Compression ratio was different and my guess would be some type of smog stuff sucking hp. Also could be just a simple chip change.

From the factory weight stats above? How does an 86' get that extra 50 kg's? The G-50 was heavier and nothing else changed, did it? Just wondering

 

Yes, that is probably wrong. The '86 had differences from the '84 & '85, like revised interior, but the same driveline. The '87-'89 had the same trim (essentially) as the '86, but they also had the G-50 and hydraulic clutch, which is heavier than the 915 set up. The '86 should weigh less than an '87-'89, but perhpas a little more than '84 & '85 models.

Also, did the RoW cars have different pistons? Why is the compression ratio different from U.S. models?

 

I don't know all details, but according to Peter Morgans Original 911 and Paul Freres 911 History, the RoW engine coded 930/20 is tuned for higher graded fuel than the US version and have a higher compression ratio: 10:3:1, and for US engines (930/21) the compression is: 9:5:1. Exactly what components that differ to acomplish that, I don't know, but for sure there are differences. I do know that the RoW does not have a catalyzator which make a significant difference.

The weights I posted are Porsches figures for STANDARD models, picked from the data section in Peter Morgans Original 911. I'm not sure, but I think stuff like electrical chairs was standard in the US cars and not on RoW models. They weigh a lot. Don't think AC was standard in RoW cars either. Also US bumpers which are supposed to be a little heavier.

About the 86's extra 50 kg, I have also wondered. Maybe some extra equipment was standard that specific year ... it may be a misprint, I don't know. BTW. the G50 didn't arrive until the 87 model, which also makes it a bit peculilar.

Acceleration times off course differ widely depending on the drivers skill and will to abuse the car. But somebody asked if Porsche possibly could have rated their engine power output a little low, so my point was that if Porsche traditionally have erred on the conservative side for performance, I find it likely they have done the same with power output.

Cheers

Christian

1984 Carrera

 

I have only seen the tests gathered in the Brookland Book Collection. In the premiere Car & Driver test from 1984, they clocked it for 5.5 seconds in 0-60, not 5.3 like Auto, Motor und Sport with the RoW model. There can of course be other tests which are not in the collection, but I would imagine they gather the tests with the best results. Most U.S model tests in the Brookland collection I have are in the span 5.7-5.9 for 0-60, while the RoW models generally are in 5.7-5.9 for 0-100 km/h, which is 62.5 mph. Acceleration in higher speed seems to vary more between US and RoW models. So I wouldn't say that tests doesn't indicate a difference in performance. You can also ask some of your american collegues who are involved in club racing in the US. If I'm not ill informed, RoW 3.2 Carreras usually are put in the same class as US 964 Carreras, and RoW SC:s compete with US 3.2 Carreras.

cheers

Christian

 

It's a simple as this, ROW cars have no cat, different programing for the higher compression and better fuel available. The high compression is acheived with different shaped pistons, and instead of a cat, they get what's called pre-mufflers so the cars not too loud but still catless. So basically, better fuel, higher compression, and no exahaust restriction (essentially) equals more power.

 

Thanks for that 1FastRedSC, however I don't think the fuel is any higher quality in Europe, but I could be wrong.

If you're basing your position on the higher octane numbers for European fuel, it is because they use a different method to calculate the octane rating. I've posted on this before, so I won't get into the details, but an octane rating of 91 here is equal to 95 in Europe.

-Sean

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica"> In the premiere Car & Driver test from 1984, they clocked it for 5.5 seconds in 0-60, not 5.3 like Auto, Motor und Sport with the RoW model. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">That's wrong. I'm looking at the Brookland book and Car & Driver clocked 5.3 for the 0-60 time in the Feb 1984 test. The picture also shows that the test car is very clearly a U.S. spec model, with the turn signal repeaters in the front bumper.

 

I have a few friends with the 3.2 that have been on a dyno... an 1989 911 got 222 hp at the rear wheels.An 1987 911 got 219 and an 1985 911 got 212.All these 911's are running chips and exhaust mods.The actual break down on what each car has can be found at <a href="http://www.hcrpca.org" target="_blank">www.hcrpca.org</a> under photos/Dyno Day.

