CurBrwn79

Outside the G50 and some interior changes, what are the major differences b/w the 84-86 & 87-89 Carrera. And are there any changes with the 3.2 liter?

imcarthur

Development:

1985
4 spoke steering wheel
Central Locking option (std on Turbo)
Antenna in windshield
Improved shifter
Boge gas shocks standard (Bilstein on Sport Option)
Electric drivers seat

1986
Redesigned AC (larger air vents)
Power top option
Seats lowered by 20mm
Vanity mirrors
Cabin heat sensor
Larger anti-roll bars & rear torsion bars
Brake light
10% shorter gear shift option

1987
G50 transmission
Fan & new thermostatic control added to oil cooler
Rubber centered clutch
Power top standard on most (but not all)
3rd brake light moves to bottom of window
New Shift pattern
Larger clutch
Rear reflector includes backup lights
Halogens

1988
15" Fuchs replace phone dial wheels as standard
Other convenience features became standard to RoW

1989
16" Fuchs wheels standard
Alarm system has blinking lights in lock ***** when armed

The 3.2 engine remained the same. Fuel maps in the DME etc did change.

Ian

CurBrwn79

Ian, thank you for the information! A ton of help!

KC911

Ian gave you a very comprehensive list . As far as the DME chip goes, that's an easy upgrade...do a search on Steve Wong chips both here and on Pelican (I think his site is 911chips.com). IMO, his chip will enhance the drivablilty of all Carreras, but particularly the '84-86 models in which the chip mappings weren't as aggressive. I expect at least one person to offer a differing opinion (do a search, you'll see ), but the overwhelming majority of us running Steve's chips are happy campers...

Keith
'88 CE coupe

Peter Zimmermann

'84-86 models: 207hp @ 5900 rpm; Torque = 185/4800
'87-89 models: 217hp @ 5900 rpm; Torque = 195/4800

For some reason '86 models (last of the 915 cars) feel as strong/stronger out of the box as any other 3.2 Carrera, but nothing in Porsche literature indicates why. I've driven many Carreras fitted with chips (mostly Autothority) and I came to realize that out of every 100 non-chipped (3.2 L) cars 95 were the same, 3 were dogs, and 2 were rockets. A chip made a significant difference with the "dogs", cleaned up acceleration "holes" (relatively insignificant flat spots, etc.), that made the typical Carrera nicer to drive, but did nothing for the two "rockets." For some reason the '86 Carreras were more consistent, at a higher level of smoothness and performance, than all but the '88/89s. I have a hunch that Porsche kept developing the electronics in those models; and of the hundreds of Carreras that my shop maintained the '86s, and '88/89 models are the clear winners on average. (Please keep in mind that all of the cars that I speak of here were tuned exactly the same way, and to exact factory specs.) That said, I've also driven a few '95 993s that will blow the doors off the average '96 993, and that is not supposed to happen! Again, more electronic inconsistency. Please keep in mind these comments come from hundreds of hours of stick time in hundreds of different cars (street and track); I do not have the electronic background or knowledge to explain any differences (in the electronics) as to why one car is a better car to drive than another. I did not sell, endorse, or discourage the use of a chip of any manufacture, but installed them for clients who purchased them, which allowed me to do the immediate before and after test drive. Very interesting stuff!
Pete

r911

Peter - do the chips have p/n's on them -- or any other codes that differ and might explain the differences you found?

KC911

That's a very interesting observation Pete! Maybe Steve Wong will read this thread and chime in here, but base upon his posts over the past several years, if I recall correctly, the chip mappings were 'identical' from 84-86, and the 10 HP increase in '87-89 was due to the 'more aggessive' (but still somewhat conservative) chip mappings. Even on the Club Sport models, the chip mappings were the same, with the difference being an increase in the rev limit. As I recall, the Autothority chip increased the rev limit to a 'potentially dangerous' value, and at least one other person on Pelican, switched out an Autothority chip to a SW chip, and reported a noticable improvement recorded by the 'butt dyno' . I actually did a dyno comparison (6 runs) between the stock chip and Steve's chip, and at wide open throttle, the dyno charts showed no significant difference (although other's dyno runs have), but IMO, my car (particularly at part throttle), performs better with his chip. I wonder why, based upon your experience, the '86s feel stronger? Although the G50s might weigh a bit more, the 10 HP 'chip improvement' would compensate for that. Thanks again...

Keith
'88 CE coupe

Jay H

Pete:

Just curious...

My factory literature for US spec cars lists the '86 model as 200 hp and the '87 model as 214 hp (same torque values though). What is the difference between what you have posted (which matches what frequently gets posted by others here on Rennlist) and what my brochures state for hp? Is it a DIN to SAE type conversion issue?

It really doesn't matter, but I'm just curious.

