2.2 T motor with lots of case work, 66 NCW crank - what to do?

[75 911s]

Hello,

I recently traded for a 70 2.2 T motor 61087** Type 911/07. The case has an ollies tag on it and has had thousands of dollars of machine work done. It's shuffle pinned, has case savers for the head studs, it's been welded up in one spot, align bored, oil bypass mod, IMS bearing mod, spigots faced, hot tanked, and IMS cover faced. Strangely, piston squirters were NOT added, and the spigots are stock size.



It came with a fresh micropolished, crossdrilled NON CW 66mm crank and rods.



Steel biral? 84mm cylinders , Stock heads, no oil pump, no oil cooler, zenith 40s, fan/housing, part of a distributor, Engine tin and cooling fins, cam towers, stock cams, chain boxes, and original chains, Good IMS, tensioners etc.

Someone began work on the heads, they are cleaned and new valve guides installed.







I've been pouring over a lot of your posts from the past 2 decades and that is all great information, but I decided to start a new thread as I think engine prices have gone up astronomically even in the 6 years I've been into Porsches.

Point is, it's no longer feasible to really abandoned a decent block for a newer one for a few reasons.

1. Engine creep (always wanting the newer more technologically advanced motor) ie just get a 2.7 7R case to build.
2. Engines are crazy expensive to buy in a core state and obviously to rebuild.

Hard to deny the value of all the existing machine work done on this bit of parts, so why not make something work. Yes a 7R case would have been better, but so is a 3.0, 3.2 etc. Lets keep this period correct!

I bought a 66 912 tub and 911R glass body work to make a R style SWB car.

I'd like to twin plug for performance and looks. Weber 40 or 46s, headers and lightweight sport muffler.

I also want to build the lightest motor I possibly can. That's why I'm interested in the 66 NCW crank.

I'm leaning toward a 2.5 SS, so send the case BACK to Ollies, bore the spigots, add squirters, get 2.7 PCs with highest compression I can to account for the loss in stroke and maybe run MOD S cams.

I'd love to do a lightened flywheel, TI rods and make this puppy spin up really quickly but rev limit to 7500 or less.

Also thinking about shortened gears in the 915 I got with the deal to make the car feel peppier.

I feel that a lot of the information I've found in BA's and Waynes book is sort of out dated (in terms of - just get a 7R case!) Also a lot of the forum posts on the matter don't cover the strange non-counterweighted crank. BTW they ARE FORGED :-D Sorry Grady RIP.

What would you build?

[75 911s]

Alright, I think this might be the best option:

Found this from Henry:

"I recommend a 2450. It's the engine I built for my last two long hood cars and for many customers over the years. Concours and hot rod alike.
No need to modify the case other that standard machine work. Line bore, case savers, oil by-pass mod and some 8mm perimeter studs.
Much like the 2.5 ST long stroke engine (70.4x86.7)

70.4 crank (2.4/2.7) and rods
86 mm pistons and cylinders.
9.5:1 compression
36 mm intake ports
Mod "S" cams (performance valve springs)
40mm Webers or PMO
Stock heaters boxes (Dansk or SSI)
Sport muffler"

Any protests before I give up the 66mm non counterweighted crank? Think I might still get piston squirters installed. Also would like to go higher compression and twin plug.

[crater64]

What would you build?

Henry's option is a good one and, as you've seen, there are others.

At the moment I've begun working with a reputable engine builder in the region to do a similar build off my 2.2T. My intention is to retain my 66mm non-counterweighted crank and go with the largest slip-fit P&Cs, 87.5mm Nickies/JEs. I don't want to go twin plug so that will likely limit the CR to 9.5:1 max. I have E cams on hand which would work well with the stock T heads; the builder has suggested I consider DC30/mod-Solex cams instead, which would work better with the heads ported to S specs.

As my case is also a '70, it lacks squirters. If my case has to be split (and likely it does), then adding the squirters would be logical along with the usual case work. It's also been suggested to me (though not by the builder) that using Pauter rods with connecting rod groove oiling channels might suffice, but retaining the stock rods if possible might be best for the budget.

Another budget constraint may be carburetion; if I'm not going to use the cams I have and there's more case and head work needed than anticipated, then I may opt to have the stock Zeniths rejetted rather than swap in PMOs or Webers.

Again there are many more folks with much more experience than I in going down this path, so I'll stop here for now. Good luck with whichever option you pursue.

[RobFrost]

Not sure if you've ever driven a 2.2T but they're great fun and love to rev, without accumulating speed absurdly fast like say my later turbo does. This actually makes them way more driveable. I find myself picking up the 2.2T keys more often than any other car.

They pull nicely at low revs, way better than an S or something with a ported head and aggressive cams. The 6,500 red line is plenty high enough for road use and I never go above 6,000 even when driving in a spirited manner. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to just put in the E cams, do some gentle porting, perhaps a minor increase in compression and stick with that. That would be a wonderful car to drive.

For sustained high revs, I.e. over 6,000, you would need to get a counterweighted crank for the engine to have any longevity.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

[75 911s]

Originally Posted by crater64

Henry's option is a good one and, as you've seen, there are others.

