Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: 2.4E to 2.7RS spec

  1. #11
    Senior Member HughH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    2,688
    Quote Originally Posted by silver911 View Post
    The case was machined to accept the 2.7 P+Cs.. along with mods for greater oil flow (I think..)
    .
    Yes the case needs machining so it is not reversible back to 2.4 and I also had oil flow modifications "while we were there" including a turbo oil pump although i understand the trick upgrade in this area now is a GT3 oil pump
    Hugh Hodges
    73 911E
    Melbourne Australia

    Foundation Member #005
    Australian TYP901 Register Inc.

    Early S Registry #776

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Germany HG
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by HughH View Post
    Yes the case needs machining so it is not reversible back to 2.4 and I also had oil flow modifications "while we were there" including a turbo oil pump although i understand the trick upgrade in this area now is a GT3 oil pump
    I wouldn't put a GT3 oil pump in as this would mean way to much oil pressure, especially for the Mag-engines. Put in a 964 (or the very similar 930) pump and you are done.

    Cheers,
    Christian
    RGruppe #649
    Early911S #1788

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by HughH View Post
    ....it is not reversible back to 2.4 a.....
    Even if you could go back.... would you?







    Really???



    I don't think so....

  4. #14
    member #1515
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,261
    I have the 930 pump in mine also, I'm sure one of the newer pumps would be better. The biggest difference for me from the 2.4S spec was the phenomenal torque. I stayed with my S ratios so it's quite quick acceleration. I wonder how much more torque the E would get, you'd save on the heads and throttle bodies.
    I sure wish this 9.5 pistons had been readily available when I did my conversion (1982). It sure didn't affect the durability or reliability of the motor. I would never go back.
    David

    '73 S Targa #0830 2.7 MFI rebuilt to RS specs

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hamilton, New Zealand
    Posts
    355
    So I'm guessing here but if you leave the E cams in the rev limit stays the the same?

  6. #16
    member #1515
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,261
    If you are upgrading to forged pistons instead of cast (which I believe were stock to the e) and went with some stiffer valve springs you could possibly go higher, but the cams would not produce much at the higher limit.
    But I'm not an engine builder please seek professional help.
    David

    '73 S Targa #0830 2.7 MFI rebuilt to RS specs

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    193
    With the 2.7 torque/power curves the 7100 limit provides a good excuse to use all it...
    However it does feel a bit breathless on the track.

    For my use of the car the additional 200 rpm would increase my familiarity with the local law enforcement cameras...

  8. #18
    If you're buying Mahle P+C's then you may as well buy the 2.8 versions. I have them in my rally car and its a fantastic motor.

    Cost difference was negligible when I was buying (via EBS).

    I also have the GT3 oil pump and no issues with excessive pressures.
    Cheers, Ryan

    Founder and chief centre cap remover at : ZOLLHAUS / Design driven custom PORSCHE : https://zoll.haus

  9. #19
    member #1515
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,261
    I thought the 2.8's used completely different heads, and if we used them with S heads the compression ratio would be above 10.5, then you need twin ignition. I think 2.8 really pushes the mag block just a bit to far.
    David

    '73 S Targa #0830 2.7 MFI rebuilt to RS specs

  10. #20
    Senior Member Christian Guthrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    288
    At what point do you need to do external oil coolers? I've heard 2.4 is about the max before going to the front coolers. Any truth to this?

Similar Threads

  1. Italian Spec vs US Spec 911S?
    By 73ess in forum General Info
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-14-2014, 03:10 AM
  2. Need spec details of 1968 Euro (ROW) S vs. US-spec 1968 S
    By Peter Linsky in forum General Info
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-20-2011, 03:23 PM
  3. 28.5 MPG with a 2.7 RS Spec MFI?
    By RickS in forum General Info
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 07:01 PM
  4. MFI spec.
    By Zithlord in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-10-2008, 10:42 PM
  5. F/S 73 911 2.7RS Spec.
    By Bobby Smith in forum For Sale/Wanted: Early 911 Cars, 1965 - 1973
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-30-2006, 10:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Message Board Disclaimer and Terms of Use
This is a public forum. Messages posted here can be viewed by the public. The Early 911S Registry is not responsible for messages posted in its online forums, and any message will express the views of the author and not the Early 911S Registry. Use of online forums shall constitute the agreement of the user not to post anything of religious or political content, false and defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise to violate the law and the further agreement of the user to be solely responsible for and hold the Early 911S Registry harmless in the event of any claim based on their message. Any viewer who finds a message objectionable should contact us immediately by email. The Early 911S Registry has the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.