Jay
90 964

Peter Zimmermann

Jay: Oops! I should have mentioned that the numbers that I posted are DIN. This hp deal is uncertain, I have factory literature that shows the early ('84-86) 3.2s at either 150 kw or 152 kw, and the '87-89 cars at 160 kw. I've never found a definitive answer for the early cars, so I use 152. To convert, divide kw by .736 and you get 207 and 217. Those numbers give you 204 and 214 SAE. One of my most trusted books list the '84 & 85 at 150 kw (200 SAE), and the '86 by itself at 152 (204 SAE). To move to Keith's post, I just don't know. If, in fact, '86 models did get a 4 hp increase, along with a refined chip that smoothed out the accel "holes" so common in '84 & 85 cars, I guess that those subtle changes made it possible to fool the butt dyno (good term!). Maybe it's that magic that you get when everything is perfect; the 8:31 final drive (vs 9:31 and different ratios in the G50), wonderful electronics, a small hp increase - a great package. This would mean that '87-89 cars only got 6 hp more than an '86, without a significant improvement in smoothness. The improvement that you have, with Steve's chip, is exactly what I meant when I said that a good chip cleans up those accel "holes," almost insignificant flat spots that wouldn't bother the average driver. Randy: I've wished many times that I had recorded any info that might have been printed on the chips that I've been involved with, sad to say, for whatever reason, I didn't pay any attention. At one point in time I had a list of Bosch part numbers for the various ECUs, because there were occasions that we verified a given car was fitted with the correct ECU. Outside of that, maybe Steve will read this and can offer some info with regard to your question.
Pete

Jay H

Pete,

Thanks again for your info. It's always appreciated! I'll say it again, I still love the '86 911's and they are my favorite 3.2's. Update interior, still old school 915 and they drive so nice.

Jay
90 964

Lorenfb

Since Pete's been out of the business for awhile, he's probably unaware that most
Porsche shops here in SoCal no longer install chips because of the data which has
been revealed about the excessive timing advance used. This is especially problematic
for the 3.2 engines which lack knock sensors of the 964/993 engines.
Those that still do, fail to understand the issues!

A review of the Rennlist threads will provide insights into those issues.

"Even on the Club Sport models, the chip mappings were the same, with the difference being an increase in the rev limit." - KC911 -

Interesting isn't it, that Porsche STOPPED tweaking the 3.2 maps
after the '88/'89 even for the Club Sport, but only the rev limit was "pushed".

Note:
Porsche/Bosch had three different chip mappings for the '84-'89 3.2
Motronic units. All the chips had different part numbers.

Dave Thomas

You need to provide proof of these statements. "Most" shops? Have you actually done a statistical survey? If so, please present your data. "Excessive" advance? Are you saying there's enough advance to damage an engine, and if so, can you provide evidence of any damaged engines?

KC911

Loren, I don't know why I'm even responding to your post (that horse is SO dead, it should be dog food by now), but are you insinuating that TRE, Rennsport Systems, etc. 'fail to understand the issues'? Even on the Club Sport mappings, Porsche 'had' to compensate for 'crappy gas' (you know, the kind you get in CA), but for those of us who get the 'good stuff', it's a no brainer. What happened to your emphatic declarations from a couple of years ago that maintained that there were essentially NO differences between chips (even the stock '84-'86 vs the '87-'88 ones), and that we were all imagining things. Your viewpoint can be summarized by your ludicrous statement (and I quote) "Chips suck, case closed" from awhile back....please go beat on another dead horse

Keith
'88 CE coupe

JCP911S

My understanding is that, while Porsche alwasys does detail improvements, the 3.2 was essentially uncahnged through this period, and most of the quoted hp differences were due to how Porsche reported it rather than any change in the fundamental output of the engines.

Generally speaking, the most effective performance mod on these cars is SSI/Headers and a free-flow exhaust... generally a good system is considered to add 10-15 hp (and sound nice too). It is also big $$$. State emission laws enter in here too.

The whole chip debate is like discussing religion.... personally, for the money, I'd just keep it stock. When in doubt, trust the factory engineers... but that's just me. Based on all the discussions I've heard the Wong chip appears to have the most supporters... FWIW

KC911

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that SSI(s) were too restrictive for the 3.2s and not recommended. Porsche without a doubt revised the chip mappings in '87 (thus producing 10 more hp) and the increase wasn't due to measurement/reporting changes. I'll be the first to say, that changing chips (on a stock car) is probably negligable, but if you've also performed other upgrades (i.e. sport muffler & euro premuffler), then you need a remapped chip to fully take advantage of the freer flowing exhaust. There is no doubt that the factory engineers 'knew what they were doing', but they had to map the chip for a 'lowest common denominator' in terms of quality of gas, etc. and they indeed left some 'unused hp' on the table for those of us that choose to run 93 octane and still be 'safe'.

Keith
'88 CE coupe