Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: 2.4E to 2.7RS spec

  1. #21
    Tacos Gordo Chapulines Reza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kalimantan <SeaTac<Philly
    Posts
    1,237
    There is a lot to be said for S cams. With well matched gearbox and suitable ratios for purpose, the S cams come on song, sound gnarly, and kick you up the road. even with similar power, an E cammed motor may be as fast or faster, but it aint as magical. It aint as fun. i have both an E cammed and an S cammed motors, both similarly just under 200hp. the E is a 9.1CR 70mm stroke 2.4, and the S is a 66mm short stroke 2.2, both are MFI. the E is a lot more usable?, the S just needs a little more getting used to a specific driving style.

    Help ma they're gunna wash my car

  2. #22
    Senior Member super9064's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,184
    I plan on at some point to build a 73RS replica, at a quarter million for a real one I'm out of the market. My goal for the engine would be an exact duplicate of the factory RS motor. I know I could build a motor that exceeds the power of a RS, or has more torque, but that defeats the purpose. For me, the point would be to have the same driving experience as in a real RS.... for a lot less money.
    Rob Abbott

  3. #23
    Porsche realized that external oil cooling was needed on all S cars from 2.2 L on. So to answer the front oil cooler question, I would say it is a must.

  4. #24
    member #1515
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,261
    I second xpensivewino, even while my S was a stock 2.4 it would run hot until I ended up with a 28 tube cooler. The hoop was insufficient. I think that the carrera cooler with fan si the current minimum requirement for anything 2.4 and up.
    David

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

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    193
    I think the external oil cooler is a function of location...Not yet run mine long enough or hard enough ( I'm a wuss.. I know) for the oil tmep to reach the upper third of the gauge...
    Certainly in a hotter climate an oil cooler would be a good investment.

    I hope Rob your RS rep is real beauty...
    If gonig that way then do it.. I kept my body work stock... so the engine could be what I wanted...

  6. #26
    Senior Member Christian Guthrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    288
    I am currently running a 2.4 with no external coolers. I took a drive yesterday in the 105 plus heat and the temp gauge was just over half way on the gauge. I am following this thread closely as I think a 2.7 would be lots of fun in a swb car. My apologies if I sidetracked the thread. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.........

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hamilton, New Zealand
    Posts
    355
    Ive just had an email from Andial saying the 9.5cr 2.7 p&c (103.928.02) are NLA.

  8. #28
    member #1515
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,261
    J&E make them too, I prefer Mahle but my shop uses a lot of those J&E's in their 911 mods so I guess the quality is pretty good. I'd probably just opt for the stock Mahle's in 8.5 for originalities sake. Good enough for the factory and I've been happy with mine.
    David

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

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    81
    What's the latest wisdom on going from a 2.4E to 2.7 or 2.8? I'm doing a top end rebuild on my 2.4E and it looks like I may need new cams, and the (plastic) stacks are likely T versions. Has 2.4S pistons and needs new rings. Not sure yet what space cam I have but the pump has an E part number. So some new bits will needed to get me back to an 2.4E, so why not consider a big bore at the same time?
    Last edited by MattB; 03-12-2019 at 12:37 PM.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Posts
    2,563
    Quote Originally Posted by MattB View Post
    What's the latest wisdom on going from a 2.4E to 2.7 or 2.8? I'm doing a top end rebuild on my 2.4E and it looks like I may need new cams, and the (plastic) stacks are likely T versions. Has 2.4S pistons and needs new rings. Not sure yet what space cam I have but the pump has an E part number. So some new bits will needed to get me back to an 2.4E, so why not consider a big bore at the same time?
    2.7 RS is a fantastic engine. 2.8L even more fun. 2.8L pistons and cylinders cost more though. I'd go bigger if I was you but people say I'm a bad influence. You're talking about building a 30K engine but will be worth it!
    72S, 72T now ST

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.