Notices
911 Forum 1964-1989
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Intercity Lines, LLC

SC vs. Carrera

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-03-2005, 11:45 AM
  #16  
Edward
Addicted Specialist
Rennlist Member
 
Edward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: So.CA
Posts: 6,111
Received 346 Likes on 195 Posts
Default

From what I've read (fairly extensively as this was one of my queries before deciding on my SC track-meister), the 3.2 can obviously be chipped (in which you get to keep your cat) to gain modest HP in the range if 12-15, but does not respond to exhaust HP improvement much. Many go to a euro pre-muff that's open in lieu of a cat (bye-bye smog). The SCs, while not chippable, benefit more from a set of SSIs and good muffler (again, smog regs ...ugh!), and are also a bit lighter out of box than the Carreras. From what I've gleaned, for bolt-on HP neither is clearly better than the other, and the bottom line is both are within a tick of one another when in good shape to begin with and in a good state of tune. Cogniscenti please chime in with real expenience...

Edward



Originally Posted by Doug&Julie
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Carrera 3.2 is a better option for quick "bolt on" hp upgrades. (..right?) I'm thinking a good chip and a free(er) flowing exhaust and airbox can give you...what...20hp? ..25?

Is there an easy way to "bolt on" hp in the SC motors? I'm talking about w/o breaking into the motor?

I'm curious because I may be in the same dilema this spring/summer if I sell my Boxster.

Old 02-03-2005, 11:57 AM
  #17  
Doug&Julie
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Doug&Julie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Beave, OR
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Around here, emissions checking "only" goes back 25 years. If my math is correct, that means the early SCs can be modified w/o fear of emissions problems. Score one for the SC!
Old 02-03-2005, 02:03 PM
  #18  
stark
4th Gear
Thread Starter
 
stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default SC vs. Carrera

Well, for my first posting I sure got some interesting feedback/discussion! Regarding my location, I am in Portland, Or. and have looked at a couple of 911s before the holidays and weather shut the market down. I will look out of state as well if the "right" car surfaces. Mr. Zimmermans book is in my reference library as well as Randy Leffingwells. More questions regarding horsepower and weight, Zimmerman says 207hp and Motronic injection for an 83SC, Leffingwell states 172hp and CIS for the same year and says the coupe weighs 2560 pounds. For the '84 Zimmerman says 217hp, Leffingwell says 200 and the weight jumps to 2728. Anybody care to clarify?
Old 02-03-2005, 02:19 PM
  #19  
Doug&Julie
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Doug&Julie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Beave, OR
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Hey, we're trying to move to Portland...know anybody looking for a good designer?

Those specs sound like the difference between US and ROW (US being lower). Although, I thought the '80-'83 SCs were 180hp? Geez, I need to bone up on my 80s car knowledge!
Old 02-03-2005, 02:40 PM
  #20  
Edward
Addicted Specialist
Rennlist Member
 
Edward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: So.CA
Posts: 6,111
Received 346 Likes on 195 Posts
Default

Doug and Julie,
25 years, eh?...lucky! In Ca it's 1973 and earlier...period! Some brain-dead legislator just turned over the 30-year-old-car smog-exempt accomodation just this last year. Ugh!!

Lots of confusion with HP numbers for the SCs. The "simple" answer is for the US, all SCs are within a few ponies of one another from the factory. But lots happened since they rolled off the line. People ditched the smog pump on the 78-79s, added maybe SSIs, 2into1 or 2into2 mufflers, mild cams, and with the high mileage, age, and head stud issues, lots have been rebuilt from a simple re-ring to all-out "while-I-was-in-there" style infusions of cash. Then the Carreras have the advantage of 3.2 and DME, but has its "issues" as well. Not to mention that since they are a bit "newer," they may be more "stock" than many SCs which may not be as good as a well-prepped SC. And many have commented that the SCs have better grunt off the line (I can't attest to this as I havn't driven them back to back). So while it's good to narrow your search to a specific model, the bottom line is not to get hung up on which year to look at as much as what's the condition of the car in question. At least that's the story I'm sticking to

Edward

Last edited by Edward; 02-03-2005 at 03:02 PM.
Old 02-03-2005, 03:46 PM
  #21  
Doug&Julie
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Doug&Julie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Beave, OR
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Edward
...the bottom line is not to get hung up on which year to look at as much as what's the condition of the car in question.
Amen brother...
Old 02-03-2005, 03:59 PM
  #22  
2002M3Drew
Burning Brakes
 
