dcdude

There was a lot of oohing and aahing over a '94 recently. Are these much different? This one seems nice....

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/car/647970646.html

1992 Porsche 911 Turbo 3.3L--- All Stock Midnight Blue - $43500 (LAX area)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: sale-647970646@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-04-19, 12:52AM PDT


1992 Porsche 911 Turbo 3.3L in excellent condition. Original 45K miles!!
All stock turbo with no modifications. Beautiful Midnight Blue exterior and RARE factory installed white interior (white leather upholsery and leather seats). Maintenance records available to perspective buyers for review. Brand new P-zero tires and custom wheels. SERIOUS INQUIRIES ONLY PLEASE.

OBO. Local/cash transaction only. Email for more info.




This item has been posted by-owner.
Location: LAX area
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

PostingID: 647970646


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Copyright © 2008 craigslist, inc. terms of use privacy policy

allill

That is one nice car!

WHB Porsche

The '94 is a 3.6 rather than 3.3 and I believe is more rare or "collectible." Could be wrong about the second part, though.

midnite993

You are correct. The '91-93 Turbos use the same 3.3 CIS engine as the '89 and older 930 and aren't as rare or special.

1pcarnut

Had a 91 and really liked it. Yes they are basically the same motor as the 930 but with some nice updates including brakes and transmission. I would love to have another. Mine had a K27 turbo, Tial waste gate, 1 bar spring, and GHL headers and as a result had almost no lag. Probably the most fun Pcar I've ever owned. Best estimate I had from several people in the know was around 380 horsepower. The 3.6 motors are more subject to valve guide wear than the 3.3s so that could actually be a plus in my mind.

TRINITONY

oh my ..somebody buy this!

cobalt

The 91-92 3.3 was essentially the same as the 89 930 with a G50 5 speed put into a 964 widebody, it came with a 20/100 lsd and had 320 hp stock with the upgrade you mention you were probably looking at 360 hp 380 is pushing it but possible depending on several factors. They came stock with a K27 but th HF is a good upgrade since the stock k27 ran out of wind at 5500 rpms. They had improved braking over the 930's using the medium S4 brakes (Same pad and piston size different casting as a N/A 993) using 322 x32mm rotors vs the 298 x 24 IIRC of the 993.

The 94 was the last of the single turbo RWD Porsche's only 411 were imported into the US vs just under a 1000 of the 91-92's. Although all the IMSA race cars came from these 411 so nobody knows how many actually made it to the US. The 94 was upgraded to a 3.6 liter still single plug engine. It had no valve guide issues, not sure where this rumor started. Factory rated at 360 hp and is as fast as a stock 993TT without mods due to less weight and drive train loss of the AWD system. It was the second Porsche to receive the Big brakes used on the 993TT known as the big reds. The first was the 928GTS which had them painted black but basically the same caliper despite trailing mount vs leading. The 94 was also the first production Porsche to come with 18" wheels and the only Porsche to come with 3 piece modular wheels commonly known as SPEEDLINE FOR PORSCHE wheels. It used the same case as used on the 993TT, 996TT, GT3, GT2 motors with the 996's using water cooled heads. Low end torque was dramatically improved over the 3.3l making it much more driveable everyday and far less turbo lag over the 3.3l which was still apparent even on the 94 turbo compared to the 993TT.

IMO one of the most exciting street cars Porsche ever made. Either the 3.3l or 3.6 liter can easily be modified to put down to the ground what they left the factory at the crank with, with only simple bolt on mods ( some of which were mentioned above)

The reason for the escalating value of these cars is the small quantity made along with at least 50 I know of now gone to the scrap yard and numerous cars leaving the country due to the condition of the dollar. Low mileage 94's have sold for as much as $98k in recent months. Clean original cars are becoming harder to find all the time.

1pcarnut

Anthony, just curious, did the 3.6 turbos use different guide material than the na 3.6s since valve wear is more pronounced on them.

The turbo in the op has been around before. I recall seeing it for sale when I was looking for mine about 3 years ago. Can't recall why I didn't pursue it and it may be a terrific car but follow due diligence if looking at it.

vjd3

I had an 87 930 with a few simple mods (intercooler, exhaust, boost controller) and it was about as much fun as you can have with your pants on. I would be sorely tempted.

cobalt

The 3.3l did use the old 930 valve guide vs all the 3.6 liter engines. Both N/A and turbo 3.6 used the same valve guides, all three engines used the same intake valves and all three engines used different exhaust valves.

