SC or 3.2

[_Tony]

If you could choose, would a 3.2 be a better option? 

[tazzieman]

Depends....

 

SCs are nippier

[OZ930]

3.2....bullet proof !

[wasserkuhl]

I'd have to say a 3.2 due to the more modern induction system.

 

Nothing wrong with SC's though.

[J.J.]

Depends....

 

SCs are nippier

 

SC's are slower than 3.2's, so by nippier what do you mean?

[tazzieman]

I'd have to say a 3.2 due to the more modern induction system.

 

Nothing wrong with SC's though.

Modern induction = electronic bits! I chose analog!

The sc's are more agile and Peter Zimmerman ("Used 911 story") reckoned they were the best 911 - ever - as I recall from his book. But best is a loaded concept. Some like power seats and aircon and never push the cars to the gocarty limit.

 

But why do you ask , young aimr75? Looking?

[tazzieman]

SC's are slower than 3.2's, so by nippier what do you mean?

Slower can mean many things. Top speed , speed to 40/50/60 etc . Power is less desirable than torque unless you are redlining with intent. And noise is everything!

[randall]

To me 3.2 is a better option as it has more power and is considered more reliable. At the same time 3.2 is heavier, probably a bit more "refined" which depending on your requirements/perception can be good or bad. 

 

Tazzieman,

By nippier you mean it tends to rev/spin a bit easier?

[_Tony]

But why do you ask , young aimr75? Looking?

 

They are on the radar along with 993's which i have been looking into.. have always loved the classic looks of the SC/3.2 models and always figured i would eventually own one at some point. 

[CarreraG50]

Everyone with an SC are going to say there the best

Everyone with a 3.2 are going to say there the best

So by applying the above logic, buy a 3.2,

Seriously, both are good cars, buy on condition,

if you find a great SC, buy it, same goes for a 3.2,

there's not enough really good one's around to pick

one above the other.

Just make sure the SC has the CARRERA tensioner upgrade.

Cheers

[J.J.]

Slower can mean many things. Top speed , speed to 40/50/60 etc . Power is less desirable than torque unless you are redlining with intent. And noise is everything!

 

you still have not explained what you meant by nippier.

 

and yes 3.2's are quicker that SC's, higher top speed, more torque, more power.. so are SC's nippier coz their heat does not work??

 

and yes, 3.2's also have an engine and an exhaust that makes some noise

[_Tony]

and yes, 3.2's also have an engine and an exhaust that makes some noise

 

I have driven a 3.2 before.. i think my fillings loosened that day

[JustJames]

The youngest of the cars under consideration is nearing a quarter century. That leaves a lot of time for things to deteriorate from factory spec (or, in the right hands, improve).

Now, in the real world, a good SC will be better than a tired 3.2 in pretty much every way.

Later 3.2's will have the G50 'box and hydraulic clutch which is regarded as "sought after"...but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the 915 'box.

As CarreraG50 said, if you go for an SC, either look for an SC with the 3.2 oil-fed chain tensioner, or consider it a project for your custodianship if you go the SC route.

James

With any older car, condition is everything.

James

[tazzieman]

JJ don't be so defensive!

Top speed is sort of irrelevant unless you have an autobahn or circuit with long straights.

Nippy is general responsiveness , perhaps lower weight , different weight distribution , different torque curves , different tunings? There are several iterations and then there is the G50 vs 915 gearbox debate. Yes the G50 can be mashed faster which translates into quicker 0-60 times. Just. It doesn't matter. The 915 is a racing box 

If you want gocarty fun pull all the smog & luxo lard off and add some better bits. If you want a retro boulevard cruiser that's a Porsche , add a subwoofer and a cupholder , some 19" rims and have at it!

 

Really it doesn't matter and any canny buyer will drive as many as he/she can find.

These things are always like beauty. In the eye of the beholder!

 

Re pressure fed tensioners -  some say you can keep the original tensioners as long as they are refurbed from time to time.

The wider idler arms are worthwhile. A new chain might be in order if you have clocked up the k's. I went the full peace of mind kit when mine started to clack.

[J.J.]

i'm not being defensive, but you made a comment which was hard to work out what you meant.

 

nippy to mean refers to speed and acceleration, not weight distribution or torque curves

[J.J.]

opps double post, that damn nippy post button

[tazzieman]

Nippy and agile are similar? Responsivenss then , whatever - find 2 cars of similar condition and compare. Many people have commented on the differences in many forums. Recent Total 911 article as well , I'll dig it out and maybe quote the best bits 

Not nippy in Tas this year - 41.8 on Jan 4th! 

 

Pete Zimmerman on Rennlist..

Here is a re-print of a post that I wrote some time ago. It provides some insight into the two cars. That said, with modified cars all bets are off!

This thread reminded me of a post that I responded to a few years ago. That thread involved someone who was advised by a shop to not purchase an SC, and encouraged to buy a 3.2 Carrera instead. I can’t find my post, but it was largely a cost/benefit study of the two cars, and went something like this based on hand-written scribbles in my file.

The newest SC is a 1983, the oldest 3.2 is an ’84, and a nice ’81 is only five years older than a good ’86. Needless to say, we’re not talking Model As and Mustangs. The first thing we do is throw out the comparables of the two models. The SC and Carrera, through ’86, all use the same clutch, and engine removal is no more difficult on one as the other. The ’87-89 3.2 cars use a different, more expensive, clutch. It is no more reliable, requires additional labor, and the flywheel, if worn, can’t be machined. I think that it’s safe to say that the clutch is a wash.

