960 2.5 m90
 

I've got a 97 3.0 960 auto, it's led a tough life and Ive been planning a resto over the winter, thing is I started to cost up what needs done and its going to cost a small fortune, bushes for the rear end are nearly £900 alone! I had planned to buy a spares car for panels and trim etc and saw one last night, thing is I have realised it would make more sense to improve the doner car than save mine, it's in much better condition.

The doner is a 2.5 manual so I figured even better, bin the 2.5 and fit my 3.0, thing is I was completely underwhelmed on the test drive, it was completely gutless and after driving my auto for 6 years it seemed very unrefined.

Manuals are obviously quite sought after however am I missing something, I thought a manuel 3.0 would be the best of both worlds but now I am not so sure. So, do I stick with the auto box in mine or convert the manual car to 3.0,has anyone else this swap, any advise would be welcome!

Build your car to suit and sell the spares leftover to hopefully break even?

I suppose the point I am making is, considering how rare manual 960s are should I ditch the auto box because ultimately a 3.0 manual will be better car or not, money isn't too much of an issue, just want to ensure its spent on the right base, I reckon it would take 3k to get mine restored, the manual car would cost half that

How well looked after is the 2.5 engine - may need a service to give you back what little horses they had from stock.

I have a 2.5 960 manual, and ALL the power is at the top end. They start to actually pull at 4k rpm.

Can't imagine that engine with an auto... :eek:

Just my experience from a sample of 1

PP

Missing the point, I should have made it simpler, 3.0 auto or 3.0 manual, discuss

Well,

Do you like automatics or manuals, that’s all that really matters. It’s not important what you read, it’s what you want as it’s your car.

I would expect a 3.0 auto to be smoother than a 2.5 manual, I think that’s the whole point.

Any converted car is going to be worth less than its original counterpart. However it's down to your own preference, personally it would have to be 3.0 auto as the whole ethos of having a big engine and an automatic box is "smooth, lazy power". If you've got used to the auto and like it, you will miss it. Everyone else i've ever known that has got used to an auto has ended up missing it when they've gone back to a manual.

Would it not be a better idea to find yourself another 3.0 auto 960 and keep your current car as the spares mule?

Yep, I'm beginning to think that!

Ah, got you...

I think an early 3.0 would suite a manual - earlier cams come 'on' at much higher revs which an auto wouldnt let you access without a shift override.

Late 3.0 more suited to an auto with their lazy low end torque delivery.

Other thing to consider is the state of the manual car you are testing.

if the fluid hasn't been changed in a while and the shift bushes and g'box mounts are knackered it is a horrible experience.

Each one of those i addressed made it better and better.

Have yon considered a keeping your 3.0 as a auto and adding paddle shifts to give you manual shifting?

PP

I currently drive a 2.5 manual and it's rather sluggish until you get to 4k RPM like TPP said (then really gets a shift on!)

I previously owned an S90 with the 3.0 (detuned 180bhp) with 4 speed slushbox. That got going at around 3.5k RPM, especially in "Sport" mode.

Having also owned a 940 Turbo (which I adored), I miss the low-down power/torque delivery from a turbo engine (which lit up between 2k - 4.5k)

If I were you, I'd fit the M90 to have a 3.0 manual, then fit a turbo to make it a 960T: best of both :D (and also what I plan to do soon!)

Cheers