Collective Wisdom Sought

[ckissick]

I'll never stop attending PCA races due to the snobby new Porsche owners. I like to kick their a**'s! But those Boxters sure do post some good times.

Anybody taken their early P-car to an SCCA event? During fits of reverie I imagine going to one and finding crowds around my car with the people saying, 'Now there's a REAL sports car!"
Nahh, probably not.

But there is hope; if I take my old VW to a concourse, people do crowd around it with big smiles on their faces. The Packard and Duesenberg owners don't appear amused as people stroll by their cars with nary a glance on their way to see my humble bug that costs less than one wheel on their car.

[RickS]

Guys,

I know I can always count on getting some sage advice, no matter how varied. I really like the difference of opinion, because everyone has strong arguements. Especially "Old Smokey" - great pic. Unfortunately I don't want to wait 2 years to save up for the full roticery treatment/rebuild and driving yesterday helped move me one direction. When coming home from work, I noticed again that people really hang back from me, just like I hang back from some beater blowing oily smoke - so the decision has been made. Since I just had an unexpected windfall today (not the lottery) I will have the top and bottom ends done. I would like to keep the matching engine but now have another dilema. Based on the other threads concerning hp, does it make more sense to have it converted to a 2.7RS, and have the MFI spaced or go for the 2.2 S pistons and E cams? My objective is maximum low end to mid-high range grunt. Since the car is mostly a driver but is occasionally autocrossed and attends a few track days, I would think that would give me the best all around. I am not looking for 140 MPH since the times I would ever even hope to getting above 125 would be rare. So whatcha think - bore it to 2.7 with (E-cams?) or use 2.2 with E-cams - any dyno numbers on these setups?

And Quattro - I know exactly what you are talking about being totally ignored by new car owners. A S4 owner had the audacity to ask me if the fenders were glass. A non-Audi owner said, 'Cool Sirocco - didn't know they made them so big'. And so on. There are two types of people, those into classic and sports cars who have a real appreciation and the completely oblivious who go out and buy a car based on 'styling'

[rst73]

Rick,

If you want low end grunt 2.7RS spec. is the way to go. I built my 73S motor to RS spec almost 20 years and almost 150,000 miles ago. And have NEVER regretted it. All you will need to do is have your injection pump redone and the engine case opened up, you have everything else you need with your existing motor.
All those 2.7 RS spec motors are being built for a reason. Build the best and cry once.
Hope this helps.

All the best!

Roger Grago
R Gruppe #27
73 RS-T
70 2.4MFI VW Bus

[silver911]

Go with the RS spec.

From experience it's similar in character to the 2.4E engine...just more of it.
The 2.4E has the low end you're looking for and is quicker to 100 than an 2.4S. After that the S leaves it behind...I know I've been there.

When, not if, I need a rebuild I'll go for a 2.7RS spec on the 2.4E base...

Even if it is a bunch of guys clustered round an engine with beer..

PS. Saw the Autofarm engine shop the other day...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.Lots of dollars could go 'missing there'

2.8/2.9 RSR engines....2.5L short strokes......

to say nothing of the standard 2.7RS engines.

I saw the guys 'rebuilding' it at the Classic Car show last year and then rebuilding it again in the shop to running standard.
Boh times the speed at which the engin went together was incredible, no hesitation or messing about, and very little fiddling about to get it spot on. A huge talent there.

[HarryD]

Originally posted by RickS
Guys,

I know I can always count on getting some sage advice, no matter how varied. I really like the difference of opinion, because everyone has strong arguements. Especially "Old Smokey" - great pic. Unfortunately I don't want to wait 2 years to save up for the full roticery treatment/rebuild and driving yesterday helped move me one direction. When coming home from work, I noticed again that people really hang back from me, just like I hang back from some beater blowing oily smoke - so the decision has been made. Since I just had an unexpected windfall today (not the lottery) I will have the top and bottom ends done. I would like to keep the matching engine but now have another dilema. Based on the other threads concerning hp, does it make more sense to have it converted to a 2.7RS, and have the MFI spaced or go for the 2.2 S pistons and E cams? My objective is maximum low end to mid-high range grunt. Since the car is mostly a driver but is occasionally autocrossed and attends a few track days, I would think that would give me the best all around. I am not looking for 140 MPH since the times I would ever even hope to getting above 125 would be rare. So whatcha think - bore it to 2.7 with (E-cams?) or use 2.2 with E-cams - any dyno numbers on these setups?

And Quattro - I know exactly what you are talking about being totally ignored by new car owners. A S4 owner had the audacity to ask me if the fenders were glass. A non-Audi owner said, 'Cool Sirocco - didn't know they made them so big'. And so on. There are two types of people, those into classic and sports cars who have a real appreciation and the completely oblivious who go out and buy a car based on 'styling'

RickS,

Thanks for noticing my pic! Now just a historical footnote. At the last few PCA Autocrossers, several of the regulars noted to lack of bug killing power and the sweet sound of a high revving engine. Music to my ears and a feast for my eyes.

You might want to consult with a few of the performance engine builders to see what their take on a good engine would be for you using your case as a base. Personally, the 2.7 RS with MFI would be pretty cool and you will get that great sound as well.

Best of luck, what ever you decide.

[Walter Stockton]

I have to agree with what has been said about the 2.7RS conversion. Mine has been completed since July and after having many years of early P car driving I have never experienced anything like this. The biggest difference is the low end pull. It is overall just a better runnig engine. I am happy that I made the decision for the upgrade, even though to do it right will always cost a lot more than you expect it to cost.

[RickS]

I was talking to a friend about the conversion, and he said he has a complete 2.7 with magensium block from a '74 Carrera for sale cheap - $2500. Doesn't leak a drop of oil. It may be a more cost effective to have that one converted and just keep the 2.4 in a crate.

[Mr9146]

Making a hot-rod 2.7 out of an existing 2.7 - as opposed to boring and machining a 2.4 case - is preferred, if for no other reason than unmolested 2.4 cases are getting harder to come by.

[larry47us]

Interesting that on this board, everyone talks about keeping the color original, because a color change lowers the value of the car. I know the interest in spending a bit more money on an engine rebuild and taking a 2.4 up to 2.7RS. The additional power would be GREAT. I would be tempted too!!!

But doesn't that have the same impact (or more) on the value of the car as a collector's car as changing the paint color? You can always repaint the color of the car back to original, but can you take the matching number engine, and "de-build" it from a 2.7RS to a 2.4? And who would want to do that!!!!

I am just interested in the viewpoint. Rick's last comment about dropping in another engine and keeping the 2.4 crated sounds nice, but how many people have enough mooolah to have an extra engine hanging around??

larry

[RickS]

Great question about the extra moolah. After researching the costs of buying a 2.7 block (1977) versus having the 2.4 bored and then customizing the block to accept a larger oil pump, I realized a $1200 savings by buying the right sized block to begin with.

I looked at every angle and decided the 2.7 was the way to go. (Per the recommendations above). All aluminum blocks cost about double than the one I purchased, so to keep costs managable (a relative term), I went with the '77 block. It still costs a bundle to build an engine, even when using many pieces from the 2.4 (MFI recallabrated, distributor, stacks, etc). The engine when complete will be new except for the parts above and having the engine cover - repainted. As a personal preference, I really wanted to keep the car looking as period correct as possible. A 3.2 or 3.6, which definitely are faster will not go with a car I am trying to keep with a slightly modificed stock Euro look. (Read: No sheet metal changes)

The prices of the BIG TiCKET items add up fast:

Labor to rebuild the core to RS Spec - $2,800
2.7 core - $1200
Mahle 2.7 RS piston set - $2,000 (absolutely gorgous!)
Machine Heads, fly cut - $1,100
SSIs - $1000
Recalibrate/rebuild MFI - Gus $800
Regrind T cams to E-cams $350
Exhaust Valves - $275
ARP Head Stud kit (aircraft) - $450
Stainless Sport Muffler - $450
Balance engine -$250
And about 40 other line items ranging from $35 to $200.
State sales tax - $1000
Ca-ching!

The 2.4 will be crated and live in the garage indefinitely.

The bright side is that it will be built to 245 hp at the flywheel. Since a dyno is next to the shop, we will see what makes it to the wheels. Stay tuned. Pics coming next.