Starter motors, shock absorbers, tires, suspension components, brakes, etc., are pretty much the same on both models. SCs and ’84-86 Carreras use a clutch cable; ’87-89 Carreras use a slave cylinder and related hydraulics. Those items can be considered a wash because replacement frequency is similar. 

Minor and major services on both models are fairly equal in both labor times, parts, and mileage periods; and life expectancy of alternators, motor mounts and oxygen sensors aren’t different enough to mention.

Let’s look at the “replace once in a blue moon” items. They are reference sensors (3.2), oxygen sensor relay (SC), auxiliary air valve (SC), injectors (both), decal valve (SC), idle control valve (3.2), and throttle switch (3.2). Another pretty equal category, I would have to say.

The biggie repairs are ones that a super-sized wallet can make easier. Each model has a glitch in this category; SCs (some more than others) suffer from broken cylinder head studs, and 3.2 cars (some) suffer from high oil consumption. Cost-wise those two jobs are comparable, certainly close enough to not weigh one model against the other.

All SCs and the first three years of 3.2 cars use the same transmission, the 915, so that’s a wash. Enter the G 50, used in ’87-89 Carreras, that’s a bullet-proof unit that should last at least 250,000 miles. So, the ’87-89 cars edge ahead in our “race.” But wait a minute! The typical SC synchro repair will cost between $1500 and $2500 (more for a “rebuild”), while the typical 3.2 car with a G 50 will cost $5,000 - $8,000 more than a comparable condition SC to buy. Of course, you get power seats and improved A/C along with the great trans. But that, in my mind, is not sufficient cause to eliminate an SC (or ’84-86 Carrera) from consideration.

Let’s explore other typical repairs that SCs and 3.2 cars require over time. I’ll mention here that this is pretty consistent through 200K miles, beyond that many “repairs” become “restorations.” We’ll start with the famous SC airbox; replacement will set the SC owner back $1200 - $1400. On the flip side, the 3.2 Carrera’s air flow meter will fail in a way that the car will still run, but fail its annual/bi-annual smog inspection. Replacement is necessary; and the cost will be $800 - $900. CIS fuel injection (SCs) use a part called a Control Pressure Regulator, aka Warm-Up Regulator. The part is rarely replaced, most often when moisture has entered the car’s fuel system. With moisture present all bets are off for both models! The part is available for about $600, and labor/setup adds another $200. On the other side, 3.2 Carreras have a pair of engine compartment fuel lines that require replacement, which, including intake manifold R&I, will remove about $1,000 from your wallet. Back to the SCs, and a part called an accumulator which will cost about $350 (diagnosis and labor replacement is minimal). 3.2 Carreras have two relatively small issues, one can leave you stranded (DME relay); the other will make the car exhibit unusual symptoms (cylinder head temp sensor). The relay will cost you about $50, the sensor about $350 installed. So, at this point, repair costs are $2350 (SCs) and $2150 (3.2s). Have we got evidence yet that SCs should be avoided, or even be reduced to a second-tier car? I think not.

Upgrades. OK, Carrera tensioners. That’s about it, and so many SCs have had this done it’s almost like they were original equipment anyway. Yes, we can mention anti-roll bars with increased diameters, but don’t forget, if you “must do” them to an SC, you also must “upgrade” ‘84/85 Carreras with them also. 
I think that this post clearly shows that either car (SC or Carrera) is worth consideration, and that for every potential purchase condition should be the overwhelming factor. Like I said earlier, we’re not talking Model As and Mustangs here.

[Coastr]

I've done a lot of reading and have come to the conclusion that the difference in enjoyment between a good car and a crappy car is far larger than the difference in enjoyment between a SC and a 3.2.

 

My search is basically 1979-1989 and on condition, price and emotional issues like wheels, color and interior.

[Uncle]

What James said. Just buy the better car no matter if SC or 3.2.

[Harvs11]

I shopped around for a 3.2 for years. There were plenty of junkers which I didn't bother turning the key. A good one was pushing the budget at the time. SC's on the other hand were $$'s less for a reasonably good car. And not so different to justify the price difference. I lucked out and found an SC in good nick for a 30 year old car with genuine low km's. .

Sure, it's not as fast as a 3.2 and the CIS needs some black magic to tune sometimes but overall I'm very pleased with it.

The moral of this tale is buy the best car you find within your budget

[_Tony]

thanks for the replies. I would certainly be after a good example of one or the other.. I certainly wouldnt choose a worse condition 3.2 over a good SC, was just curious in terms of a like for like.

[Russ]

i'd always buy based on condition more than anything

 

i was always going to buy a coupe SC manual, i ended up in a 2.7 sporto targa, purely based on condition and service records (for the price i paid for mine the closest SC i ever saw had surface rust on the fan, and sunroof itself!)

[D-banger]

I have driven a 3.2 before.. i think my fillings loosened that day

 

That does not sound right to me.  Was it a track focused car, or maybe something not right with the suspension/wheels/tyres?

 

You can't fairly start drawing conclusions on a model based on one test drive.

 

As already stated, condition is most important due to the age of these cars. 

[Greg 2]

some funny 30 pages of SC Vs 3.2 thread banter over here if you like!

 

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/454135-carrera-3-2-faster-stronger-better-28.html

[_Tony]

That does not sound right to me.  Was it a track focused car, or maybe something not right with the suspension/wheels/tyres?

 

You can't fairly start drawing conclusions on a model based on one test drive.

 

As already stated, condition is most important due to the age of these cars. 

 

Just tongue in cheek.. more so referring to how loud/raucous and raw it was compared to the more refined cars ive driven in the past..