Reiver

With my limited 911 Porsche experience I'd like to know what the rpm 'sweet spot' is on your 3.0's.
Mine is peppy always but comes on like a train at 3100/3200 rpm.
How about ya'll?

Reiver

No one wants to say where the real powerband is on the 3.0 (in 3rd thru 5th)....

Ed Hughes

Dont have any reference on the SC, as it has been a while since I've driven one. But....My 3.2, now converted to 3.4 with a few other mods pulls consistently from about 3200 r's, but has a nice flat tq curve, as shown on the dyno, from 4k-6k. In the mid 260's for HP at 2600lbs is not outrageous, but pretty damned fun, especially with her chassis and tire setup.


The 993 unleashes its oomph all of a sudden at 4k, and redline comes up quickly.

rusnak

The '78 SC pulls noticablly and comes "on cam" around 4K. 3.2 around 3.2K, as Ed noted. I think author Tobias Aichelle (sp?) in his book "Porsche 911 Engine History and Development" wrote that the 3.2 was designed to compress air over 5K rpm. In other words, it was breathing more air volume than the combustion chambers x rpm. He also wrote that at the time, it was the highest specific output street motor that Porsche had ever built. Following that development, Porsche pushed it further with Variocam, and then Varioram. Or was it the other way around? I would love to find a 964VR transplanted into a 911 narrow body someday. That might make me take up track days.

village idiot

I agree with rusnak, at 4k the motor is like a big game cat waiting to pounce. I love the way it sings at freeway speeds in 4th gear

masterdave

I like my 78SC a bit above 3K in 3rd and 4th gears.

Regards
Dave

Reiver

Interesting.
"The '78 SC pulls noticablly and comes "on cam" around 4K"
I can really feel the dif, on cam, from 3200 rpm and on up. I know the '81-83's have a dif compression ratio but that's about it (no cat and fattend up CO to 2.5-3).
Good infor on the 993's also. For some reason I was expecting lower rpm numbers for the later cars.
Anyone know what the 'on cam' numbers are for the variable cam cars?

rusnak

I don't know, but you probably can get the power/ torque curves. I think they might be published in Paul Frere's excellent book, "Porsche 911 Story".

And YES, the SC motor was more highly developed during it's run than the 3.2. The higher compression from '82 on made a huge difference in power and fuel economy.

masterdave

Note,

My DD is currently a 2005 Chrysler Town and Country Minivan, so when I get in the 911 even 1100 RPM the car is wild compared to what im used to.

Regards
Dave

Reiver

I wish I could tell you how to jazz up that mini van but I'm at a loss

theiceman

most mini vans will out drag an SC anyway just sayin ..

blake

My '79 SC would pull around 3.5-4k RPM. Of note, my 996 GT3 (3.6L, 385hp) starts to pull like crazy at 4k RPM... And it is very similar story for my 964 Speedster.... I do notice in my 997.1 that the pull is more linear throughout the rev band. I could be wrong, but it seems like the M96/M97 engines lost a bit of that "Porsche pull" at the higher RPM range (less curve, more linear)... That is sure how it feels! Any thoughts???

(Note: the 996/997 GT3s & Turbos all have the dry-sump derived GT1/964 engine, whereas the other 996/997 variants run a wet-sump design.)

-Blake

Reiver

Blake,
Nice collection. I'm really enjoying this 200 hp SC but 250/300 would be perfect for the car if it was lightened a tad.
Realistically, unless tracking, that seems about an optimum street figure for use/fun considering the cars handling.
Nice to have all thos options.

Ed Hughes

How did you get to 200HP? Refresh my memory, I thought your car was stock?

Reiver

No cat...SSI heat/exhaust exchangers, free flow exhaust muffler