0-60 for a 914/6 with 3.2? Options

[Tdskip]

The numbers are secondary to the driving experience of course, but just curious if anyone’s ever benchmark to their conversion against a stopwatch?

[gms]

The numbers are secondary to the driving experience of course, but just curious if anyone’s ever benchmark to their conversion against a stopwatch?

A 911 runs 6.1 sec so lighter car with shorter gears probably mid 5 sec

[SirAndy]

The numbers are secondary to the driving experience of course, but just curious if anyone’s ever benchmark to their conversion against a stopwatch?

I did some timed runs with my 3.6L and the biggest problem was getting the tires to hook and not spin.

I don't use 1st gear at all and take off in 2nd and if i'm not careful i can still lay down 10 yards of rubber. That might look cool but it doesn't do you any good in terms of actually moving forward.

The best time i got (that one time everything went perfect) was just under 4 seconds.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

[Tdskip]

@SirAndy - WOW.

Thanks @GMS .

Lunching first gear is probably the biggest issue on the time.

[Coondog]

I would think a six mated to a 915 trans would show much better 0 to 60 numbers.

[mepstein]

I would think a six mated to a 915 trans would show much better 0 to 60 numbers.

Correct. I’ve driven a bunch of light weight 911’s with hot 3.2’s and 915 trans and it’s a blast. No tip toeing around first and slipping the clutch to start in second. But unfortunately it’s a lot more work and money to do it in a 914.

Steve Timmons/Instant-G/3.6 conversion shop took me out in one of his hot 3.8 cars and it was a whole nother level. BIG torque. He showed his transmission no mercy and it held up fine.

[Tdskip]

I would think a six mated to a 915 trans would show much better 0 to 60 numbers.

And quite likely to live a longer life!

In the real world it’s more about roll-on power anyway.

I don’t really care, per se,about what the actual number is, it’s more of a question driven by trying to calibrate that white 914/6 that I drove and what would be an expected range for the 3.2 L build that I’m doing.

[mepstein]

What was done to the 3.0. It could be stronger than a stock 3.2.

[SirAndy]

I would think a six mated to a 915 trans would show much better 0 to 60 numbers.

Correct. I’ve driven a bunch of light weight 911’s with hot 3.2’s and 915 trans and it’s a blast. No tip toeing around first and slipping the clutch to start in second. But unfortunately it’s a lot more work and money to do it in a 914.

Taking off in 2nd has the advantage that you don't need to shift at all. The stock 901 gearing will get you from 0 to 60 without shifting (With the appropriate redline and wheel/tire sizes).

The 901 seems to be able to handle the torque just fine if you skip 1st ...
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

[Superhawk996]

The numbers are secondary to the driving experience of course, but just curious if anyone’s ever benchmark to their conversion against a stopwatch?

I did some timed runs with my 3.6L and the biggest problem was getting the tires to hook and not spin.

I don't use 1st gear at all and take off in 2nd and if i'm not careful i can still lay down 10 yards of rubber. That might look cool but it doesn't do you any good in terms of actually moving forward.

The best time i got (that one time everything went perfect) was just under 4 seconds.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

Not bad . . . but you need AWD! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) There is a reason the 959 had AWD.

Tractive effort quickly becomes the limitation unless you're willing to run 18" wide rear rubber and to deal with the issues rubber that wide brings with it.

Don't get me wrong guys, but, the reality is EV's have changed the game. Any 16 year old driving a Tesla Model S P100D AWD can do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds with absolutely zero drama and zero talent. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) Zero to sixty probably isn't the reason to own a 914.

Just to be clear . . . no ill will meant for you guys with big engines. If I hit the lottery I just might build a 914 with a Singer engine but till then. The art of cornering is where the 914's strenth is at.

[Tdskip]

What was done to the 3.0. It could be stronger than a stock 3.2.

It was certainly a strong engine but I don’t have details on the specs, it was plenty fast just to peaky and raucous for my personal taste.

