On yeah, one more benefit to add to what John said. And that is you'll never ever have to worry about the possibility of the ceramic liners cracking one day. Why? Because they don't have them.

 

The main reason that the 2.7 heads are used is that they are a direct bolt on to the 3.0 blocks and are also the same configuration (intake and exhaust) as the 2.5 heads. This is the ‘easy’ way to bolt on a turbo to a 3.0 block to gain more displacement.
It used to be just about the only way, now there are other ways to get the extra displacement.
The intake valves and ports are bigger on the 2.7 head than the 2.5 head – but you wouldn’t want to mod the head or block to bolt on a 2/7 head to a 2.5 block – that would be going backwards!!

Chris White

 

So even though you might sleeve a 2.5 block up to a larger capacity there would be no real gains to be had by using a 2.7 head?

 

The 2.7L flows much better than the 2.5L head, so there is a performance advantage. However, to bolt the 2.7L head on a 2.5L based block, you have to modify the water jacket at the front of the head.

It might be easier to get a hi-flow 2.5L head.

 

Doesn't the 968 turbo use a 2.7L head? Does the 968 intake mate to the 2.7L head?

 

from what I heard the originals had heads made just for them but people making replicas were using 2.7 heads

 

The 968 turbo does not use a 968 NA intake manifold. That would be ‘silly’!

 

The 968T did NOT use the 2.7L head. They had a unique 8V 968T head. Not sure how many variations they had for the 968T head, the one I have seen in a picture has some reduced sixe exhaust ports.

The 968T did not use the 968 NA head..

Konstantin knows all about the 968T, I'm sure he'll join us if he's online.

 

Does anyone know if the 968 turbo intake manifold is the same part# at the 951 intake manifold?

It would be cool to find out these details..