[Eagledriver]

Originally Posted by Jerome74911S

Like many reputations of all sorts, half (or more) of what is believed about 2.7s is fiction. It's like anything else, something alarming happens and hits the news at some point, and then that alarming quality is the 'truth' about all other specimens of the thing. It doesn't matter if you are talking about car engines, or coconuts, people tend to tar them all with the same brush - it makes their lives simpler being able to assign one notion to every example of something. It's an unreliable prejudice.

I have never seen solid numbers quantifying 2.7 failures, just vague proclamations. What stats? They are not all bad, and never were - it's a myth.

As is often pointed out, every engine series within the timeframe that this forum considers has had 'issues' of differing sorts. None are perfect. My 2.7 has been rebuilt with the complete list of 'corrections' and 'updates' always mentioned here and it runs great. Did it actually need them? I don't know, but it runs fine now and is plenty fun. The rest is ancient history.

I had a 2.7 engine in my car and loved it. However, if the 2.7 in question has not had timecerts/case savers installed it is a big risk to buy. There is a reason you won't see people on here saying they love their 75-77 911 with original non rebuilt engine. 74's can last but are still a risk.

-Andy