Notices
911 Forum 1964-1989
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Intercity Lines, LLC

1979 SC w/3.6 or 3.3T? (964)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-04-2014, 11:21 AM
  #1  
blockhed
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
blockhed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,514
Received 175 Likes on 109 Posts
Default 1979 SC w/3.6 or 3.3T? (964)

So I recently picked up a 1979 SC, car is stripped with cage, 55k miles. I'm looking to make it a weekend warrior, neighbor annoyer, seldom track toy.
I have been pondering 3.2 swap but then I stumbled upon a 3.6NA engine and a 3.3 turbo engine. Am I crazy to slap the 3.3T engine into the car?
I'm looking for opinions honest, brutal and etc don't be shy.
No the budget is not unlimited.
Old 01-04-2014, 11:53 AM
  #2  
redridge
Nordschleife Master
 
redridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,446
Received 62 Likes on 49 Posts
Default

what to you plan on doing? street, DE, AX? the 3.6 would be my choice. Linear power will give you a better feel of learning how to drive the 79 with 90's power.
Old 01-04-2014, 01:59 PM
  #3  
race911
Rennlist Member
 
race911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Roseville, CA
Posts: 12,311
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

No. But in 2014 I'd do the 3.6L every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Go drive a 930, and it will become plainly obvious. Only slightly gets better when mated to a 915 5-speed box.

Biggest consideration is what you think either of these jobs is going really end up costing you by the time it's reliably and competently done.

(Did too many of these conversions in the '80s and '90s, doubt any of the turbo guys were ultimately happy until you started wholly modifying the turbo engine.)
Old 01-04-2014, 03:38 PM
  #4  
blockhed
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
blockhed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,514
Received 175 Likes on 109 Posts
Default

Redridge the car will be for DE/Weekends/Daily use. I'm not setting it up for class racing but I want to set it up so it's the most fun I can have in my personal use. learning to drive a 70's car with 90's power I don't see a problem since I have been lucky enough to have driven anything from early Ferraris to current day "exotics."
Ken I do like the 3.6 NA simply because it's NA and with EFI conversion I think it could come close to 300 rwhp. The 3.3 would also become EFI with modern day turbo so the 80's lag would not be present. Biggest thing is will the extra few grand for the 3.3 conversion be worth it over the 3.6NA.
At the end of the day the car will be completely stripped with some lexan pieces so I see it at around 2000lbs.

Ps. I am a turbo addict
Old 01-04-2014, 04:01 PM
  #5  
Texas RS
Rennlist Member
 
Texas RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 1,191
Received 13 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

IMO...keep it light and keep it air cooled.
Old 01-04-2014, 04:23 PM
  #6  
Jay Gratton
Addict
Rennlist Member


Rennlist
Site Sponsor
 
Jay Gratton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 6,567
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

3.6 all day long! If you want to drive the car go with the 3.6, if you want to tinker with it put the 3.3T in it.
Old 01-04-2014, 04:36 PM
  #7  
tlarocque
Three Wheelin'
 
tlarocque's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cardiff-by-the Sea, CA
Posts: 1,730
Received 70 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

3.6, no brainer
Old 01-05-2014, 01:31 AM
  #8  
oMenRC51
Banned
 
oMenRC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,281
Received 56 Likes on 31 Posts
Default

3.6!
Old 01-05-2014, 01:15 PM
  #9  
Amber Gramps
Addict
 
Amber Gramps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Alta Loma Alone
Posts: 37,770
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Do the 3.6L. The turbo is a dog even with the "modern" turbo. It isn't going to have the neck snap of a N/A engine.
Old 01-05-2014, 02:20 PM
  #10  
wildcat077
Drifting
 
wildcat077's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal,Canada
Posts: 3,427
Received 196 Likes on 168 Posts
Default

You have the choice between a somewhat plug and play reliable hydraulic lifter 3.6 or a 3.3 tappet valve hand grenade ... i'm very pleased with the 95 3.6 i installed in my 2650 lb 89 !

Cheers
Phil
Old 01-05-2014, 03:20 PM
  #11  
blockhed
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
blockhed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,514
Received 175 Likes on 109 Posts
Default

Sounds like 3.6 it is
Old 01-05-2014, 03:33 PM
  #12  
Amber Gramps
Addict
 
Amber Gramps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Alta Loma Alone
Posts: 37,770
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by blockhed
Sounds like 3.6 it is
Even God went with the 3,6
Old 01-05-2014, 05:36 PM
  #13  
pu911rsr
Drifting
 
pu911rsr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 3,042
Received 53 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

I'm not sure I'd call a well set up 3.3 turbo in a 2000 lb car a dog. I had a well done 930 and car was a rocket. The 3.6 will be much more reliable and durable. The induction systems on all these motors limits the response to some extent. Enjoy sounds like a fun project. I just picked up a 79 wide body SC with a carbed 3.3 NA motor, should be fun. I'll report back once I have driven it.
Phil
Old 01-05-2014, 06:04 PM
  #14  
Amber Gramps
Addict
 
Amber Gramps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Alta Loma Alone
Posts: 37,770
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by pu911rsr
I'm not sure I'd call a well set up 3.3 turbo in a 2000 lb car a dog. I had a well done 930 and car was a rocket. The 3.6 will be much more reliable and durable. The induction systems on all these motors limits the response to some extent. Enjoy sounds like a fun project. I just picked up a 79 wide body SC with a carbed 3.3 NA motor, should be fun. I'll report back once I have driven it.
Phil
Phil, you know that was hyperbole and didn't influence his decision in the least. I've just been in several turbos that did not impress. They are great for going fast, momentum racing, getting laid, and such. If you want a car that is a kick in the canyons ya gotta go NA. If he's ever going to do parking lot AX he is going to seriously regret a rear engine turbo.
Old 01-05-2014, 07:28 PM
  #15  
JackOlsen
Race Car
 
JackOlsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,920
Received 62 Likes on 48 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by amber lamps
Even God went with the 3,6
So did I.

But really, it depends on what you want from the car.

You can go crazy on the turbo path and end up with something that's like riding a jet fighter with no wings. This might be exactly what you're looking for. There's no substitute for the thrill of pure acceleration. And it's safe to say that the sound and the smell of shredding tires will be very effective at annoying the neighbors.

The 3.6 is less extreme and more precise. It's also much more cost-effective than a turbo addiction. My car will not snap anyone's neck back, but I've had a couple of passengers lose their lunch -- it's pretty quick around a track. There are a bunch of different reasons for why my particular car works -- the linear power delivery of a 3.6 is one of them.

But if the thing you want is to have your passenger scream when the boost kicks in, then definitely go with the boost.

Mine scream in the corners.



Quick Reply: 1979 SC w/3.6 or 3.3T? (964)



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 07:38 PM.