Pelican Parts
Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   Pelican Parts Technical BBS > 1- Porsche Technical Forums > 911 Engine Rebuilding Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Reply
Stressed Member
 
Scott Clarke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 1,115
Garage
'69 VS. '70-'71 Spec Mag MFI stacks

The '69 stack was 45mm ID at the top surface, and, if memory serves, 38mm at the bottom. The '70-'71 stack was 42mm at the top and the same bottom diameter as the '69. The '72-'73 stacks had dimensions like those of '70, but were plastic. Why did porsche change in '70, making the stacks smaller at the top when at the same time displacement increased? Anyone have any theories?
-Scott
__________________
'70 911E short stroke 2.5 MFI. Sold
'56 Cliff May Prefab
Old 02-09-2005, 08:04 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 507
For those obsessed with weight; You will also find the 69 stacks are much lighter.
__________________
'69 911E 2.7MFI
'71 Volvo P1800E Wife's car
'78 VW bug convertible Family car
'02 M3 Winter car
Old 02-09-2005, 09:44 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #2 (permalink)
I would rather be driving
 
jpnovak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 7,142
I often wonder if the decrease in CR and emissions were the reason. A smaller stack will have a higher intake velocity for a given volumetric flow rate. The air would then expand more as it entered the heads thus cooling and helping suspend the fuel for better burning.

maybe the increased intake velocity helped with the lower compression engines that still used the same cam specs. The overlap of an E or S cam should have a higher compression to make much torque at the lower rpms. smaller intakes would increase the velocity and momentum allowing more air to pack into a cylinder.

I could be way off, just dreaming.
__________________
Jamie - I can explain it to you. But I can not understand it for you.
71 911T SWT - Sun and Fun Mobile
72 911T project car. "Minne" - A tangy version of tangerine
classicautowerks.com - EFI conversion parts
Old 02-09-2005, 10:33 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #3 (permalink)
Stressed Member
 
Scott Clarke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 1,115
Garage
Jamie-
It sounds like you are saying that the '69 stacks would flow more CFM at high RPM, even though the ID at the base is the same. I guess this makes sense, and I like your theory about the CR issue. I thought that CRs were about the same between '69 and '70, but Porsche could have been (correctly) anticipating future reductions.
__________________
'70 911E short stroke 2.5 MFI. Sold
'56 Cliff May Prefab
Old 02-09-2005, 10:41 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Huntington NY
Posts: 139
The 69s 2.0liter was just closer to a race engine. The factory got more and more conservitive as time went on. Those stacks fit the very peaky nature of the 69s engine.
Old 02-09-2005, 11:56 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #5 (permalink)
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

 


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:56 AM.


 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2017 Pelican Parts LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page
 

DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.