2.7L, So why is 2.7L the motor to avoid? |
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
2.7L, So why is 2.7L the motor to avoid? |
qa1142 |
Aug 28 2010, 12:05 PM
Post
#21
|
Whiplash Group: Members Posts: 1,514 Joined: 1-June 04 From: Lake Zurich, Illinois Member No.: 2,140 |
If someone is going to start looking for a 6 to build what do you want and what do you want to avoid?
2.2 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.2 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) |
Cap'n Krusty |
Aug 28 2010, 05:13 PM
Post
#22
|
Cap'n Krusty Group: Members Posts: 10,794 Joined: 24-June 04 From: Santa Maria, CA Member No.: 2,246 Region Association: Central California |
2.7s pull studs from the soft metal mag cases. Porsche has found the Dilavar studs weren't the answer to the problem, and they've gone back to steel studs. Case savers are a requirement. 3.0 engines break studs, often right down at the deck. An EDM is required to fix this, along with case savers. My guy gets 50 bucks a hole. We just did an SC engine with EIGHT broken studs.
Pressure fed tensioners are OK, but the conversion is major dollars, bucks that could be better spent elsewhere. They CAN fail. I've seen it. A good rebuild of the late SC tensioners and the addition of chain guards sets you back 50-60 bucks in parts and they last for ages. 2.7 engines need a well designed front oil cooler setup. Built 2.4s might, too. As for weight, everything that moves is the same weight between a 2.7 and a 3.0, with the exception of the pistons. I doubt they rev any more freely. A 5 blade fan works fine if you have the correct fan ring and drive pulleys. The urban legends regarding the subject are like most urban legends .............. That said, if I were building a performance motor for my car, I'd build a 2.5 based on a 2.0 S crank and an aluminum case, with ported big valve heads. The machinists I use say they can get me right about 200 HP from a street drivable 2.2, so a short stroke 2.5 should be a revvin'n fool, and have even better HP. The Cap'n |
jfort |
Aug 30 2010, 04:37 PM
Post
#23
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1,140 Joined: 5-May 03 From: Findlay, OH Member No.: 652 Region Association: Upper MidWest |
[That said, if I were building a performance motor for my car, I'd build a 2.5 based on a 2.0 S crank and an aluminum case, with ported big valve heads. The machinists I use say they can get me right about 200 HP from a street drivable 2.2, so a short stroke 2.5 should be a revvin'n fool, and have even better HP.]
Agree. I have a 2.5 built on a 2.0. I believe it is an E cam. Love it. |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th September 2024 - 12:49 PM |
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002 |
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community! We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ... |