[Tdskip]

Taking off in 2nd has the advantage that you don't need to shift at all. The stock 901 gearing will get you from 0 to 60 without shifting (With the appropriate redline and wheel/tire sizes).

The 901 seems to be able to handle the torque just fine if you skip 1st ...
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

Thanks @SirAndy , I will keep that in mind.

[Tdskip]

Not bad . . . but you need AWD! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) There is a reason the 959 had AWD.

Tractive effort quickly becomes the limitation unless you're willing to run 18" wide rear rubber and to deal with the issues rubber that wide brings with it.

Don't get me wrong guys, but, the reality is EV's have changed the game. Any 16 year old driving a Tesla Model S P100D AWD can do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds with absolutely zero drama and zero talent. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) Zero to sixty probably isn't the reason to own a 914.

Just to be clear . . . no ill will meant for you guys with big engines. If I hit the lottery I just might build a 914 with a Singer engine but till then. The art of cornering is where the 914's strenth is at.

@Superhawk996 - I could care less what the actual zero-60 number is, it’s more the feel that I’m trying to get a sense of. I doubt I’ll be doing any violent acceleration in the car, it’s the sensation of the unburstable torque and how that moves the car along that I’m really after. It’s hard to describe what it feels like, but you guys get it

The 3.2 L in the 74 911 has that feeling, trying to imagine that in the 914. I certainly didn’t need that white 914/6 to be any faster than it was, it was plenty fast but didn’t have the experience I was looking for.

@mepstein - The engine in that white car felt like it was built for burst of acceleration rather than rolling-on power, if that makes sense.

[IronHillRestorations]

The 3.0 car I had years ago ( @GMS drove it) would do 0-50 in 5 sec or less with crude measuring equipt. The rev limiting rotor would hit the wall around 57 mph in 2nd gear, so shifting twice is really going to slow you down, unless you don't care about damaging the car. That engine had tons of torque, three different people accidentally started from a stop in 3rd and didn't stall or kill the clutch, and 3rd tach'd out around 75 mph

[Steve]

3.6 or v8 cars have no problems starting off in second with the 914 gear box. With my 3.2 and a 914 gearbox, I had to slip the clutch to start off in second and first gear was worthless. I have more money in my 915 gear box then my 3.2 motor, but for me it was totally worth it to have a useable first gear and a trans that matches the motor.

[Coondog]

3.6 or v8 cars have no problems starting off in second with the 914 gear box. With my 3.2 and a 914 gearbox, I had to slip the clutch to start off in second and first gear was worthless. I have more money in my 915 gear box then my 3.2 motor, but for me it was totally worth it to have a useable first gear and a trans that matches the motor.

I agree Steve, our cars are identical except for the trans and you had me beat off every stop light on PCH and we were just cruising.

[Superhawk996]

it’s the sensation of the unburstable torque and how that moves the car along that I’m really after. It’s hard to describe what it feels like, but you guys get it

@tdskip

You're describing what comes with instantaneous torque. If you haven't driven a Tesla go drive one for a baseline. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to put you in one but EV's have that instant torque and instant acceleration you're seeking.

IMHO EV's have no soul and handle like pigs but that that is the nature of carrying around massive battery packs. Tesla supposedly working on a 3 motor Plaid mode with torque vectoring. That could become a handling game changer.

[Tdskip]

You're describing what comes with instantaneous torque. If you haven't driven a Tesla go drive one for a baseline. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to put you in one but EV's have that instant torque and instant acceleration you're seeking.

Good morning @superhawk996 .

I have, neat cars, but not what I am after or trying to describe.

I was just looking for some calibration, which I think has been provided here, as well as some good tips on not lunching first gear.

Thanks gentlemen!

[Superhawk996]

not what I am after or trying to describe.

Thanks gentlemen!

@Tdskip

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) I feel like I let you down . . . (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) Oh well, at least I didn't end up convicing you to buy a Tesla. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)

[Tdskip]

No worries @superhawk996 , all good.

Have a good day folks!