LovePorsche.com




What are the specifications on a stock1986 911 Porsche carerra?

porsche


horsepower? was this a great year? any additional info? winner gets 10 pts, please be thorough

Stay protected and outfitted while racing at the track. Racing shoes, suits, helmets, harness kits, gloves, and more.






9 Responses to 'What are the specifications on a stock1986 911 Porsche carerra?'

  1. Nabeel - October 29th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    I’d say ‘Google it up and don’t post useless questions’.

    Seriously, go to a car dealer if you’re so interested.

  2. designergenes - November 1st, 2009 at 9:27 am

    The 1986 911 (1983 to 1989) was called the 3.2 Carrera Series. Models after this 911 were given numerical designations: 964, 993, etc.

    With the 3.2 litre engine, power was increased to 207 bhp (154 kW; 210 PS) (@ 5900 rpm) for North American-delivered cars and to 231 bhp (172 kW; 234 PS) (@ 5900 rpm) for most other markets. This version of the 911 accelerated 0–60 mph (100 km/h) in 5.4 seconds and had a top speed of 150 mph (242 km/h) as measured by Autocar. Factory times were more modest: 0-60 mph time of 6.3 seconds for the US version and 6.1 seconds for cars outside the American market.

    3.2 liter horizontally opposed flat 6 cylinder. 95 mm (3.7 in) bore (from the previous SC model) combined with the 1978 Turbo 3.3 crankshaft’s 74.4 mm (2.9 in) stroke. Higher domed pistons increased the compression ratio from 9.8 to 10.3:1 (9.5:1 for the US market). New inlet manifold and exhaust systems were fitted. The 915 transmission was carried over from the SC series for the first three model years.

    In 1987, the Carrera got a new five-speed gearbox sourced from Getrag, model number G50 with proven Borg-Warner synchronizers. This slightly heavier version also featured a hydraulically-operated clutch. This transmission is favored among Porschephiles, and the 1987 through 1989 Carrera is probably prefered due to this transmission

    The 1986 Carrera coupe weighed 2756 pounds.

  3. gezginler indir - October 10th, 2010 at 11:31 pm

    The Zune concentrates on being a Portable Media Player. Not a web browser. Not a game machine. Maybe in the future it’ll do even better in those areas, but for now it’s a fantastic way to organize and listen to your music and videos, and is without peer in that regard. The iPod’s strengths are its web browsing and apps. If those sound more compelling, perhaps it is your best choice.

  4. how to - October 15th, 2010 at 7:40 am

    The new Zune browser is surprisingly good, but not as good as the iPod’s. It works well, but isn’t as fast as Safari, and has a clunkier interface. If you occasionally plan on using the web browser that’s not an issue, but if you’re planning to browse the web alot from your PMP then the iPod’s larger screen and better browser may be important.

  5. ehow - October 15th, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Between me and my husband we’ve owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I’ve settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.

  6. know how to tie a tie - October 18th, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    If you’re still on the fence: grab your favorite earphones, head down to a Best Buy and ask to plug them into a Zune then an iPod and see which one sounds better to you, and which interface makes you smile more. Then you’ll know which is right for you.

  7. how to write a resume - October 20th, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Hands down, Apple’s app store wins by a mile. It’s a huge selection of all sorts of apps vs a rather sad selection of a handful for Zune. Microsoft has plans, especially in the realm of games, but I’m not sure I’d want to bet on the future if this aspect is important to you. The iPod is a much better choice in that case.

  8. Leopoldo Kopko - October 21st, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    Between me and my husband we’ve owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I’ve settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.

  9. online film izle - November 5th, 2010 at 5:03 am

    This is getting a bit more subjective, but I much prefer the Zune Marketplace. The interface is colorful, has more flair, and some cool features like ‘Mixview’ that let you quickly see related albums, songs, or other users related to what you’re listening to. Clicking on one of those will center on that item, and another set of “neighbors” will come into view, allowing you to navigate around exploring by similar artists, songs, or users. Speaking of users, the Zune “Social” is also great fun, letting you find others with shared tastes and becoming friends with them. You then can listen to a playlist created based on an amalgamation of what all your friends are listening to, which is also enjoyable. Those concerned with privacy will be relieved to know you can prevent the public from seeing your personal listening habits if you so choose.


Leave a Reply