TT Oversteer

I really liked my 78 SC 3.0 motor with 915 trans that I had in my 69T. It had 46mm PMO carbs, reground web cams, euro carrera distributor, SSI/sport muffler exhaust. It had instant throttle response and plenty of power. Bottom end all stock. Simple and not super $$$.

I now have a 3.2 in a 77S. It has a Steve Wong chip, cat bypass and M&K muffler. Very reliable, good starting, idling, economy and low emissions. Just isn't quite as exciting as the 3.0 was. Torquey but relatively lazy throttle response.

In a smog exempt lightweight early car I would go with the carbureted 3.0! I would redline it daily just for the sheer pleasure of the intake noise!

Great project...........enjoy!

Jay Gratton

Big fan of the 3.0 or 3.2 with carbs and other small mods. You want to be driving the car on the weekends and not working on it. Buy and SC/80's 3.2 and build it to look old is the way I would go.

whalebird

If you have a good early chassis, the 3.2/915 is an outstanding combo. Like Pete Z says, a good oil cooler is needed. A 3.6 in an early chassis is a big job. That much torque needs to be managed. Backdating a later car can also be a big job if all the details are looked after, but a very sensible exercise indeed.
There are lots of 3.0 SC motors available and make a very nice combo as well.

Peter Zimmermann

'75 or earlier car in CA = no smog tests.

Ed, I built my 2.6 when Mahles were $2K, and Solex "4.2" camshafts and 2.2 liter cylinder heads were available. Today it would be an expensive engine to build, but with the right machine shop taking care of things like case savers and cylinder heads...

Your questions really depend on you, and what you expect the car to be. For me, a slightly peaky, smaller displacement engine with carbs brings a lot of early car magic to the party. When you plug in an SC or 3.2 motor a lot of that magic goes away, unless you do cams and carbs on the SC. But it still isn't the same, the visceral component kinda goes away.

I guess that maybe I'm in the minority on this one regarding engine choice, but that said I also wouldn't do a Targa as an early car project. Sheer cornering speed with minimal chassis flex is my primary goal with an early car, combined with acceptable lower rev engine performance combined with that wonderful push in the back at 4,000 revs.

In 2000/'01 I built a 2.2 911E, using a '69 912 as the basic tub, for PCA Club Racing. The car was silly quick during testing at Streets of Willow, but the whole project went off the tracks when I had my shoulder surgery. I sold the car to a close friend, in hindsight that was a huge mistake. Even with all of the changes I was able to capture the magic of a good long nose car.

My $0.02...and "my" 2.2 E.

whalebird

What he said^^^
I would much prefer a period correct engine. Oh what sweetness...makes a 3.2 sound like a lawnmower. Budget is the main factor here. There is no substitute for a smaller displacement/higher revving early car...period.

Ed Hughes

A 3.2 sounding like a lawnmower? Huh? Maybe the Banshee Corporation's model #666.

Go to about 1 minute in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtZ2A...e_gdata_player

whalebird

That's no 3.2....

Ed Hughes

Only 200cc more....it sounded pretty darned close when it was.

Brett San Diego

A short stroke early engine would be a fun build and a fun drive, but I don't think that best meets your goal of a 300 mile road tripper. My personal choice would be a stock 3.2.

Fun project. Definitely looking forward to hearing more.

I started welding last year. Like you, I got the welder for car projects. It hasn't seen a car part, yet, but I now have a new all-steel workbench/welding table and nice set of custom fitted metal shelves in my garage from my welding exploits. And, I was able to help out my in-laws by welding an ear back on an outdoor metal cat sculpture that they have in their yard. LOL Once you get a welder, projects materialize out of nowhere. I'll start on the 356 body one of these days.

Brett

whalebird

It's not quantity but quality. Cams my friend, and all that lovely headwork not the bottom end alltogether. The early 915 has a shorter ring/pinion and long legs in the motor. As EPA dictated intake restrictions, the slower turning engines made power down low and that was paired with a little longer final drive to regain some flexibility.

Minoclan

No I am not saying that. I am saying that it works really well but I haven't had any other motor in the car so I personally cannot give you comparative results. BTW the air conditioning is gone.

mclaudio

I vote for an early car - 72/73 with 3.0 and carbs - as a fun project car. Lightweight, reliable, etc. I had a 69 with such a setup. I do prefer the 915 tranny versus 901; hence, the 72/73 option. Otherwise, the 69 models are the lightest (except 67 911R). As I think about the $ to properly backdate an SC or 3.2 Carrera plus the smog reqmnts in CA, I'd find a good solid early chassis first with a good interior. Better yet, you may find ones that are already done at a fraction of the build cost...though this means less of a project for you.

One thought: for a project car, would you rather work on the mechanicals or the body work? I tend to lean towards mechanical work.

joe1973

My advice is for you to buy someone's work. 70s 911 with 80s 3.2 motor or more. Lots of examples for sale. I bought mine for $30k (73 w/ 3.2 motor) and have owed it for 5 years and counting. Would sell if I could for the same money, but I learned market value is $25k or less so I'm keeping my baby instead of taking a loss on money I don't desperately need. I have a 996GT3 as well, but can honestly say an early 911 is a far more rewarding car to drive especially on the track. Alois Ruf himself said "there is no compensation (HP additions) for a light weight car (vs. newer, heavier cars)". My 73 911 /w 3,2 weights 2,200 lbs. Good luck with your search or build project.

rusnak

That magical torque/ gearing combo is what makes the difference between a buzzbomb and a fun car. The 3.2 folds space/ time so effortlessly compared to the 914, which has to work for it, and the SC, which is no fun around town.

Ed Hughes

I really like the tq in the 3.4 now. It comes on low and flat. The 993 doesn't wake up until 4500, and then pulls fast. When I drive that, I'm shifting like a madman.

When I drive Ruby, the torque and the longer gear diffs make it feel like a dragster with a 2 speed Torquegflite trans-it seems like it goes a long time between shifts. Must be the time/space continueum that rusnak refers to.