Performance Question: SC vs 3.2
10-21-2014, 10:08 PM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: San Marcos, CA
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance Question: SC vs 3.2
A question that I'm sure has been hashed out here before.
In the real world (not on paper), is there a measurable difference in feel and performance between the SC and 3.2? I realize that it would be more of realistic comparison between a pre G50 trans 3.2 vs SC.
I've driven lots of 993's, a few 964's (it's been a while) and all of the 996 versions (except the GT2), but never the two named above. I know I need to drive them myself and decide what I like, but how do you guys compare these vehicles in real world performance? Are you ever wanting "more umph"? Just curious.
In the real world (not on paper), is there a measurable difference in feel and performance between the SC and 3.2? I realize that it would be more of realistic comparison between a pre G50 trans 3.2 vs SC.
I've driven lots of 993's, a few 964's (it's been a while) and all of the 996 versions (except the GT2), but never the two named above. I know I need to drive them myself and decide what I like, but how do you guys compare these vehicles in real world performance? Are you ever wanting "more umph"? Just curious.
10-21-2014, 10:22 PM
#2
Rennlist Member
1. Every wants more power. Nobody really needs it.
2. The 3.2L cars accelerate differently. I'll leave it to those who actually own them now to comment further. What I can say is the 3.4L Ed built for Ruby took out that off idle-to-midrange hole. But that's more drivability.
3. On the street, it matters about zero. People can get all weird about gearing, torque bands, tire OD, etc etc etc. Simplest way I can describe it is back when these cars populated the time trial scene in the pretty unmodified classes the 3.2L cars were 1-1.5 sec/lap quicker at Thunderhill. And we had a fair number of guys competing, so the data was valid.
2. The 3.2L cars accelerate differently. I'll leave it to those who actually own them now to comment further. What I can say is the 3.4L Ed built for Ruby took out that off idle-to-midrange hole. But that's more drivability.
3. On the street, it matters about zero. People can get all weird about gearing, torque bands, tire OD, etc etc etc. Simplest way I can describe it is back when these cars populated the time trial scene in the pretty unmodified classes the 3.2L cars were 1-1.5 sec/lap quicker at Thunderhill. And we had a fair number of guys competing, so the data was valid.
10-27-2014, 05:43 PM
#3
I have both 3.0 and 3.2 and on the street, they are virtually the same. THe SC is a bit lighter and revs a bit more at the top end, and the 3.2 has a bit more mid-range torque.
Both good cars. Not much to choose between them
Both good cars. Not much to choose between them
10-28-2014, 11:52 AM
#4
Rennlist Member
I've owned a SC (1979) and a two G50 Carreras. The SC actually felt a bit quicker to me, most likely due to less weight and better street gearing. EPA fuel economy regs dictated taller gearing on the later cars at the expense of quick acceleration which made them feel "lazy" in comparison.
I've never driven a 915 Carrera but I would guess that they are a bit quicker than the G50 cars as well for the same reasons. But the G50 Transmission shifts much better than the 915 and is more robust.
If I were to buy another '80's 911, it would most likely be a 1984-86 Carrera. IMO it has the better engine (DME>CIS), better gearing than the G50 cars and the shifting issues are easily correctable.
I've never driven a 915 Carrera but I would guess that they are a bit quicker than the G50 cars as well for the same reasons. But the G50 Transmission shifts much better than the 915 and is more robust.
If I were to buy another '80's 911, it would most likely be a 1984-86 Carrera. IMO it has the better engine (DME>CIS), better gearing than the G50 cars and the shifting issues are easily correctable.
10-28-2014, 12:19 PM
#5
Team Owner
well i have an SC and my buddy has a 3.2 ... When we pull on to the highway there is no question about the power. I just cant stay with him and its not even close.. I have a gopro now so il catch some vid when i can just so you guys can see,,
He does have a track car with a S/W chip
On the bright side i do pull ahead of my other buddy who has a fresh rebuild on a 2.7. so its all relative.
He does have a track car with a S/W chip
On the bright side i do pull ahead of my other buddy who has a fresh rebuild on a 2.7. so its all relative.
10-28-2014, 03:50 PM
#6
Just FYI, a D Stock (SC) vs E Stock (3.2) full race cars, the 3.2 with a chip is about 1 sec per mile faster.
The 3.2 has about 30HP advantage vs about 60 lbs of weight. Huge on the track, but on the street, I would consider the cars equal.
Generally speaking, a 915 3.2 will command a $2K or so premium, and the G50, another $2k or so. For cars in comparable condition, the SC represents a nice value, if there is such a thing anymore.
The 3.2 has about 30HP advantage vs about 60 lbs of weight. Huge on the track, but on the street, I would consider the cars equal.
Generally speaking, a 915 3.2 will command a $2K or so premium, and the G50, another $2k or so. For cars in comparable condition, the SC represents a nice value, if there is such a thing anymore.
10-30-2014, 06:27 AM
#7
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Real world performance has a lot to do with how/where you drive. You might rather have the lighter, slower car, if you care more about handling.
But if you're looking to buy one, obviously you should drive both and see for yourself. But in the end, just grab the nicest 911 you can.
But if you're looking to buy one, obviously you should drive both and see for yourself. But in the end, just grab the nicest 911 you can.