alpine003

Just how much tq do you really need to get a ~3k lb car off the line?

Amille28

I appreciate the responses. As far as the .2 displacement, I understand the car will be a little bit slower. I don't think I will notice much difference between a fresher 3.2 vs my old and tired 3.4 with 153k mi. Engines, like people, lose performance as they get older. I'm sure if I took the car on a dyno today it would not be close to stock.

This car is a daily driver. I enjoy it as such. Plus it gives me a second block to possibly send to LN for the 3.6 upgrade later down the road.
I compared curb weights between the 01 boxster S and 01 911 C2. The difference in weight is about 135 lbs. I don't think I will have any noticable difference in clutch wear.

Quadcammer

you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

Kalashnikov

Clutch wear is 100% dependent on the pattern of use, vehicle power, and vehicle weight. If you know how to properly drive a manual transmission, your clutch will last you a lifetime. To even suggest that going from 296hp to 250hp would cause premature clutch wear is ridiculous. If anything, his clutch will last longer as it has to handle LESS power coming from the engine.

Based on your "theory" every Honda or Toyota with manual transmission that has 1/2 of the HP and 1/2 of the displacement of boxster should go through clutches every 5k miles? LOL.

Macster

How much cheaper is the 3.2 vs. the 3.4 (or even a 3.6) engine?

How much work is it to adapt the 3.2l engine to the car or vice versa compared to a 3.4l or even a 3.6l engine?

I do not know the answers to these questions but you need to know the answers.

If the 3.2l engine is a drop in and go swap I guess it makes some sense to use the 3.2l engine but you have to be sure it is a drop in swap. I can't helkp you with this. You'll have to find someone who has done this and has the answers or you'll have to break new ground. Hard to believe you would be the first to go this route, but you might be. Most (all?) others go the like for for like (3.4l for a 3.4l) or go for the gold and install a 3.6l in place of the 3.4l engine.

Do your research. You can spend a lot of time (and money) putting a square peg in a round hole (engine swap-wise) and easily burn more money than you would have had you just opted for a 3.4l engine in the first place. And end up with something less than the sum of its parts.

I can't speak with any real experience to the HP diffs.

Just thinking out loud, it is possible there can be driveability issues. While 200cc's diff and the lower torque output of the 3.2l vs. the 3.4l may not seem like much, your car's transmission is likely geared to take advantage of the higher torque output of the 3.4l engine. (If you find the 6-speed for the 3.2l engine is geared the same as the 6-speed for the 3.4l car then never mind.)

I recall how the 5-speed in the 2.5l Boxster had some different gears ratios compared to the gear ratios in the 5-speed in the 2.7l Boxster. The 2.5l gear box ratios were IIRC a bit closer to make up for the lower torque output of the 2.5l engine and the 2.7l gear box ratios were a bit further apart to take advantage of the higher torque output of 2.7l engine.

It is rumored but backed by some number of posts that the clutch life in the 2.5l Boxster was affected by the engine's lack of torque. More clutch slippage was needed to get the car moving. But the short time --- I hope it is a short time -- that you have the 3.2l engine the car the clutch should not suffer any (if at all) beyond what it would have experienced with the 3.4l engine. Also, when you drop the 3.2l and install the rebuilt 3.4l you can certainly examine the clutch and make the call.

But the 3.2l engine gets you back on the road in your 911 -- provided, always provided the 3.2l "drops" in with an acceptable amount of work -- while the original engine is out getting a rebuild. Provided the car is still driveable with the 3.2l engine (and I suspect it will be) I think you'll be ok. But no guarantees. Hopefully your research will turn up no real driveability issues or issues related to the installation and that's that.

Byprodriver

[QUOTE=Byprodriver;10846845]Amille any 2000-2002 3.2 will do what you want with the most noticable drawback being the loss of 33 ft/lbs of torque. That will be quite annoying & may cause clutch wear to increase.

Guys, often times ALL the words are important!

Byprodriver

I guess my 3 year stint (2000-2003) as the official test driver for PCNA western region press fleet vehicles didn't help either.

mcbit

[QUOTE=Byprodriver;10852220]Why should it?

chsu74

What does that mean?

alpine003

That means he may be a good driver but not so sure on the mechanics side.

chsu74

I thought press fleet cars are for the press. Maybe they need valet service in between appointments?

Imo000

Means that he stayed at the Holiday Inn Express!

Quadcammer

don't care. You are not displaying sound reasoning.

The amount of torque required to get a car off the line is so small (especially on flat ground) that is almost not worth talking about. Considering you can get a car moving easily without any throttle whatsoever at idle, the tiny bit of throttle/torque required to get the car moving with only the slightest clutch slip is well, well, well below what either a 3.4 or 3.2 produce at take off rpm. And if it were such a concern, which it isn't, an extra 100-200rpm would easily solve the problem anyway.

mcbit

Takes a bit more if you leave the handbrake on though.

Macster

Getting the car moving without any throttle is I think an artifact of the e-Gas system and the desire to maintain a specific idle speed even with some load present.

In the 3.4l 996's with the older idle air control valve system and manual throttle control I'm not so sure this getting the car moving with no throttle is realistic.

Now I admit I have never driven an older 996 and do not know how the car would behave moving off with no throttle just extra smooth/slow clutch engagement. It could it would be just fine.