race911

I'll go down Memory Lane here with the first "fast" 911 I got to drive. German, ex-Rommel tank soldier, ends up in the Berkeley hills running a Porsche shop. (His drinking problem cost him jobs at most every Porsche specialist around town, so he leased an old gas station and went from there.)

So I hear about him, and his stash of used parts, when I had the broken faux 2.0S in my '68. He was building a 2.8 for his '72 Targa. This was 1980, when a real 2.8 P/C set was unique. And pricey. Finally gets it together. One day I'm up there, he's drunk, and he asks if I want to buy the engine instead of rebuilding mine. Uh huh. Understand I'm 18, and it probably would have been more prudent to put a drunk on the road.

Head out up in the hills--Grizzly Peak, etc. if you know the East Bay. After that, no way in hell was I going to be satisfied with a 2.0. I did end up scrounging up a 2.0S engine, minus case for that car. But when a guy importing containers of Porsche parts appeared about a year later, I snagged one of his motley 2.7s to make a faux RS engine. Served me well in a ~2100 lb. car.

But today I'd go for the torque offered by the big engines. Had to fix too many engines that really weren't built to handle what S/sprint/7500RPM cams need. Unless you want to go to solid rockers. Anyone here had to shim valve springs for those????

JCP911S

This thread is like car-guy crack...

Thank god I don't have any garage space, or i'd get into huge trouble with The Boss... I can afford the car... just can't afford the divorce.

Bill Verburg

I agree the torque from a bigger engine is really nice, but you can also have a big motor that revs like crazy, 9M, Rothsport, Singer all have wonderful examples. This is even better, a good big motor tops a good small motor most of the time, there isn't even much of a weight penalty.

The down side is the big motors need very expensive l/w components to rev much beyond the stock motors, but then a 2.8 ss on a 2.0 aluminum block isn't cheap either.

Back in the day mfi was state of the art, these days not so much, you still want ITBs and probably a resonance manifold on top of them but EFI is far more flexible and tunable and depending on the system possibly less expensive as well

GTgears

There's truth to what Bill says. Here's a prime example of a bigger engine with the manners of the early S/ST 2.2-2.5 engines. As displacement increased, the rev limit and power band of all Porsche's race and homologation engines stayed similar.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsc...ice-check.html

Jae builds Singer's 3.8s. He does a similar engine as a 3.4 or a 3.2. All depends on your power goal, and the depth of your pockets.

pu911rsr

I had a RSR clone with a 3.5 L motor- gobs of torque- very fun and cost effective, loved that motor. But If I built another hot rod I'd go the full monty and build a hi butterfly MFI high HP Hi Rev motor, 12 cyl dizzy motor, nothing cooler otherwise I'd just go buy another GT3 .
Phil

marcel964

My 2.9 (originaly 2,2 T) Hot rod, 240 hp





My 2.9 (originaly 2,2 T) Hot rod, 240 hp

race911

2.2Ts seem to always have been a favorite for hotrodding. One car that came my way when I had my shop going in Phoenix in the mid-'80s was one with a high butterfly RSR engine still mated to the pull clutch transmission. (I later converted it to a 915.) Even had 911R 15X7s, as it was "too expensive" for the owner to flare the car. That's kinda funny in today's world.

marcel964

Looks are stock, but trans is changed to 915 and brakes are 930. (Custom made to fit the 15" fuchs).

marcel964

Drive by
Dyno run
Dyno run2:

tcsracing1

Well it looks like I may have narrowed down my powertrain.
I bought the roller and the seller has a huge stash of engines and transmissions.
He has been vintage racing early 911s for the last 30 years and suggested I use a 2.4L with a 911 transmission and mechanical fuel injection.
He can make it a 2.5L and give it a really nice cam with the mechanical fuel injection as opposed to a CIS motor that limits the use of hot cams....
I want a nice cam

JCP911S

Winner... narrow body with that engine would be so sweet.... the MFI is so superior to CIS in throttle response its not funny... also, don't discount the short-stroke 2.2 crank... it may not produce the numbers, but it revs quicker... especially if you put in close ratio gears...

Keep the pics coming... looks like a great project.

J richard

I have to say that having owned each variation of 911 I liked each of them for different reasons. I wouldn't build a car based on math, I'd do it based on how I liked the feel and drive of the car. Big engines are all great for blasting down the track but in terms of fun a 2L or 2.4 with cams is one of my favorite cars of all time. Driving a small displacement high reving motor with knife like throttle response and sewing machine precision makes a jet tronic 3.0 SC antiseptic by contrast. But you have to drive them to know what turns your crank. I would check a few out before you build something for big $$$ that isn't what you're thinking it will be....just sayin...

Chris M.

Could you elaborate on that?

Nurburger

Judging by the list of Porsches in your signature, you probably don't need the long hood to satisfy any outright speed itches. In that regard, my suggestion would be to go with a motor / exhaust set up that is geared towards delivering a more 'sensory' experience than outright power.

My 67 has a nicely built 2.2S spec motor with 40IDA Webers, great 2 in 2 out muffler and 901 trans with a Rennshift - it certainly isn't fast, but it just absolutely consumes the senses in a way where speed becomes secondary to the immersive & nostalgic experience. I too have other 'fast' Porsches that satisfy the speed cravings, which makes me appreciate the purity of the 2.2 and will never get me in trouble.

Took it for a nice drive today, actually....

tcsracing1

10-4 on the 2.2