At the moment I've begun working with a reputable engine builder in the region to do a similar build off my 2.2T. My intention is to retain my 66mm non-counterweighted crank and go with the largest slip-fit P&Cs, 87.5mm Nickies/JEs. I don't want to go twin plug so that will likely limit the CR to 9.5:1 max. I have E cams on hand which would work well with the stock T heads; the builder has suggested I consider DC30/mod-Solex cams instead, which would work better with the heads ported to S specs.

As my case is also a '70, it lacks squirters. If my case has to be split (and likely it does), then adding the squirters would be logical along with the usual case work. It's also been suggested to me (though not by the builder) that using Pauter rods with connecting rod groove oiling channels might suffice, but retaining the stock rods if possible might be best for the budget.

Thanks for that. I feel like I would be a fool not to add squirters at this point, unless anyone has a good reason?

Originally Posted by RobFrost

Not sure if you've ever driven a 2.2T but they're great fun and love to rev, without accumulating speed absurdly fast like say my later turbo does. This actually makes them way more driveable. I find myself picking up the 2.2T keys more often than any other car.

They pull nicely at low revs, way better than an S or something with a ported head and aggressive cams. The 6,500 red line is plenty high enough for road use and I never go above 6,000 even when driving in a spirited manner. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to just put in the E cams, do some gentle porting, perhaps a minor increase in compression and stick with that. That would be a wonderful car to drive.

For sustained high revs, I.e. over 6,000, you would need to get a counterweighted crank for the engine to have any longevity.

Rob,
I love this answer. Thanks so much for responding. I have never driven a 2.2T! But I love driving my worn out 2.7 midyear with probably around 170hp. I think because it exhibits the same characteristics you describe above. I rarely redline it to 6300, and in a car that is destined to be 500lbs lighter than my midyear, the 911R clone will certainly be a lot of fun to drive.

The thing is, I'm already building a silly motor, a 3.55 with a GT3 crank. I don't need to get crazy with a second motor. Engine creep is real.

I need to go check the perimeter studs, are they not 8mm like the later cases? Is that a typical upgrade?

[Black 993]

I built out my 2.2T with S p/c's and a mod-solex cam. Very nice little motor. If I was doing it all over again, I'd port the heads and use a cam that likes to rev a little more. It's great in the mid-range but run out of breath by 5500 RPM's. It'd be fun to have another 1K RPM of headroom to play with. I'd like basically a 2.2S with modern cams.

[Mixed76]

Based on the driving description why not put a small, modern, low pressure turbo? Enhance the existing feel at same or lower cost?

No need for rpm or cams, would have low lag and a nice swell of torque.

[RobFrost]

Originally Posted by Mixed76

Based on the driving description why not put a small, modern, low pressure turbo? Enhance the existing feel at same or lower cost?

No need for rpm or cams, would have low lag and a nice swell of torque.

Sacrilege in a 2.2T to add a turbo, but the engine is actually well-suited to it because of its low compression ratio.

Do you not need twin turbos though, due to two exhausts? And why not a supercharger run off the fan belt?

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

[safe]

Originally Posted by RobFrost

Do you not need twin turbos though, due to two exhausts?

Not at all!
But you really need good oil cooling and proper EFI to keep control of the turbo and engine.
Twin turbos is mostly for when you can't fit a large enough turbo or for reducing lag and spooling earlier. But a modern turbo and EFI boost control solves a lot of the issues.

I'm trying to boost a 2.0 924 and you can spool a surprisingly large turbo with a relatively small 2 litre poor flowing 125hp engine...

[RobFrost]

On the flat 6 you clearly can't drive the boost off only one bank, so presumably you're saying run both exhausts into a single pipe first?

[safe]

Originally Posted by RobFrost

On the flat 6 you clearly can't boost only one bank, so presumably you're saying run both banks into a single pipe first?

Yes, two banks merging into the turbo flange. Perfect setup for a twin scroll turbo.

[75 911s]

That would be wild, but quite honestly I want to stick to period correct look, sound, and parts. Today I'm leaning toward boring the Iron cylinders to 85 and buying these JE 85mm 10.5:1 pistons. What do you all think?

Though the description says "Designed for Porsche Air-cooled 911 engines compatible with a Nickel Ceramic bore"

My understanding is that the iron jugs would require no coating. Can I still safely run these pistons?

[colingreene]

You would need to twin plug it to handle that compression.

[75 911s]

Originally Posted by colingreene

You would need to twin plug it to handle that compression.

Yep definitely. This build is a fine line between engine creep and period (ish) correct build. Meaning I don’t want to go updated 2.4, or 2.7 crank because that is the first step of the slippery slope.

I think I’ll give Craig a try on these heads always wanted to use him. Ollies did a sub par job on my last set of heads. Snapped some fins being heavy handed when they twin plugged my Carrera heads.

Thinking 36mm intake and 35 exhaust. George euro style headers and move my Weber 40IDAs from my 2.7 over. Since I’m planning on moving that one to a 2.8 or 2.7RS with Weber 46 or an MFI setup I have.

I think first up is to get the oil squirters put in and to bore the iron jugs to 85mm