3.4l 996 intake manifold on 3.2S motor

[j.fro]

Very interesting! Does anyone have power numbers or Dyno charts showing gains from using the 996 manifold on the 3.2? I'm really interested to see just how much power could be made with our 3.2. Given that the 2.0 in the 1967 911R & 904 made 220, why can't we get 350 from the 986 S motor?

[jaykay]

Originally Posted by j.fro

Very interesting! Does anyone have power numbers or Dyno charts showing gains from using the 996 manifold on the 3.2? I'm really interested to see just how much power could be made with our 3.2. Given that the 2.0 in the 1967 911R & 904 made 220, why can't we get 350 from the 986 S motor?

My guess is the 3.2 heads won't flow enough to get it.....so intake, exhaust and significant head work are required. Porting, camshafts, valves / springs, cam timing. This restriction was of course put in place by design. I believe one can approach 300 with bolt ons but I have not heard of any being able to break through

Woody posted some surprisingly good dyno results from bolt ons and ECU tunning. I would link it if I could find it.

If we get into the heads and start doing it, how is the 3.2's propensity for head cracking mitigated? One could asks this for a total engine build as well.

I feel your frustration ......I remember track days where I just couldn't shake old 993 on my tail...

[BYprodriver]

Originally Posted by jaykay

My guess is the 3.2 heads won't flow enough to get it.....so intake, exhaust and significant head work are required. Porting, camshafts, valves / springs, cam timing. This restriction was of course put in place by design. I believe one can approach 300 with bolt ons but I have not heard of any being able to break through

Woody posted some surprisingly good dyno results from bolt ons and ECU tunning. I would link it if I could find it.

If we get into the heads and start doing it, how is the 3.2's propensity for head cracking mitigated? One could asks this for a total engine build as well.

I feel your frustration ......I remember track days where I just couldn't shake old 993 on my tail...

These heads do,

[jaykay]

Originally Posted by BYprodriver

These heads do,

Nice...good flow and no cracking? Details? Fitment on which engines?

[BYprodriver]

Originally Posted by jaykay

Nice...good flow and no cracking? Details? Fitment on which engines?

Just a good valve job & new springs with light port cleanup & crack prevention welding from Costa Mesa R&D. 99mm cylinder bore helps to increase airflow too!

[j.fro]

Originally Posted by BYprodriver

These heads do,

Indeed. Care to share specs? Bigger valves? where in the heads was the porting done, and how much larger are the runners now?

I've got the 74mm TB & a splitter in the intake (Pedros Garage). the rest of my intake is 3.2, but I know the TB made a difference. I wonder what an 82mm TB (GT3) would do. I've put this out there before, but my car made 244RWHP with all of the bolt-ons.

[Racer Boy]

Originally Posted by j.fro

Very interesting! Does anyone have power numbers or Dyno charts showing gains from using the 996 manifold on the 3.2? I'm really interested to see just how much power could be made with our 3.2. Given that the 2.0 in the 1967 911R & 904 made 220, why can't we get 350 from the 986 S motor?

Back in 1967 the HP numbers were gross, not net. The difference is that they could measure the output with no accessories attached, open exhaust, no air cleaners, etc, in whatever temperature and conditions the maker wanted. Now the numbers are far more accurate, because the conditions of the measurement are standardized, and all the accessories are attached and functional.

Your 220 HP in 1967 would probably measure under 200 HP using the SAE net ratings.

You can read up about it here - https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/

[itsnotanova]

Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty positive the difference between the 3.2 and 3.4 are the case and pistons when it comes to the long block. The heads are mostly the same but the 3.2 has slightly less compression. The only real difference between the two is the intake, tune and exhaust systems. I didn't feel much of a difference when I went from a 3.4, to a 3.2 with the 996 intake, fuel, and custom exhaust made with the same diameter tubing as a 996.
The seals inside the valve adjusters were going bad in my 3.4. I put the 3.2 in while i fixed the 3.4. I almost considered leaving the 3.2 in but I had lots of $$$ invested in the 3.4, so I reinstalled the 3.4. My box made 279hp at the wheels with the 3.4 and my friend mad 249hp at the wheels with his 3.2. Here's the thread http://986forum.com/forums/performance-technical-chat/71568-two-modified-boxsters-dyno-2.html I contribute the difference in power between us to the length of the intake runners, mileage, tune and maybe the exhaust. I have a customer who owns a shop in Dallas. He claims to have made 300hp at the wheels with a 3.2. I tend to believe him as he works on some amazing vehicles and worked for Ruf at one time.

[BYprodriver]

Originally Posted by itsnotanova

Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty positive the difference between the 3.2 and 3.4 are the case and pistons when it comes to the long block. The heads are mostly the same but the 3.2 has slightly less compression. The only real difference between the two is the intake, tune and exhaust systems. I didn't feel much of a difference when I went from a 3.4, to a 3.2 with the 996 intake, fuel, and custom exhaust made with the same diameter tubing as a 996.
The seals inside the valve adjusters were going bad in my 3.4. I put the 3.2 in while i fixed the 3.4. I almost considered leaving the 3.2 in but I had lots of $$$ invested in the 3.4, so I reinstalled the 3.4. My box made 279hp at the wheels with the 3.4 and my friend mad 249hp at the wheels with his 3.2. Here's the thread http://986forum.com/forums/performance-technical-chat/71568-two-modified-boxsters-dyno-2.html I contribute the difference in power between us to the length of the intake runners, mileage, tune and maybe the exhaust. I have a customer who owns a shop in Dallas. He claims to have made 300hp at the wheels with a 3.2. I tend to believe him as he works on some amazing vehicles and worked for Ruf at one time.

3.4 & 3.2 have the same case Casting, 3.4 has bigger bore & pistons. Heads are the same except different bolt hole placement, cams are the same, crankshafts are the same but the bigger bore gives the higher compression ratio. This is why the best way to boost torque & HP in a 3.2L is to increase bore size.