what is an 'early' 3.4 996?
Discussion
I'm 6 months in to renovating a victorian house, my spare money goes on sash windows, bathrooms, plastering and fixing stuff that's years out of date. Still need to build a garage for the car and we want an extension longer term. Anything over and above routine maintenance isn't on the cards sadly.
Controversial opinion:
Is it better to just find a 3.6 and get that rebuilt by Hartech instead of spending the extra to bore out a 3.4 to 3.7?
You get much bigger valves in the 3.6 which should make the engine breathe a lot better and much improved two stage variocam too. Presumably fitting Hartech's 3.6 IMS bearing and improved bore linings costs less than the machining work to the 3.6? Get the 3.6 mapped at chipwizards safe in the knowledge it's in tip top condition and you'll be getting about 350bhp.
Is it better to just find a 3.6 and get that rebuilt by Hartech instead of spending the extra to bore out a 3.4 to 3.7?
You get much bigger valves in the 3.6 which should make the engine breathe a lot better and much improved two stage variocam too. Presumably fitting Hartech's 3.6 IMS bearing and improved bore linings costs less than the machining work to the 3.6? Get the 3.6 mapped at chipwizards safe in the knowledge it's in tip top condition and you'll be getting about 350bhp.
From a review I've seen on YT, the 3.6 requires more revving to get the best out of it and the 3.4 has lower end torque making it more driveable. And then there's the old issue of which headlights you prefer. The proper old ones with the amber indicators on the front seem so right nowadays.
shalmaneser said:
Controversial opinion:
Is it better to just find a 3.6 and get that rebuilt by Hartech instead of spending the extra to bore out a 3.4 to 3.7?
You get much bigger valves in the 3.6 which should make the engine breathe a lot better and much improved two stage variocam too. Presumably fitting Hartech's 3.6 IMS bearing and improved bore linings costs less than the machining work to the 3.6? Get the 3.6 mapped at chipwizards safe in the knowledge it's in tip top condition and you'll be getting about 350bhp.
I think there are other differences so I dont think you can simply fit a 3.6 to the 3.4 cars.Is it better to just find a 3.6 and get that rebuilt by Hartech instead of spending the extra to bore out a 3.4 to 3.7?
You get much bigger valves in the 3.6 which should make the engine breathe a lot better and much improved two stage variocam too. Presumably fitting Hartech's 3.6 IMS bearing and improved bore linings costs less than the machining work to the 3.6? Get the 3.6 mapped at chipwizards safe in the knowledge it's in tip top condition and you'll be getting about 350bhp.
Hoofy said:
From a review I've seen on YT, the 3.6 requires more revving to get the best out of it and the 3.4 has lower end torque making it more driveable. And then there's the old issue of which headlights you prefer. The proper old ones with the amber indicators on the front seem so right nowadays.
I was referring to an engine swap but I suppose maybe a car swap would be wiser! But then where does it end?I think actually that the gearbox is specific to the 3.6 so you would need a 3.6 motor and gearbox plus ECU. But you could get much of that expenditure back selling a reasonable 3.4 engine and gearbox I would have thought.
I like an engine you need to rev to be honest and have always thought the 3.4 pretty good in that respect.
In all honesty there's going to be cock all spending on my car until the house is finished, and at that point I'd need to decide if I stuck with my 996 and checked cash at it, or chopped it in against a 993 or 997.2 C2S. I regret not going to the look at the latter way back in May 2020 when covid hit, I was sensible for the first time in my life.
I do think a Hartech 3.7 with exploring the option of upgrading a few things like camshaft and maybe porting and polishing the heads would be good though
I do think a Hartech 3.7 with exploring the option of upgrading a few things like camshaft and maybe porting and polishing the heads would be good though
shalmaneser said:
I think actually that the gearbox is specific to the 3.6 so you would need a 3.6 motor and gearbox plus ECU. But you could get much of that expenditure back selling a reasonable 3.4 engine and gearbox I would have thought.
Gearbox is not specific. This is what I was told when I replaced the Gearbox in mine with a used box.Stock the 3.6 head will flow a lot more air, and with a 100mm bore will give you 3.9 litres. There's a lot to like there.
I'm unsure whether the 3.4 DME would run the VarioCam+, which would mean that you'd need to address that in order to realise a lot of the benefit.
Our 3.9 uses a 3.6 bottom end with modified 3.4 heads.
I'm unsure whether the 3.4 DME would run the VarioCam+, which would mean that you'd need to address that in order to realise a lot of the benefit.
Our 3.9 uses a 3.6 bottom end with modified 3.4 heads.
ATM said:
shalmaneser said:
I think actually that the gearbox is specific to the 3.6 so you would need a 3.6 motor and gearbox plus ECU. But you could get much of that expenditure back selling a reasonable 3.4 engine and gearbox I would have thought.
Gearbox is not specific. This is what I was told when I replaced the Gearbox in mine with a used box.
Dammit said:
Stock the 3.6 head will flow a lot more air, and with a 100mm bore will give you 3.9 litres. There's a lot to like there.
I'm unsure whether the 3.4 DME would run the VarioCam+, which would mean that you'd need to address that in order to realise a lot of the benefit.
Our 3.9 uses a 3.6 bottom end with modified 3.4 heads.
what power does that make Dammit ?I'm unsure whether the 3.4 DME would run the VarioCam+, which would mean that you'd need to address that in order to realise a lot of the benefit.
Our 3.9 uses a 3.6 bottom end with modified 3.4 heads.
ooid said:
jonny996 said:
I'm away skiing this weekend & bought new skis over lockdown, but how the hell do I get them to airport?I
I can gladly confirm that a set of 180 skis fit into a 996.1, these cars just keep on giving.
Pics or did not happen! I can gladly confirm that a set of 180 skis fit into a 996.1, these cars just keep on giving.
The cabin does seem pretty practical for humping crap about. If you'd bought a Boxster or Cayman, or some other sports car for around the same price and performance, you would probably struggle to fit stuff in. I've carted TVs other junk in the cabin because they couldn't fit in the boot.
Dammit said:
Stock the 3.6 head will flow a lot more air, and with a 100mm bore will give you 3.9 litres. There's a lot to like there.
I'm unsure whether the 3.4 DME would run the VarioCam+, which would mean that you'd need to address that in order to realise a lot of the benefit.
Our 3.9 uses a 3.6 bottom end with modified 3.4 heads.
I'm very doubtful, VC+ needs FBW throttle as I understood it, along with a shed load more processing power than the 3.4 DME can provide.I'm unsure whether the 3.4 DME would run the VarioCam+, which would mean that you'd need to address that in order to realise a lot of the benefit.
Our 3.9 uses a 3.6 bottom end with modified 3.4 heads.
A stock Mk1 3.4 inlet has only one resonance flap in its intake manifold/plenum IIRC ? Does the Mk2 3.6 have 2 to optimise the efficiency of VC+ ? If it does, I'd say you're into a standalone ECU to run the engine, along with all the integration issues that come with running the car's dash and security via its (the Mk2) more complex canbus system. Though if you're going to run ITB's, it simplifies things somewhat.
Reading between the lines, getting the 991 engine in Jethro Bov’s 996 C2 chassis was a pain to make work, for all the reasons I've mentioned. It's why the 997 Cup engine option I agreed to, looked so appealing (no VC, cable throttle etc etc) for the ZanziCup, but the reality was, and despite Wayne's genius, it still brought rather too many compromises with regards to drivability for me.
Edited by Slippydiff on Monday 17th January 21:37
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff