Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: 2.0 litre Con Rods

  1. #1

    2.0 litre Con Rods

    New design for 2.0 litre con rods


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sunny Southern France
    Posts
    608
    And, will they be billet or forged?

    Olivier.

    PS: Email sent....

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Bordeaux FRANCE
    Posts
    101
    Hi Chris,

    what average weight ( including ARP bolts & nuts)are you planning

    JD.

  4. #4
    Olivier,

    Machined from a forged blank.

    JD - 570g without bots - from 3D model and 630g with bolts.
    Last edited by chris_seven; 02-04-2013 at 10:49 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member 2.5MFI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bend, Oregon
    Posts
    438
    Chris, Looks like it should be a strong rod but a little heavy compared to the stock 2.0 rod @ around 620g, and Pauter 2.0 rod @ 520g.
    Mark Jung
    MFI Werks
    Early 911S Registry #972
    Carrera T w/LWB, MT, RWS, PCCB
    72 T 66 x 100 MFI Twin Plug Coupe
    R Gruppe #686

  6. #6
    Chris, does the 650g include the bearing shells? My stock rods, by no means the lightest (or heaviest) weight class, came in with a mean around 600g without bearing shells.
    1966 911 #304065 Irischgruen

  7. #7
    Weight of a rod is an interesting debate and H Beams are never going to be the lightest rod for a given design but they are strong in terms of twist and fatigue life.

    Fistly let me say that I didn't type the weight with bolts correctly - Bolts are 30g each so weight with bolts is around 630. This may be a bit high as we have not allowed for the slightly lower density of the small end bush.

    I think that the weight of this rod is about the same as a Carillo.

    Looking at the basic weight groups the standard rods seem to weigh in at 560 for rod code 21 and 660 for Code 32.

    I am not sure how well these rods perform at 8000 rpm in terms of life but I have seen many debates about early race engines needing 2.2S rods.

    The weight groups of 2.2 S rods seem to vary between 700g for weight group 21 and 770g for weight group 32.

    I am sure someone will comment about the reliability of the early rod.

    I think that the Pauter design will always be lighter than an H beam and an I beam is also likely to be lighter.

    The design philosphy of the rod seems to be the main issue

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    112
    I think I understand the H and I design but what is a Pauter?

  9. #9
    Senior Member 2.5MFI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bend, Oregon
    Posts
    438
    Pauter builds an updated version of the old X beam rod design. It has a rib up the broadside of the beam.
    Mark Jung
    MFI Werks
    Early 911S Registry #972
    Carrera T w/LWB, MT, RWS, PCCB
    72 T 66 x 100 MFI Twin Plug Coupe
    R Gruppe #686

  10. #10
    HI will you be able to machine grooves to act as squirters at the main bearing end to allow cooling of the underside of the piston? Any ballpark price for rods??

Similar Threads

  1. H-Beam Rods for 2.0 litre Engines
    By chris_seven in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2013, 11:50 AM
  2. WTB: 2.0 litre E or S heads (MFI)
    By obrut in forum For Sale: 911 Parts
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-12-2012, 12:44 AM
  3. 3.0 litre into a 73
    By tull in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-25-2011, 06:13 PM
  4. 2.0 Litre H-beam Rods
    By chris_seven in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2011, 12:33 PM
  5. 2.0 litre S upgrades
    By Alex Webster in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-13-2006, 07:16 PM

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.