I am not aware of any 964 engine having valve guide issues before and I know of a number that have very high miles without any issues. If the turbo had issues I must assume it would be common to all 964's except the 3.3L. Where are you getting this info? The engines were more prone to oil leaks than anything both of mine are spot free with near perfect (1%) leak down and perfect compression.

BTW I like the Carrera stripe on your car.

1pcarnut

Certainly not making myself out to be a 3.6 expert by any means. From personal experience with several 3.6s, watching other threads on oil consumption and resulting rebuilds, discussions with fellow owners, and subscribing to the PCA Tech site with Joel Reiser as chair, it has been fairly well covered that as the displacement of the air cooled motors grew, so did issues with guide wear. According to Joel, a high percentage of the 3.6 he sees in his shop are exhibiting sypmtoms of wear by 50K miles and very likely in need of new inserts by 80-90k mi.

Granted there are always exceptions but the consensus is that the guide material on the 3.6s was soft and the cure is aftermarket guides of more durable material. It was speculated that the better valve guide seals were doing such a good job of keeping oil out of the guides that this was contributing to the problem.

Thanks for the comment on the stripe, just put that on, next comes the RS duck tail.

cobalt

Well I'll have to take your word on it. I have owned just the 93 C2 and the 94 turbo and neither consume oil or have anything less than a 1% leakdown, compression being in the 170-175 range. The C2 has 51k miles the 3.6T has 36+k and I never need to add oil between oil changes even after extensively tracking the C2 over 3k miles track time last year alone. I have numerous friends that have these cars and have been around the forums for years. None of which had any issues below 100k miles. I do know about the earlier engines pre 91 having issues due to engine design but not the 92 on up and definitely not the turbo. I have never seen any mention of it on the 964 turbo forum, which I find quite odd if there were issues. The shop I deal with works on a large quantity of these cars and they are not seeing anything unless it was a poorly treated car, again not on the turbos and they have worked on numerous 94 turbos.

I think you may find many of these cars were poorly treated and this might be what their seeing. If you have a well broken in 964 it should run for quite some time with little issue. Each model has its inherent problems with maybe the SC being the most bulletproof of them all. Although unlike the 993 with it's hydraulic lifters that usually need replacing at 60K miles the 964 requires more frequent valve adjustments and neglecting to do so may be what is the cause of the issue you mention.

I would be interested in reading more of this info if you have anything I can reference about the valve guides. I don't think it is a major concern and I can assure you that I have followed the 94 turbo more closely than most anyone on these forums, digging up all sorts of information. I am surprised Adrian Streather made no mention of this in his companion guide since he had delved into these cars quite extensively and noted just about every common issue imaginable regarding them.

vjd3

Just an aside ... doesn't the Turbo typically have lower compression than the NA, somewhere around 130 or so?

cobalt

The compression number was for the C2. Sorry didn't clarify that. I don't have any current compression numbers on the turbo, need to look them up since they were done in 2003 about 10k miles ago but they were consistent across the cylinders. I spoke to other 964 turbo owners since I posted and this is the first they have heard of this other than poorly treated cars. I am sure if Porsche had issues they would have issued a TSB and updated the guides for these engines.

Although I am interested in any additional info you might have.

vjd3

I remember that from my 87 930, which had a nice healthy engine but lower compression across the board.

My understanding on any later aircooled 911 engine is the stock valve guides are more prone to wear, beginning with the 3.2 Carrera. The 3.3 turbo motor might have been different, since it pre-dated the 3.2 Carrera ... but I would assume the 3.6 would have had the newer guides and Viton seals.

The important thing to remember is it is more likely that the exhaust guides wear more quickly and that there are many, many examples of 3.2 and 3.6 normally aspirated motors that have gone on for more than 100k miles without requiring attention, while others begin drinking oil at a lower mileage.

In short, the 3.2 Carrera, 964, 993 (and perhaps the Turbos as well) may wear out their guides quicker than they would with the harder phosphorous bronze ones, but that doesn't mean *your* motor will have a problem, as long as the oil consumption is good and it runs well.

As a point of reference, my 3.6 993's guides were very worn at 60k miles. And, it's also important to note that the factory never considered it a "problem" -- mostly due to its own guideline that using a quart of oil every 600 miles or so is perfectly okay -- an amount that most owners would balk at. My 3.6, with fresh valve guides, uses no oil at all as far as I can tell. But my previous 993's wanted as much as a quart per 1000 miles, but still had great leakdown and ran perfectly.