1971 2.2L 911S Engine. Keep it original or increase displacement ?

[stout]

My cross to bear.

(Chuckles at desk.)

I get a kick out of Mr. Beck's various perspectives. Even if I don't always agree, we need more Franks, not fewer...

I do think 2.2 is something kinda neat in terms of character and noises. Would I take a nice 911X 2.2 over a great 911X 2.4? Nope—but I would take a nice 996 C2 3.4 over a great 996 C2 3.6. YMMV, which is just fine.

pete

[Scott72]

We had the machine work done on our 69 2.0S by Walt at Competition Engineering. He came back and said our original 2.0 pistons were good but our barrels were gone. He said we could try to find some uncut 2.0 Barrels or we could go aftermarket which would mean most likely going up to 2.2L. We asked him his thoughts and he said he didn't want us to ruin the original character of a 2.0S and give him a few days. He came back and said he found six good barrels in his parts stash.

Not sure if this means anything, but thought it interesting from a guy who as built as many of these motors as anyone.

[stout]

We had the machine work done on our 69 2.0S by Walt at Competition Engineering. He came back and said our original 2.0 pistons were good but our barrels were gone. He said we could try to find some uncut 2.0 Barrels or we could go aftermarket which would mean most likely going up to 2.2L. We asked him his thoughts and he said he didn't want us to ruin the original character of a 2.0S and give him a few days. He came back and said he found six good barrels in his parts stash.

Not sure if this means anything, but thought it interesting from a guy who as built as many of these motors as anyone.

Went for a ride up the Gaisberg Hillclimb in a 2.0-liter 911 with Peter Falk at the wheel. I remember a swift elegance to the way he put that car through its paces. Linge, in a Carrera Abarth, had a mechanical sympathy I've never seen in any other driver, not even the smoothest/best—but was raw by comparison to Falk.

But the other thing I remember from that day was the sound of that 2.0-liter flat six. It too had a certain sophistication and elegance, like a fine watch.

Have experienced the same with other 6- and 12-cylinder engines of small displacement. There's just something about them, though there's no question why more displacement is usually the replacement.

[blue72s]

Installing 70.4 crank and rods in a 2.2S is a no brainer.

I disagree.

While more low-down torque, (longer stroke = more low-down torque), is ideal for road traffic use, but unfortunately the 2.4/2.7 crankshaft had problems with vibration at high revs (flywheel spitting off) due to the fact that it has thinner webs than the 66mm crankshaft.

For me, reliability is more important. In my previous car (1972 2.4S), I intentionally refused to rev beyond 6,800 rpm because I feared that the engine would get destructed, whereas with a 66mm stroke engine I don't have that fear.

I recommend that if you want a 70.4mm stroke engine, buy a 911SC.

[62S-R-S]

Went for a ride up the Gaisberg Hillclimb in a 2.0-liter 911 with Peter Falk at the wheel. I remember a swift elegance to the way he put that car through its paces. Linge, in a Carrera Abarth, had a mechanical sympathy I've never seen in any other driver, not even the smoothest/best—but was raw by comparison to Falk.

But the other thing I remember from that day was the sound of that 2.0-liter flat six. It too had a certain sophistication and elegance, like a fine watch.

I think that nailed it pretty good, that European and Porsche preferred power delivery, is of the Swiss watch type. There are other paths out there of course. Some make the claim for ex., that the greatest motor of the sixties was the Plymouth 340 engine, in the sense that it could stay with the 426 hemi, when nothing else did. BUT it can get silly, to be comparing a very crude design to something supremely sophisticated.

[LongRanger]

. . . I get a kick out of Mr. Beck's various perspectives. Even if I don't always agree, we need more Franks, not fewer . . .

Hm --- well maybe you do . . .

. . . me?



Not . . .

http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...hmentid=478294




................

[endo911rs]

I went through this dilemma with my 69S. Ultimately, my engine builder installed a 70.4mm crank with 2.2S heads, high comp pistons (10.7) lightweight valve system, and retained the MFI which was recalibrate and rebuilt by Fairchild. I believe the end displacement is about 2.4L.

This in combination with short gears transformed the car...its revs like an early motor and pulls like a larger displacement motor. I would build this combination again if I had the chance. I have multiple motors/cars from 2.0L to 3.6L and this 2.4L is my favorite.