Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: New Life with the 2.7 RS spec motor

  1. #1
    Blessed be the lowered RickS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Worshington State
    Posts
    1,360

    New Life with the 2.7 RS spec motor

    After the break-in run to Monterey, the oil was changed, and valves, air/fuel adjusted. A couple of other minor annoyances were also addressed: squeeking clutch pedal, and noisey shift bushings. Since the motor now had 1500 miles on it, now was the time to finally get it beyond 4 grand and really wring out its potential. It was like looking forward to graduation day.

    I have a favorite back road about 1.5 miles from the house which rolls through the country with lots of twisties (posted from 20 to 35 MPH) and some good connecting straights. There is very little traffic since its in the sticks and away from civilization. This was the perfect place (other than the track - ahem) to see what it would do in comparison to the tired 2.4 S motor it replaced.

    First, the motor included SSIs and a Leistritz sport. Second, it has a rebuilt/recalibrated MFI pump courtesy of Gus and the motor was ported and balanced. An E-cam and 930 oil pump in a modified case were also added. The required upgrades were also included just to make it more bullet proof.

    Impressions: Throttle response is immediate and strong. At about 2.5 grand up to about 5.5 it pulls like a chief. I can put much more power down sooner when coming out of the corners which is fantastic. The sound of the Leistritz at 4 grand and above is simply intoxicating. What a beautiful sound - going right up to the howl at 6000. I love the sound of it. Speaking of which, just putting along a 2 grand it has a nice throaty sound.

    Where before, I would have to downshift to pass, now I just step on it and the power is right there. The motor also seems more fluid and runs like a sewing machine. It just seems like a better setup than the original 2.4 all the way around - except for sacrificing top end power with the absence of the S cam - but the car spends the majority of its time on the street.

    I am very happy with it, and has enough power for the time being - because as we all know.... It's also fun to have part of a legend under the bonnet.

    Would I recommend the upgrade to others? Emphatically, unless you need 3.6 power. But since I am keeping the original fender widths, I couldn't put it down anyway.

    All for now. Your humble 'unbiased' reporter - Rick

  2. #2
    Moderator Chuck Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Reseda, CA.
    Posts
    11,952
    Rick,

    I have the same impression with mine... except with a stock muffler and WebCam regrinds...

    I have over 3000 miles on it ... and I'm already starting to forget about the last 15 years of the 2.4 S's performance...

    The car is fast where it was slow... and faster where it was fast.

    I owe the club an article that will be in 3 parts starting with the ESSES's after the one that's now on the way.

    Congrats and good luck... your car will get even better...

    The adventures have just begun
    Chuck Miller
    Creative Advisor/Message Board Moderator - Early 911S Registry #109
    R Gruppe #88

    TYP901 #62
    '73S cpe #1099 - Matched # 2.7/9.5 RS spec rebuild
    '67 Malibu 327 spt cpe - Period 350 Rebuild

    98 Chevy S-10 Utility
    15 GTI Commuter

  3. #3

    Re: New Life with the 2.7 RS spec motor

    Originally posted by RickS
    Would I recommend the upgrade to others? Emphatically, unless you need 3.6 power.
    I don't know that the gap to the 3.6 is so great. I've tried keeping up with Chuck's 2.7...

    ...and it was not easy.


  4. #4
    Rick,

    Congrats on the new motor! Sounds like much more usable power for street driving, niicce!

    How would one do something similar if they started with a 2.2? The crank and rods are different than the 2.4L, no? Maybe I just answered my own question.

    Happy motoring,
    Tom
    Early 911S Reg #544

  5. #5

    Talking 2.7RS spec motor

    I now have 2,500 miles on my 2.7RS spec motor in my 67S. The event in Monterey helped to put miles on it quickly. If some of you remember, when I had the 2.0S motor with the short gears, and 115,000 original miles on it, many of you would ask how I keep up with you during runs. I would always answer, gears! The ratio was A,E, I, O, U. VERY SHORT GEARS. I have a 904 mainshaft in my orignal 901, as that is the only way you can get an E for second. I would top out at about 115mph, at 7,200 rpm. All of you would just be going into 5th! My 2.7 has a 67 aluminum block, S cams, Walt at competition did all of the block and head work, I have 40 IDA webers, and oh my golly, does it pull like a scalded ass dog!!!! The gears now are A,F,M,S,X, which is much longer than before. On a run up the I-15, I was doing 120mph at 6,000 rpm, and we have the limiter set at 7,500 rpm. My guess is it will do 135 mph, which is WAY to fast for a short wheel base. From about 5,000, the S cams pull like crazy. If any of you are thinking about going to the 2.7 motor, go for it. You will not be disappointed. When you start it up, it sounds wonderful. As Jack mentioned about the 3.6, I am putting one of them in my 73RSR clone, 46PMO's, and crank fired, and I hope I get as much fun out of it as I have this 2.7!!! The only thing to remember is: Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go? The answer, REALLY FAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    S Registry #265
    R Gruppe #224

