3.2

[Ignatzcatz]

I'm on the hunt for a '80's 3.2 engine to replace the existing 2.4 currently in my car. I don't need intake equipment nor exhaust but, if possible, I would like to hear the engine prior to purchase. Although the 3.2 is main on my wanted list, my holy grail would be a 3.6 and of course I would be prepared to pay a premium for such, and going the other way a 3.0 would most certainly be of interest to me.

[swb100]

Morning Graham, I picked up your message earlier in the week having been off for a few days. Turns out I have a 3.2 that is dismantled for inspection. I did want to chat to you regarding gearbox's and driveshafts with your plans for the car. I will be in the workshop for a while on Saturday or next week if you have time to talk. Very best, Glynn

[911hillclimber]

I have had a 3.2 in my '73T for about 26 years now, a great car combo imho for many reasons. A stripped 3.2 would be a god send too, you can check so much that any used 3.2 would have, valve guide wear especially.
They are simple to rebuild and easy to get the heads done if required and also to check the crank journal dimensions.

Unless it is a freak engine, any of the 3, 3.2, 3.6 etc aircooled engines are going to have a lot of miles on them, so an unknown engine all built could have some issues requiring a good strip down.

Mine now has 150K on it, 60 when bought and runs perfectly, but it has had oil changes probably every 1500 miles avarage all it's life in my hands. Never been apart.

Hope this helps.

[Ignatzcatz]

Hi Graham, speaking with my local Porsche garage - Cridfords in Ewhurst, their very knowledgeable engine man said going for a 3.2 would be a far better bet than trying to hot rod up my 2.4, and a heck of a lot cheaper too. Whatever engine I may get would be torn down and he recommended just slightly hotter cams and minor head work which should give something north of 250 brake plus the additional cubes would give me torque in spades. So I'm fairly certain that this will be the way to go.

[yoda]

Very different feel and power delivery from a 3.2 so you should try one and make sure it is what you want.

Going OT, how do you find the 289 Cobra? Always fancied something like that but am guessing it is quite impractical to use? I tried one a while back and thought it better for cruising as wind noise was quite high at faster speeds. But it wasn’t a great example so could have just been that car.

[911hillclimber]

I had a 180 bhp 2.4 E engine on mech injections, S P&B etc, magic engine, but too slow.

The 3.2 followed in mid 1995 I think.
Add 964 cams (£1000).
Mine is stock except for SSi exchangers and a one-off Bob Watson chip which i think is along the same path and the Stevie Wong chip.

Starts easy, 30 mpg, and the power is nice.
The torque however is the trick and gives a very prolonged pull in all the gears, esp 3rd.

The two engines were chalk and cheese, the 2.4 far more exciting, the 3.2 more relaxed but faster!

[gridgway]

But who on earth wants "relaxed"?

[Ignatzcatz]

I'm fairly certain a 3.2 with a little induction assistance will be just right for my needs and if I can find one for about the same money as my 2.4 will fetch I shall be very pleased.
Regarding the Cobra, I have to say when I was building the 289 currently in the car I had the rose tinted specs firmly fixed on. It might be producing somewhere in the region of 400 bhp but it is virtually un-driveable due to the high compression - it's got TRW 11 to 1 forged pistons, poor low rpm breathing due to hogged out cylinder heads with 1.94 and 1.6 Chevy valves and no tickover under 2000rpm due to me selecting the biggest, nastiest TRW cam in their catalogue it's a circle track cam with 290 degrees duration. My gearbox is a close ratio 4 speed toploader that doesn't help matters much either. So as we speak that lump is being pulled out to be replaced by a fairly mild 302 with Keith Black hypereutectic 81/2 to 1 pistons, GT40 heads, mild Ford motorsport cam and a street Edelbrock manifold. This engine was built by old rodder mate Simon Lane who reckons it should be good for 300 brake and I've got a nice 5 speed Tremec to swap cogs behind it...So this should, hopefully, turn it into a fun car with a decent turn of speed and the ability to burn rubber in at least the first three gears. Also the value of these things has risen considerably in recent times so it doesn't look so much like a horrid money pit like it used to do. One bonus factor in it's favour is that on the V5 the car is described not as a special or plastic kit car, it actually states Ford Cobra, thanks to the DVLA for that one.

[911hillclimber]

Ref relaxed:
Yes, the 3.2 in 1000Kg is fast, the delivery is relaxed, just digs in deep at low revs to the red line. No need to drop a gear, just press hard and off it goes. Far faster on a hill than the 2.4 E/S mech injections as my times and class points showed.
It all suited me then as it does 25 years on.
I like big torquey engines rather than small screamers!

[RobFrost]

I have a 3.2 with a few mild mods in a light car and I can vouch for the power delivery, it is a remarkably fast car and very, very easy to accumulate a lot of speed in a short period of time.

I can drive two hours from Lichfield to Caffeine and Machine and back, setting off with the gauge showing around half a tank and it still shows around half a tank when I get home.

It may be worth contemplating the wisdom of putting it in a narrow body, I think i have 9's on the back and it handles beautifully but with 6's I'd be a little more concerned about depositng rubber on the road when accelerating in corners. Maybe that's a bonus though!

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk