Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: early 300xxx heat exchangers

  1. #11
    Senior Member HughH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    2,484
    And Jon I presume the real reason to have the restrictors on the “normal “ until the new engine was introduced was to lower the power output of the normal otherwise it would have been too close to the S as there are plenty of examples of early engines even with almost no modifications making close to 67S power figures- or at least close enough to worry the sales department about how many of the new S they could sell or what price point they could achieve
    Hugh Hodges
    73 911E
    Melbourne Australia

    Foundation Member #005
    Australian TYP901 Register Inc.

    Early S Registry #776

  2. #12
    Senior Member haul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    bavaria
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by HughH View Post
    And Jon I presume the real reason to have the restrictors on the “normal “ until the new engine was introduced was to lower the power output of the normal otherwise it would have been too close to the S as there are plenty of examples of early engines even with almost no modifications making close to 67S power figures- or at least close enough to worry the sales department about how many of the new S they could sell or what price point they could achieve
    absolutely...to quote the service bulletin M16/66...

    ".....The above listed heat exchangers may be used as replacement parts in Type 2000 engines up to Engine Nr. 909 927, as indicated in Service Bulletin M 14/66, although this will result in increased engine power output."
    59 750 pre unit triton
    63 650 gray silver bikinitub triumph thunderbird
    70 650 astralred silver triumph bonneville
    65 912 slate gray "erwin"
    73 914 ravennagreen "ferdl"
    erwin_loves_polo

  3. #13
    So, which version was used from 68 on? Or are the 67S heat exchangers unique?

  4. #14
    Hugh, I think that's the common view and probable reason, although I'm not sure if Porsche ever publicly stated that.
    The 901/06 engine was developed for a better driving experience in the lower engine speeds.

    Quote Originally Posted by sanders View Post
    So, which version was used from 68 on? Or are the 67S heat exchangers unique?
    I believe the '68 models continued to use the '67S version unaltered.
    The basic design continued until, I believe, the '75 model year, but there were occasional changes to the heat shrouds and possibly the header tubing too.

    Jon B.
    Vista, CA

  5. #15
    Senior Member JT912's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    916
    Just came across some images of these early heat exchangers in my 1965 edition workshop manual.
    Attached Images Attached Images   
    John Thompson

    1966 912. My first car. Bought it Nov. 25, 1988. Still have it.

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.