So I went to the dark side for a year or two with the tail dragger while The Beast continues to be assembled (actually it's just sitting collecting dust....AGAIN...but that's another story).

I know what the 3.6 993 route will bring in performance and $$$, and I originally campaigned our first 914-6 with a hot rod 2.7 (10:5.1 compression JE's, Weber Carbs, hot cams, head work, etc.) so I know how that feels and costs.

How about the Carrera 3.2 platform? What can I do to it and what HP are we talking if I do some mods to it such as:

1. burn a chip
2. headers (1 1/2 or 1 5/8)
3. compression bump
4. cam change
5. keep stock DME/brain
6. switch to webers (40's or 46's).

The cost of the 3.6 993 motors is going up fast. Conversely, the 3.2's (~80K miles) are steady state at ~$4800 to $6000 with the brain and harness. I would then have to get into the motor if I want to clean it up...or run it for awhile.

And...I could run a 901 behind a 3.2....save a little money...yeah...right.

What can I get HP wise out of a 3.2 with stock DME/perf chip? Can I put 3.4 jugs on it and still run the stock injection?

TimT, I think you're running this configuration. What do you like, dislike about it?

Thanks,

Bill P.

QUOTE

And...I could run a 901 behind a 3.2....save a little money...yeah...right

They last about a year (8 events) before you need to pull them apart and check them. Run a cooler on it.

Figure a reliable 245hp out of a stockish 3.2 on carbs. Scott has one that is ready for assembly.


B

QUOTE

What can I get HP wise out of a 3.2 with stock DME/perf chip? Can I put 3.4 jugs on it and still run the stock injection?

No issue. Stick with the stock injection components. The 3.2 brain can be fully programmed to ANY cam combo you want and converted to MAF instead of the flapper box. 245hp


B

245HP at the flywheel right?

What cams?

I love the 3.2 set up I have. But I still want more power

Mine is kinda stockish:

WebCam 20/21's
Slight compresssion bump
headers
40mm Webers.

Id have to look at my records for the specifics, I didnt do anything to the heads last time around.

I like the idea of keeping the motronic you keep all the benefits of EFI

Bill,
The 3.2 would be a great setup for the Beast. I would not be so sure about AXing with the 901 gear box. Lots of strain on 1st and 2nd gears. (weak point)
Talk to Sergio about 3.2s with 901s. They don't like the torque. my 914-6 with the 2.7RS motor went through 4 rebuilds (2 cases) in 5 years.
Sergio had the same issues and he and I were only running 225 tires.
Maybe if you install a trick intermediate plate?
Especially if you run those big slicks...lots of torque being applied to the drive line and the 901 is the weak point IMHO.
901s were never designed or engineered to handle high torque motors. High rpm, HP motors but not low end grunt torque motors.

QUOTE

The 3.2 would be a great setup for the Beast. I would not be so sure about AXing with the 901 gear box. Lots of strain on 1st and 2nd gears. (weak point)

I would agree about AXing the 901, much better off w/ a 915. I also felt the 3.2 was very fast, but I feel it was leaving some time out on the AX course because the engine does not make the torque a 3.6 does down low, in some corners it felt like it took forever for the 3.2 to climb up a few hundred rpm's and get on the cam to make better power.

QUOTE

245HP at the flywheel right? What cams?

Flywheel yes. This is not a stretch for the 3.2

Hum.. cams.. thinking.. thinking.. multi purpose car..

GE 60. pretty aggressive, but short tires in AutoX will help. It will scream on the top end.

Do a generic MSX box.. but find a 9146 second gear input shaft. It is a tad taller than the 4cyl second gear (This is what SteveN has in his 914) It will allow you to run most of the NorCal courses primarily in second with a 7k RPM engine. It will keep the engine closer to peak torque. I offered a MSX box.. just need to find a 9146 second gear shaft combo (I forget what the actual letter is... F.. or something.. I'd have to look at my gear charts.

B

B,

I want the msx box, let me know when it's available and I'll pick it up.

I'm trying to plan out the build on The Beast. So far Scott hasn't had time to work on it...so I'm thinking of giving it a couple of months and if nothing happens, I'll just haul the carcass home with all the bits and just work on it until it's done. The car is all paid off, so I might as well touch the thing......

I'll have to give thought to the 915 route....shelling out another $6 to 7K doesn't appeal to me at the moment. I also have to decide on the engine, hence this 3.2 thread. After driving the 911 with the injected 3.6, I don't want to go back to carbs....

Bill P.

QUOTE

After driving the 911 with the injected 3.6, I don't want to go back to carbs

In my best SoCal 21 y.o female voice"

"Like...DUH!!"

Oh wait..

I wanted to use a 3.6 upper intake on a hot rod 3.2!! Scott has one.


B

A nice 2.7 or twin plug 2.8 with MFI

Good Ax motors with good torque, and no carbs. But more adjustable than the 3.2 motronic.

I think your old 2.7 had as much or more low end torque as a stocker 3.2


explain to me a MSX tranny please.

Brad,

yep...FI convert here!...

I"ll have to talk with you about the 3.2 recipe....unless you can post it here for us all (i.e. which chip to use witht he DME, cams, piston compression ratio, etc.). Did I mention I will be fine running 100 octane....does that change anything?

Dan,

The MSX box is referring to the letter designation of the 3-4-5 gears in a 901. The 901 we had mated to our 2.7 was a Q box. flipped 5th in 3rd, a "Q" gear in 4th, and 4th "V" gear moved to 5th. It closes up the ratios nicely. The MSX is slightly taller by about 4 MPH in each gear at a 7200 RPM redline.

Yes, our 2.7 was putting out serious power, but it had every goodie on it sans twin plugs...

Bill P.

MSX is great.
I have that.

Any of my recent track videos I have posted reveal that a close ratio box keeps the engine on power on every shift.

KT

QUOTE (Brad Roberts @ Dec 24 2005, 04:08 PM)

QUOTE 245HP at the flywheel right? What cams? Flywheel yes. This is not a stretch for the 3.2 Hum.. cams.. thinking.. thinking.. multi purpose car.. GE 60. pretty aggressive, but short tires in AutoX will help. It will scream on the top end. Do a generic MSX box.. but find a 9146 second gear input shaft. It is a tad taller than the 4cyl second gear (This is what SteveN has in his 914) It will allow you to run most of the NorCal courses primarily in second with a 7k RPM engine. It will keep the engine closer to peak torque. I offered a MSX box.. just need to find a 9146 second gear shaft combo (I forget what the actual letter is... F.. or something.. I'd have to look at my gear charts. B

/4 2nd is F
/6 2nd is GA

/6 is barely taller

I have AFKQV in my 911 tranny, mucho bueno with a 2.2

I have A ga MSX in my 914 tranny, also mucho bueno with the 3.2



felices navidad mis compadres

see if you can get your hands on a euro spec 3.2
the version without a "cat" has 231 bhp straight out of the box, no mods

a set of headers (which you're gonna use on a 914 anyways) will ad a good 15bhp
and you still haven't touched the engine yet

check for worn valve guides, other than that the 3.2 is pretty much bulletproof

QUOTE (nine14cats @ Dec 24 2005, 04:47 PM)

Brad, yep...FI convert here!... I"ll have to talk with you about the 3.2 recipe....unless you can post it here for us all (i.e. which chip to use witht he DME, cams, piston compression ratio, etc.). Did I mention I will be fine running 100 octane....does that change anything? Dan, The MSX box is referring to the letter designation of the 3-4-5 gears in a 901. The 901 we had mated to our 2.7 was a Q box. flipped 5th in 3rd, a "Q" gear in 4th, and 4th "V" gear moved to 5th. It closes up the ratios nicely. The MSX is slightly taller by about 4 MPH in each gear at a 7200 RPM redline. Yes, our 2.7 was putting out serious power, but it had every goodie on it sans twin plugs... Bill P.

Thanks Bill for the clarification. I had a "Q" box in my 914-6. The MSX sounds nice, with the slightly higher ratios, especially for AX.