robrichtx

You guys have probably seen the Chasing Classic Cars show on Discovery HD by now. A friend forwarded me this link from their site.

This is a 73 T with a 3.6 engine in it and racing seats. Judging by what we've seen on this board - do you think this car would sell anywhere close to what he's asking???? 69,000. I thought at first glance is was an original RS - not so.

http://www.f40.com/inventorymanager....view&Id=102061

old man neri

Can a 915 actually deal with a 3.6?

ked

looks well executed. lotsa cars cars like these RS clones have usage / enjoyment value but little investment value. who knows what it will bring in the current climate? "hit 'em high & work 'em" is the old saw & never more true than today. I suspect dealers, speculators & over-their-heads sellers will be in a squeeze for awhile. that's why we always hear the (very good) advice, "buy what you like for its intrinsic appeal to YOU!" when all else fails, one can always enjoy looking at, caring for & driving a nice 911.

yes, a 915 can handle a 3.6, but there's not alot of headroom for stupidity.

Amber Gramps

It looks to have the best of both worlds. You get the old RSR longhood style and the new clean 3.6L power plant. It's not over the top with race, nor is it going to have the troubles of a tired 2.2L.

that car may well have been built by our own Steve Weiner.

Ed Hughes

There are a lot of 915's out there transferring 964/993 power to the ground.

old man neri

Cool, learn something new everyday. Good for the 915!

JackOlsen

Actually, that depends on the 915 you're talking about. As someone with a 3.6 in an early car, I'll say that the 7:31 915's (up to 1974, I think) are not a good match for the torque of the 964/993 motors -- my 1973 915 lasted about one year with my 964 motor. I now have a magnesium-case 8:31 915 from 1977 (aluminum replaced magnesium in the latter part of 1977) with a reinforced 930-style side plate and close-ratio gear sets that give me lower gearing than the 7:31 915's but in a stronger box. I use a cooler on the track and have the Wevo shifter, coupler and internal shift gate.

The engine/transaxle combo in the ad is only going to be good for unaggressive street driving. How long it lasts will depend on a few different factors, but it's not a smart match if you plan to enjoy the kind of kicks a 3.6 can provide.

Aside from that, it's hard to tell much from the description. No idea if the torsion bars have been upgraded or if the other kind of suspension mods -- the ones that separate the proverbial men from the boys in this kind of car -- have been done. It could be Steve Weiner quality, or it could be something much more modest.

It does look pretty. If it sells for that kind of money, then my car is worth a mint.

Trader220

At the asking price the current owner will have plenty of time to find out how well the 915 works with that 3.6

Ed Hughes

I'm still of the opinion that, by far, out of all the 3.6 conversions done, a 915 is in the majority of them.
It would make sense certainly, that the trans should be well-sorted to take on the added power/torque.

I'm curious as to what the consensus is, both street and track, as to longevity and problems encountered. May be worth starting a thread.

JackOlsen

It's almost entirely a matter of which iteration of 915 -- and adding the 930-style (or Wevo) sideplate and appropriate bearing retainers.

Click on the chart to go to a good thread about the history of the 915 -- you'll find more detail than you can handle.

theiceman

hey jack I clicked on it and ended up back here ! that was a quick trip

Ed Hughes

Welcome back Ice! This whole time travel thing seems to be coming to fruition, thanks mostly to Al Gore.

theiceman

..and I just thought he invented the internet ...

whalebird

I heard somewhere that a 3.6 is tough on an early chassis. The added torque will certainly snap a garden variety 915, but assuming the gearbox holds on, there may be chassis stiffness issues. I am not sure, more of a question than a statement.

JackOlsen

Whoops. I copied the wrong address. I fixed it in the above post, but here it is again.

Not in my opinion. Chassis rigidity is an issue with the earlier cars (maybe more as they get rusty), but not really in relation to the drivetrain's torque. The only place the drivetrain is pushing against the chassis is at the four (rubber-centered) motor mounts. I've never heard about a chassis twisting to any meaningful degree from the engine's force -- I guess it might pop the rear decklid open if it did.

But chassis rigidity will affect a suspension's ability to position the wheels correctly, especially if you've gone to stiffer torsion bars (or coil springs) and/or replaced the suspension bushings with harder counterparts. As you reinforce the chassis, you'll see improvements in lap times, but that's because you're improving the ability of your suspension to hold the wheels and tires in a more precise relationship to the driving surface. The forces acting on the chassis mostly are going to come from its interaction with that driving surface -- hit a bump at speed and I'm sure there's a lot more energy transferred to the chassis than a 3.6 is capable of generating.

That's my gut feeling, at least. I can put a finger between my cage and my A pillar and feel the gap changing when I'm driving and I hit a bump or a quick incline or decline. But I can't generate the same kind of change by just giving her gas on a level surface.

And I don't think a 3.6 would ever snap a 915. But it'll be harder on sliders -- and even more so on bearing seats as it twists a magnesium transaxle case.