Backdating a 3.2

gridgway · Post by **gridgway** » Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:38 pm

I like BAT, great to watch...
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1987- ... 2017-12-28

It seems to me that a backdated G50 isn't quite right. And also I'd want something a bit more period going on with the motor!

Each to their own though.

Graham

911hillclimber · Post by **911hillclimber** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:54 pm

Oh, I don't know though...(all tonged in cheek)

Great looking car, rid of the awkward 915, crappy brakes and poor ventilation.
You could always remove the excellent Bosch injection and fit carbs and double the fuel consumption and loose the easy starting.

Like this one!

mycar · Post by **mycar** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:36 pm

^ Oooh that looks nice... who's is that ?

gridgway · Post by **gridgway** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:15 pm

That's Graham's Lola. Great race car!

911hillclimber · Post by **911hillclimber** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:30 am

Bit of an old banger really, but nice toy to have.

All naked without the body.

And all dressed-up for the run.

mycar · Post by **mycar** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:33 am

Very nice indeed. Those Webber carburettors look mint, how much power does that engine have ?

KS · Post by KS » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:25 am

mycar wrote:Very nice indeed. Those Webber carburettors look mint, how much power does that engine have ?

PMOs, not Webers...

911hillclimber · Post by **911hillclimber** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:37 am

Yes, PMO carbs, too big for the engine but lovely instruments.
Made miles better than the webers and easy to home tune them, which I do.
Best Bob Watson got out of the car was 249 bhp and 200 ish lbft (Iirc). Bob loved it.

It weighs in at a lardy 580kg with me in it, about 150kg too heavy for a good hillclimb car.
It is fast and very 'exciting', needs a braver soul to drive it than me.

Very Old Skool, with a fascinating history since made in 1978.
Sorry for the thread drift Graham!

Lightweight_911 · Post by **Lightweight_911** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:34 am

911hillclimber wrote: Made miles better than the webers ...

Nothing wrong with correctly set-up Webers - virtually every 'performance' engine used them (or aspired to) in the '60's & 70's (including Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, Porsche, Alfa Romeo, Lotus, etc) ...

mycar · Post by **mycar** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:54 pm

Webber’s are good. Interesting to know how correctly sized original carburettors would improve the engine ?

Lightweight_911 · Post by **Lightweight_911** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:02 pm

Webers - only one 'b' ...

mycar · Post by **mycar** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:19 pm

Pronounced Weeber ?

Lightweight_911 · Post by **Lightweight_911** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:26 pm

Only if you're a geordie !

I'd say the italians would pronounce it 'vayber' ...

911hillclimber · Post by **911hillclimber** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:47 pm

I'm sure webers can run as well as PMOs, the webers on my 2.2 T were OK.
The way the PMOs are designed for maintenance etc is what impressed me.
Anyway, just my experience.
I wonder what some correctly sized and tuned PMOs would do for this engine, it had 46mm webers when build as a race car engine, but those dissapeared off the engine before when I bought it 8 years ago.
I think if I had 100 bhp I would not be much quicker up a hill...

mycar · Post by **mycar** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:02 pm

As always these cars are the sum of their parts. Extra horsepower is always coverted but as Andy always says, it's the subtracting of weight that makes a marked difference. I seem to remember that Ferrari were so frugal with the paint on the F40 you could see the bodywork through it.

DDK - Die Deutschen Klassiker

Backdating a 3.2

Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2

Re: Backdating a 3.2