Thoughts on a 3.2 outlaw/restomod?
10-03-2016, 12:33 AM
#17
Addict
Well......the coveted 993 at 3,000 lbs with it's 3,6L has a weight to power ratio right at 11.1/1 at the crank according to Grassroots Motorsports and my car at 2,580 lbs has a ratio of 13.4/1 at the wheel so suck on that a while.....a good long while. 
Let's assume the guys over at Pelican are correct when they figure a 16-20% power loss through the drivetrain. If it's 16% it's a ratio of 11.39/1 and if it's 20% than it's 10.72/1 so suck on that a while.....a good long while while you get yourself a tissue.
Now I know you were talking about an impact bumper or longhood car that weighs in at 2,500 lbs with that same 3,6L would have an even greater ratio, perhaps in the 9/1 range, but still, my lowly cab delivers all the same sensory input to my soul for tens of thousands of dollars less....many tens of thousands less.
Let's assume the guys over at Pelican are correct when they figure a 16-20% power loss through the drivetrain. If it's 16% it's a ratio of 11.39/1 and if it's 20% than it's 10.72/1 so suck on that a while.....a good long while while you get yourself a tissue.
Now I know you were talking about an impact bumper or longhood car that weighs in at 2,500 lbs with that same 3,6L would have an even greater ratio, perhaps in the 9/1 range, but still, my lowly cab delivers all the same sensory input to my soul for tens of thousands of dollars less....many tens of thousands less.
10-03-2016, 12:57 AM
#18
Rennlist Member
Wait I thought less is more? Less lbs per hp is better.
For example... My RS is about 6.4:1 (408 wheel, using your 16% is 470) car weighs 3040 wet. I think that loss ratio is too high. My crank is probably in the 440 range.
For example... My RS is about 6.4:1 (408 wheel, using your 16% is 470) car weighs 3040 wet. I think that loss ratio is too high. My crank is probably in the 440 range.
10-03-2016, 01:09 AM
#20
Rennlist Member
10-03-2016, 01:15 AM
#21
Addict
10-03-2016, 01:43 AM
#23
Rennlist Member
10-05-2016, 02:31 PM
#25
Three Wheelin'
There are two big costs: Getting to a widebody and installing a more powerful drivetrain.
Your best bet is to buy someone else's conversion. There are many SCs and 3.2s that have been converted to a 930 widebody with differing quality. I would call them rare, and I would call them highly desirable to a small group of people such that you wouldn't get much of a discount over a stock example, but the work would be done. There is no discount on 3.6 conversions, because the lump can always be removed and sold.
It's worth noting that a brand new, California-SMOG-legal E-ROD LS3 can be purchased off the shelf for $10k, and Subaru parts are cheap and strong. Someone recently put a Subaru STi transmission (and motor) into a 912, and Subaru Gears sells an adapter plate for the LS motor to STi transmission. It strikes me as less crazy than putting a G50 in a 915 car.
Also, vinyl dye is $1000 in parts, and the quality has come a long way in the last decade.
Your best bet is to buy someone else's conversion. There are many SCs and 3.2s that have been converted to a 930 widebody with differing quality. I would call them rare, and I would call them highly desirable to a small group of people such that you wouldn't get much of a discount over a stock example, but the work would be done. There is no discount on 3.6 conversions, because the lump can always be removed and sold.
It's worth noting that a brand new, California-SMOG-legal E-ROD LS3 can be purchased off the shelf for $10k, and Subaru parts are cheap and strong. Someone recently put a Subaru STi transmission (and motor) into a 912, and Subaru Gears sells an adapter plate for the LS motor to STi transmission. It strikes me as less crazy than putting a G50 in a 915 car.
Also, vinyl dye is $1000 in parts, and the quality has come a long way in the last decade.
11-01-2016, 10:20 AM
#27
if you really want a M491 or Turbo chassis you virtually cant replicate that with a narrow wide body.
it may be able to get it to look the same (though most dont) but i wont drive the same. way too much involved with the suspension, steering rack, hubs, pickup points, brakes, MC, frunk sheet metal to enable anti-dive etc to do it properly.... i dont know of any cars that went through great lengths to do this since it dosent make any sense with the work involved.
i luv mine but the thought has crossed my mind more than once to trade it for a 964 that has AC for summer use
it may be able to get it to look the same (though most dont) but i wont drive the same. way too much involved with the suspension, steering rack, hubs, pickup points, brakes, MC, frunk sheet metal to enable anti-dive etc to do it properly.... i dont know of any cars that went through great lengths to do this since it dosent make any sense with the work involved.
i luv mine but the thought has crossed my mind more than once to trade it for a 964 that has AC for summer use
11-01-2016, 02:07 PM
#28
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
if you really want a M491 or Turbo chassis you virtually cant replicate that with a narrow wide body.
it may be able to get it to look the same (though most dont) but i wont drive the same. way too much involved with the suspension, steering rack, hubs, pickup points, brakes, MC, frunk sheet metal to enable anti-dive etc to do it properly.... i dont know of any cars that went through great lengths to do this since it dosent make any sense with the work involved.
i luv mine but the thought has crossed my mind more than once to trade it for a 964 that has AC for summer use
it may be able to get it to look the same (though most dont) but i wont drive the same. way too much involved with the suspension, steering rack, hubs, pickup points, brakes, MC, frunk sheet metal to enable anti-dive etc to do it properly.... i dont know of any cars that went through great lengths to do this since it dosent make any sense with the work involved.
i luv mine but the thought has crossed my mind more than once to trade it for a 964 that has AC for summer use
As ar as I know the 3.2 Carrera SuperSport does not have the anti-dive which is built into the Turbo body shell, the front end is stock Carrera. The rear end is Turbo, to convert the Carrera to Turbo suspension will require replacement of the centre section of the rear torsion tube to incorporate the turbo trailing arm mounts (or fabrication of same) and fit the 930 trailing arms.
11-01-2016, 03:34 PM
#29
Three Wheelin'
Crap, now I need to know...I thought the M491 was 100% 930, with the possible exception of the tie-rod ends (which are interchangeable with the standard 911 anyway)...Don't make me crawl under there...
11-01-2016, 05:21 PM
#30
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
For those who have not got a clue to what we are talking about, the 930 Turbo had anti-dive built into the front suspension by adding forward rake to the wishbone. This was achieved by raising the steering crossmember mountings at the back of the arm and lowering the front with an inverted bush with integral spacers.