2002M3Drew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bernardsville, NJ
Posts: 1,212
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Doug&Julie
Those specs sound like the difference between US and ROW (US being lower). Although, I thought the '80-'83 SCs were 180hp? Geez, I need to bone up on my 80s car knowledge!
I've noticed a lot of publications mix up the numbers. The rating was 180 bhp DIN, which equates to 172 bhp SAE (US measurement).
Old 02-03-2005, 04:01 PM
  #23  
Doug&Julie
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Doug&Julie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Beave, OR
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Ah...duh.
Old 02-03-2005, 04:21 PM
  #24  
Peter Zimmermann
Rennlist Member
 
Peter Zimmermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bakersfield, CA, for now...
Posts: 20,607
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

Stark & Others: Oh my God! That bonehead error has never been pointed out to me! Of course the SC has 172hp (SAE), and of course it has CIS fuel injection! So much for 200 hours of proof-reading, I am so embarrassed I think I'll go crawl into the bottom drawer of my toolbox and stay there...
Pete
Old 02-03-2005, 04:30 PM
  #25  
g-50cab
Drifting
 
g-50cab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Posts: 2,399
Received 50 Likes on 36 Posts
Default

A Steve Wong chip will solve much of the "lack" of low end grunt on the Carreras. Much more similiar to the SC's. As far as weight goes the difference becomes more apparent with the additional luxury items. Start adding an electric convertible top, heated seats etc and the Carrera can get down right piggish (but easy to remove the weight!)
Old 02-03-2005, 07:43 PM
  #26  
Peter Zimmermann
Rennlist Member
 
Peter Zimmermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bakersfield, CA, for now...
Posts: 20,607
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

To the readers of this thread: Obviously something dreadful happened, years ago, between the time that I prepared the spec chart for my book, and the time the book went to press. I take full responsibility for the errors. For the record, the published figure, from Porsche, for USA SC DIN HP (to stay consistent with the chart) should read 180 (172 SAE). Directly below that the Carreras should have been split. The '84 - 86 3.2L USA Carrera should read 207 HP (DIN), based on the figure 152 kW published by Porsche. Even this figure could be off slightly, because I have found the number 150kW (only for '84/85 models), also published by Porsche, which translates to 204 HP (DIN) for those two years. (FYI: The conversion number between DIN HP & kW is .736). All Carrera engines for USA consumption built through '86 should have the internal designation 930/21. Beginning with 1987 the internal designation for USA Carrera engines was changed to 930/25, and power was raised to 160 kW, which translates to 217 HP (DIN). Hope this helps...
Pete
Old 02-03-2005, 08:11 PM
  #27  
r911
Anti-Cupholder League
 
r911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,935
Received 117 Likes on 100 Posts
Default

The nice thing about Portland is that there are several shops who can do a thorough PPI on any car you get serious about. Steve W. of course (Gamroth) and I hear good things about Marque Motors and one other that I forget.

The bad thing is that there are lots of congested roads up there - and will be a lot more because of the holes blown in the land use planning system. So I would tend towards low end grunt for the traffic.
Old 02-03-2005, 09:27 PM
  #28  
Mark Wilson
Pro
 
Mark Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Salad, TN
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Obviously, the SC is a MUCH better looking car
Old 02-03-2005, 09:28 PM
  #29  
84_Carrera
Legacy Flounder
Rennlist Member
 
84_Carrera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cumberland, RI
Posts: 3,439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

So, forgive my math for a second... that's a .955 factor going from DIN to SAE? If so, that's 195 SAE hp for my '84?

I ask, because I was interested in seeing what sort of gain that Weltmeister chip gives. According to the PO, the chip improved midrange quite noticeably, but the low-end wasn't as impressive as he'd hoped.

Going from 195 crank ponies to 204 wheel ponies with the chip is not a bad modification at all, if that's an accurate conversion.
Old 02-04-2005, 02:04 AM
  #30  
d993
Racer
 
d993's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mbwilson56
Obviously, the SC is a MUCH better looking car
I agree..........
You mean the older, uglier headlights make it much better looking, right?
Anything else?
The CIS fuel distributor has "directional beauty", with it's six stainless steel fuel lines!
Gotta love the "beautiful buzzing" from the CIS.
Oh.........And no, the 3.2 Carrera is NOT heavier than a SC. Both Coupes (with A/C) weight the same 2750lbs.


Quick Reply: SC vs. Carrera



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 04:48 AM.