 3.2 won't quite by that quick in acceeration.

IMHO 14's are nimble & gti quick. 100-150hp in a 2000lb package. What they lack in shear acceleration (measured mine @ 0.8g) they make up for in handling & braking (1.1g lateral & 1.09g deceleration)

On track my mates 350whp 944t is very quick in acceleration, but can't keep up with the 14 through the twisties.

[rcarpen22]

That's true. Another thing that made me start thinking though is that everyone tells me that I need more tire. My car is a narrow bodied car and I have P-Zeros (205-45-16) on the back. I've had no traction problems whatsoever but apparantly alot of 3.2 cars with similar sized tires do. I wish I had an F1 car.

[Ferg]

I tend to agree with you as well, but it comes down to what your used to driving I guess... you get used to HP pretty quick.

Nothing beats it in our local Mtn roads though for a grin factor, and the sound of 5k rpms in a long tunnel (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/aktion035.gif) .

Ferg.

[olav]

I think it's fast because every time a boxster pulls up to me and then trys to be superior I smoke it. I notice a surprised look on their face every time when I see them in my rear view.

But I couldn't drive my car everyday like the bxster because of comfort and gas milage.

Oh, plus is sounds awesome. I don't have FI though.

[rcarpen22]

If you're smoking Boxsters then I think you're faster than I am. It must be the webers! There's a kid that works for a friend of mine who has an early 90s Civic with a dohc Integra engine and his car is a little faster than my 3.2. Torque steer must be a biatch in that thing.

[lapuwali]

If you're getting smoked by an NA Integra-engined Civic, then I'd say your 3.2 is well down on power. All up, your car shouldn't weigh more than 2400lbs (unless this is a '75/'76 with stock bumpers on it), and a chipped 3.2 should certainly make 240hp, or 10lbs/hp. A 90s Civic should weigh in at roughly 2200lbs, an most Integra engines are in the 160-180hp range, so he should be around 12lbs/hp at best. 10lbs/hp is enough to run with a C4 Corvette, and you should be able to stomp on any Mustang short of an SVT.

Boxsters aren't all that fast, either, mostly because they weigh so much.

As for traction problems, I couldn't use more than half-throttle in first gear with a mere 2.4 Six with CIS, with decent 205s on the back. I could light the tires up in 2nd, and that engine was pretty tired.

Are you sure your throttle linkage is allowing you to get full throttle?

[SirAndy]

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Nov 15 2005, 11:52 AM)

As for traction problems, I couldn't use more than half-throttle in first gear with a mere 2.4 Six with CIS, with decent 205s on the back.   I could light the tires up in 2nd, and that engine was pretty tired.

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/agree.gif) something doesn't sound right with your engine. i could spin my 9" goodyear racing slicks in 1st & 2nd at will with my warmed over 2.1L /4 !
and those slicks are about as wide as a 285 street tire ...

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/burnout.gif) Andy

[rcarpen22]

Hmm. Interesting. I was a little concerned after the Civic incident. He said his car was 2200 lbs and he had a little head work done. I don't think it was more than 200 hp though. My car has a cage and an oil cooler and a few other things that add a little weight but I thought my car should have been faster. So restrictive throttle linkage is one suggestion. What else could it be? The engine runs great and is very smooth. It idles up and down a bit. I don't know what causes that.

[Series9]

I had a 425hp (22psi) 951. My 3.6 914 is about that fast.

Like everyone said, it's amazing how quickly you become used to a very high level of power.

[olav]

QUOTE (914RS @ Nov 15 2005, 12:17 PM)

I had a 425hp (22psi) 951. My 3.6 914 is about that fast. Like everyone said, it's amazing how quickly you become used to a very high level of power.

We're not taking about 3.6s here!




















(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/smile.gif)

[Brando]

QUOTE (rcarpen22 @ Nov 15 2005, 12:02 PM)

Hmm. Interesting. I was a little concerned after the Civic incident. He said his car was 2200 lbs and he had a little head work done. I don't think it was more than 200 hp though. My car has a cage and an oil cooler and a few other things that add a little weight but I thought my car should have been faster. So restrictive throttle linkage is one suggestion. What else could it be? The engine runs great and is very smooth. It idles up and down a bit. I don't know what causes that.

Sounds like your 3.2 is not up to spec. Or, you have to work on that gas pedal usage (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wink.gif)

If I can spank a stock 944 Turbo S with a 2.7 6 carbed... it should be a cakewalk with that extra displacement. You are shifting at 6800, right?

[Andyrew]

A 944 turbo s has 255hp. at 2900lbs (min) 11.6 ratio

A 914 with a 2.7 has 200-250hp(honestly dont know).. at 2200lbs. 11- 8 ratio

My 914 has at least 280hp, and at 2300lbs ish Im at 8.25

Im used to my hp, and wouldnt mind 50 more. Then I wouldnt mind 50 more... and just a little more... and...

You get used to the hp when avalible. Especially when the power falls off.


Driving around the 944 turbo I KNOW its slower. But every time I hit the boost, the ever increasing tq band makes it FEEL so very much faster.


Andrew

BTW you guys always talk about lighting up the tires at ease... What exactly do you mean by that? Shift, your in gear, you let out the clutch, THEN floor it and you are at a lack of tracksion? Because I can barely do that in a straight line with my current timing situation. But give me a little bit of turning, and im laying black lines....

Or do you guys mean, rev the engine, drop the clutch, and roast the tires...?

[lapuwali]

On my 2.4T powered car, I could put the car in 1st and make a slow, gentle start, using just a little throttle. Once moving, if I even gently rolled on the throttle past halfway, the rear tires would just light up and spin. In 2nd, I could light up the tires briefly by slamming to full throttle. I didn't have to touch the clutch at all. With a 3.0 or a 3.2, I'd bet you could light up the tires more than just "briefly" w/o popping the clutch.

First gear was almost completely optional, as I'm sure it must be on any V8 914. I usually just drove the car like it was a four-speed, unless I was in San Francisco and climbing a steep hill. There, first gear was useful, but only with light throttle.

This was with 205 Pirelli P6s on 6-inch rims under stock fenders, btw. If Andy could spin 9-in slicks with a hot 2056, though, I doubt better tires would've made a big difference.

[rcarpen22]

I don't use first gear at all but I've never spun in second and that's laying in the throttle around corners. I think I must have an issue that's hurting my power output. I'll try to resolve and keep you posted. My 944t is stock except for MAF and chips and reliaboost. It's about 300 hp and it would annhialate the 914 in a straight line. Once again, I like the 914 better and I'm not at all down on the car. I love it, I just think it should be a little faster based on the way I hear others talking about them. Thanks for all the input.

[fiid]

It sounds like your car is not running perfectly - a 3.2 ought to be quite quick.

A properly setup FI system ought to be as good as if not better than the Webers btw.

Have you considered looking into some dyno time and getting it tuned up?

[DanT]

something does not sound right with your motor.
My 2.7L 914-6 could outrun stock RSAs on the track.
I could spin the tires in 1st and 2nd running 225 yoko A032Rs.

[jim912928]

well...would gearing make the difference? I'm driving my 3.2l donor car and it is very fast (84 carrera)....1st, 2nd and 3rd sure seem to be geared different then the 901. So..a 3.2l with a 915 in the 914?

[Dr. Roger]

1. verify WOT when pedal is floored.
2. verify timing is correct. VERY IMPORTANT.
3. check O2 sensor.

4. start checking the papers for a good used small block chevy.. (i'm asking for it......) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/laugh.gif)