930 - can you "de-turbo" a turbo?

[72911]

Sorry if this is a very stupid question, but can you "de-turbo" a turbo? I'm thinking of going to see a 930 – the seller tells me he removed both turbo chargers and is running the car "stock". Is this possible, will it have damaged the engine, and can it be reinstated? He tells me he still has all the original parts.

Thanks

[mark.c]

I think you need some more info of the owner...original 930's are single turbo, unless it was modified with a twin turbo set up and he has returned it to single??

[Crafty_]

I would expect the compression ratio of the turbo engine to be lower, possibly cam specs to be different and other stuff inside the engine to be different too. Turbo engines aren't just an N/A unit with a turbo bolted on.

If you were to "de-turbo" an engine you'd expect to find it to be pretty gutless and well down on power.

Sounds like a car to avoid to be honest.

[mollytherocker]

The owner is talking crap. Avoid.

[g7jhp]

72911 said:

Sorry if this is a very stupid question, but can you "de-turbo" a turbo? I'm thinking of going to see a 930 – the seller tells me he removed both turbo chargers and is running the car "stock". Is this possible, will it have damaged the engine, and can it be reinstated? He tells me he still has all the original parts.

Thanks

The only way you can officially buy a turbo without a turbo is buy a 911 Supersport which has the turbo-look/turbo body, brakes etc but not the turbo engine.

It's not a 930 (911 turbo).

If someone has a real turbo which isn't working I'd steer clear, unless it's a bargain and you've factored in the cost to rebuild it.

[supersport]

The first two replies have it spot on. As everyone else say, run run run.

Just why would anyone do this?

[madala]

I can see why anyone would want to do it even if can't be done ....... I wonder how many 930 turbos were wrapped around a tree in their first year of life ...... plenty I am sure with that horrendous turbo lag ...... it's car that has to be treated with the upmost respect when behind the wheel and perhaps left in the garage when the roads are wet ......

[g7jhp]

madala said:

I can see why anyone would want to do it even if can't be done ....... I wonder how many 930 turbos were wrapped around a tree in their first year of life ...... plenty I am sure with that horrendous turbo lag ...... it's car that has to be treated with the upmost respect when behind the wheel and perhaps left in the garage when the roads are wet ......

The same could honestly be said about many rear and mid-engined cars. Accelerating on wet or even drying but greasy roads requires an element of restraint.

Eighties 911's really aren't as bad as many lower weight rear wheel drive sportscars as they have enough weight to get the power down. Yes it's easy to provoke a twitch if you're aggressive, but a Caterham in the wet is farmore frightening due to the lack of weight.

The newer 911 turbo's are simply amazing in the dry or wet and I actually enjoy using mine when it's wet.

[FunkySon]

g7jhp said:

The same could honestly be said about many rear and mid-engined cars. Accelerating on wet or even drying but greasy roads requires an element of restraint.

Eighties 911's really aren't as bad as many lower weight rear wheel drive sportscars as they have enough weight to get the power down. Yes it's easy to provoke a twitch if you're aggressive, but a Caterham in the wet is farmore frightening due to the lack of weight.

The newer 911 turbo's are simply amazing in the dry or wet and I actually enjoy using mine when it's wet.

+1

First time I drove a 930 was in the pouring rain. Certainly not the frightening experience many make out. By contrast a Caterham in the wet really is an accident waiting to happen. I never really knew whether it would be the front or the rear that would go first and it really didn't take much effort to break traction.

[rubystone]

FunkySon said:

+1

First time I drove a 930 was in the pouring rain. Certainly not the frightening experience many make out. By contrast a Caterham in the wet really is an accident waiting to happen. I never really knew whether it would be the front or the rear that would go first and it really didn't take much effort to break traction.

the 5 speed was a much better car in the wet - 4 speed was a pain - 2nd risked it coming on boost at the wrong time, 3rd it was generally off boost.

As for your experience in a Caterham, it must have been set up badly. They are eminently controllable in the wet.

[g7jhp]

rubystone said:

As for your experience in a Caterham, it must have been set up badly. They are eminently controllable in the wet.

The issue with a Caterham in the wet is putting the power down on a wet road in a very light car, you just have to be very easy on the loud peddle as there's no natural weight stopping the wheels spinning.

[FunkySon]

g7jhp said:

rubystone said:

As for your experience in a Caterham, it must have been set up badly. They are eminently controllable in the wet.

The issue with a Caterham in the wet is putting the power down on a wet road in a very light car, you just have to be very easy on the loud peddle as there's no natural weight stopping the wheels spinning.

Exactly. If you have one with a decent amount of power it really takes no effort at all to spin up the rear wheels in the wet. It might be controllable but I don't want to be dialing in a dab of oppo every time I accelerate. It's not quick on track and it's not safe on the road. Fantastic car in the dry but a liability in the wet.

By contrast my 964 turbo, which has been tarred with the same poor reputation as the earlier turbos, has always been rock solid in wet or damp conditions. Not exactly the most suitable track car but I was always impressed by how much grip you had and how hot the tyres got in wet conditions. No problem at all getting the power down and you have to be really pushing it to get it to slide.

[hunter 66]

Having driven a 500 BHP plus 993 GT2R in monsoon conditions in the early morning during 24 hour races , I think they handle very well in these conditions .....
But as for de -turbo sounds like engine went pop and an norma engine was put in to save money ............

[shoestring7]

g7jhp said:

72911 said:

Sorry if this is a very stupid question, but can you "de-turbo" a turbo? I'm thinking of going to see a 930 – the seller tells me he removed both turbo chargers and is running the car "stock". Is this possible, will it have damaged the engine, and can it be reinstated? He tells me he still has all the original parts.

Thanks

The only way you can officially buy a turbo without a turbo is buy a 911 Supersport which has the turbo-look/turbo body, brakes etc but not the turbo engine.

It's not a 930 (911 turbo).

If someone has a real turbo which isn't working I'd steer clear, unless it's a bargain and you've factored in the cost to rebuild it.

Or someone destroyed the turbo engine and then fitted a SC or Carrera 3.2 unit. You can't just unbolt the turbos and expect the car to run.

SS7

[tel l]

I would say it depends on what you want.As others have said, one would need a bit more info before giving any meaningful advice.It comes down to cost,your ability to do the work yourself or pay someone else,meaning it may not be viable.Is the car otherwise ok,HPI clear etc.
The price of 930,s is rising,so it could be worth considering,if you know what you're getting in to.
If you provide some more detail about the engine thats in it at present & what original engine parts the seller is saying he has,people will be able to give you a better idea on what may be involved.Cheers.Terry