  6. #6
    Not long ago, I had the pleasure of driving Tom Wilkinson's ROTHSPORT 2.7, which is "sorta" RS spec....meaning, if anything, slightly more power than original 2.7 RS. YUP! (edit) Not to slam the guys who go for cubic inches...but after driving Tom's Orange Q ship? My fantasy "if I won a lottery" Q ship R Gruppe hot rod 911 would be under 3.0 in displacement... Am I willing to machine my original 2.4 case to go bigger? Gulp! That's another question. One that would take a
    lot of thought...
    Paul D. Early S Registry #8 - Cyclops Minister of West Coast Affairs
    "Now, to put a water-cooled engine in the rear and to have the radiator in the front, that's not very intelligent." -Ferry Porsche (PANO, Oct. 1973)

  7. #7
    Blessed be the lowered RickS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Worshington State
    Posts
    1,360
    Tom,

    Wish I could answer your question, but there are many on the board who can. My first impression is that boring a 2.2 to a 2.7 is too big a leap. A 2.5 would be within reach.

    As I wanted to preserve the original 2.4 as 'original stock', it is unceremoniously sitting in the corner of the garage with rags stuffed in its openings - I posted a question earlier about how to properly store it, but since its tired it will no doubt require a complete rebuild - some other year.

    I have an aluminum short block out of a '78 (?) donor. There are some relatively inexpensive short blocks out there, but building them up from scratch takes $$$, so be prepared for sticker shock unless you are skilled with a wrench.

    When I related the cost to have it built + parts (I have 9 thumbs except for the basics) many asked why I didn't just find a 3.0 or 3.2 and modify it for far less? The answer was, I wanted the 2.7 based on the views expressed on this board as well in Esses. For a '73 - it just seems period correct, no matter how incorrect the rest of the car might be. Also, unless you know the owner of the 3.0 or 3.2 really well and the engine has been tested in the car, you just don't know what you are getting into. I decided to not risk it.

    I appreciate the support, feedback and encouragement of the board members - no matter how unbiased. I will post the dyno numbers after I have about 5K on the clock after everything is seated and broken in. One question - is anyone using synthetic? Right now I'm running Kendall 20-50.

    Good luck. Rick

  8. #8
    Congratulations Rick, IMO you made the right choice. I have the same set-up - '72S with 2.7RS MFI - and I wouldn't want it any other way. I'm having a fast reving 2.8L built for my race car (instead of replacing the 3.2L) for similar reasons. I would use Mobil 1 in an aluminum case motor and Kendall or Shell 20-50 in a magnesium case motor. All the best!

    P.S. Are you coming to Gary's Camp-Out?
    Randy Wells
    Automotive Writer/Photographer/Filmmaker
    www.randywells.com/blog
    www.hotrodfilms.com

    Early S Registry #187

  9. #9
    Blessed be the lowered RickS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Worshington State
    Posts
    1,360
    Hiya Randy,

    Would love to go to Gary's - sounds like a hoot, but family obligations will not allow. Intend to attend the historics, PIR, and some of the others. With my luck when those events come around, the car will go to paint for 2 months and will have to drive the Mega-pig.

    Regards,
    Rick

Similar Threads

  1. FS: 2.7 RS spec motor and 915
    By xpensivewino in forum For Sale: 911 Parts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-23-2013, 04:16 PM
  2. WTB 2.7 RS Spec Motor
    By Todsimpson in forum For Sale: 911 Parts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-11-2011, 02:45 PM
  3. 2.4 ``S`` spec motor for sale
    By Francois Duval in forum For Sale: 911 Parts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2007, 11:24 AM
  4. 1972 911T with 2.7RS spec motor
    By flatspin911 in forum For Sale/Wanted: Early 911 Cars, 1965 - 1973
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-19-2007, 04:21 PM
  5. 69T with 2.2S spec Motor
    By gruen911 in forum For Sale/Wanted: Early 911 Cars, 1965 - 1973
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-04-2006, 07:10 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.