 

Thanks for that dyno page, that was actually very helpful. But it raises another one of my questions that I keep meaning to ask: What exactly does the MAF mod do & how much power does it add [especially on a non turbo car]?

I'm assuming the stock system uses some mechanical means of calculating air flow?

 

From the results on the dyno page, it looks like there's not too much you can do to increase the hp of a normally aspirated motor, at least not dramatically (or cost-effectively).

The turbos on the other hand...you add the MAF, chips, exhaust, etc. and you have a whole new car!

 

Don't think that the quality differs between US and European fuel, but leaded 93 RON was available throughout Europe until the 90's. Hence the RoW engine was tuned for higher octane fuel than the US version. According to Peter Morgans Original 911, the RoW is tuned for 93 RON (98 in Europe) and the US for 91 RON lead free (95 lead free in Europe).

And yes, I was wrong about the C&D test, I actually double checked it last night and it was 5.3 seconds for 0-60 (the artclw with the nun standing next to the car). A very good result. They couldn't match it a few years later even with a Carrera CS. It was the same with the Auto Motor und Sport test, in later tests they couldn't match the figures achieved in 1984.

cheers

Christian

1984 Carrera

 

Wait a second, does Europe use RON? We use an average of RON and MON in the U.S. so the resulting pump octane number is less than RON. I always thought Europe used RON, which is a higher number.

The U.S. is tuned for a minimum of 91 RON+MON/2, not 91 RON (or so it says in the filler cap and owner's manual of my 1988). 91 RON is 87 here in the U.S., too low for use in the 3.2. My VW Golf said to use 91 RON, which is low grade 87 here. Basically, I think gas is the same, just different methods of calculating the octane number.

Yeah, I found it interesting that they couldn't match the 5.3 time again, even on the CS -- in fact, the U.S. magazines only got an average of 5.7 for the 964's. There are so many factors that go into it though: driver, outside temperature, altitude, wind, state of tune, tires, fuel, etc. A few tenths of a second is really insignificant.

-Sean

 

The higher output motors had higher compression pistons, a different chip and I *think* a "premuffler" instead of a cat. Not all ROW cars had high compression motors. For example, I think the Swiss and Japanese market motors were similar to US cars.
-Chris

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by sschmerg:
<strong>Gerry, I completely agree that 0-60 times are very much dependent on driver, conditions, etc. I don't even want to get into the BS times those mags publish.

What I would like to know is what the differences are between a RoW 3.2 and a U.S. 3.2. That's it. What is different, if anything, in the motor that makes them rate it at 15-25 more hp depending on the year? Does anybody really know? Is there actually a difference?!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">

 

Really roughly, a chip and SSI's might get you 15-20hp. The chip should be one designed for your SSI setup not a generic "horsepower chip". I wouldn't bother changing 3.2 heads as they flow so well in stock form. (I've read they flow enough for 300 hp.) Having done these sorts of things and more, the money is probably better spent on track days.
-Chris

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Fahrvergnuugen:
<strong>What is the stock power rating of the 3.2 Liter from '86?
I found numbers for the 3.0 in the FAQ [180hp / 240 trq] but nothing for the 3.2. [NA, not turbo]

How much hp / trq would you guess the following mods would add:
Heads Ported & Polished / Flowed
Chiped ECU [I'm in the dark about Chips for these cars...I'm assuming its just a fuel chip?]
"Turbo Evo" Cams [I haven't been able to determin the duration of this cam, but it has a really lumpy idle <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ]
Bursch Exhaust
SSI Heater box
Removed AC & Heating duct work & blower [I included this, but I don't know if it makes a difference in power]</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">

 

Sean

Hrmmph. My mistake again. I knew that, according to my manua,l my car is tuned for 98 octane, wasn't aware if that was RON, MON etc... Not having my manual at hand, I drew the conslusion that Morgan qouted US fuel and that RON must be the US system since I knew the US-system showed a lower number compared to the same type of fuel here in Europe. After a double check in my manual, it is 98 R O N leaded fuel for my car, so yes, RON is the system used here, in Sweden at least. Anyway, it seems like the US and RoW engines are indeed tuned for different fuel, even if the the numbers in Morgans book doesn't make sense to any of us.

cheers

Christian

84 Carrera