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 Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Reply
Moderator
 
304065's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,435
Suggestions for warmed over 2.0 901/05?

Hey guys,

I'm putting together a long-term plan for the 901/05 motor in my '66. I've been thinking about various performance enhancements that would be invisible to the concours judges and wanted to see what you thought.

First, is it possible to increase the power of a 2.0 engine without switching engine shrouds to the one from the 2.2? The 2.0 shrouds are flat, whereas the 2.2 one has a channel for the oil cooler that's said to materially improve the cooling. My own anecdotal experience is that the 2.0 runs at about 220F in moderate outdoor temperatures. Then again, I might lose a couple points for the updated shroud but it might be worth it as a compromise.

Second, the 2.0 heads are notorious for having too acute an angle to the roof of the combustion chambers. This, coupled with the high dome necessary on the 2.0S pistons to generate a high compression ratio, has become associated with detonation. The solution, as I see it, is to use 2.2 heads (same valves and ports for the T, E, S)-- assuming the larger ports and valves aren't too detrimental to maintaining higher gas speeds for more efficient cylinder filling, which I don't think would be a problem with a mild hop-up.

Third, the 2.0 cylinders are Biral, which is a cast-iron liner with aluminum cooling fins. As horsepower per cylinder increases, the Biral cylinders approach their thermal capacity, which is why the factory went to Nikasil for the 2.7. But a 2.4S used Biral cylinders, right? Which would mean that for applications up to 190 or so HP there's no issue with Biral (assuming, of course, proper oil cooling)? Now, what about boring them out, is there any problem with boring my 80mm jugs to 86mm, which together with the stock crank would result in 2300cc? Or is that not possible, would I need to start with some 84mm jugs and bore those? If the answer is 84mm jugs, then do the cylinder spigots need to be machined? That's something I do not want to do, i'd rather drop in a 3.0 from a wreck if that's the case.

Next, cam choice. What cam is between a Solex and an S?

I will look for answers to the technical questions- e.g. what is the cylinder base diameter for a 2.4E vs. a 2.0 but would appreciate any and all input from those who have BTDT on an early 911 2.0.
__________________
'66 911 #304065 Irischgruen
Ex-'71 911 PCA C-Stock Club Racer #806 (Sold 5/15/13)
Ex-'88 Carrera (Sold 3/29/02)
Ex-'91 Carrera 2 Cabriolet (Sold 8/20/04)
Old 05-17-2005, 01:28 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
jluetjen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Westford, MA USA
Posts: 8,592
Garage
John;
Here's my $0.02...

1) The "Concours" look buts directly up against HP in a very critical area in regards to the oil cooler. The problem is that HP has a very direct relationship with heat. More HP = more heat. Since the 2.0's didn't have external coolers, air flow to the internal cooler is pretty critical. If my memory is correct, the first S's had external coolers -- so that will give you a clue regarding the HP level when you should be considering using an external cooler. I believe that the number is ~150-160 HP. If you absolutely must keep the stock shroud and no external cooler, you'll be hard pressed to keep the engine cool.

2) Heads -- I've got S pistons in a 2.0E and there is a pretty narrow tuning zone where the engine runs fine with 93 octane. (BTW, retarding the ignition to allow the engine to run with 93 octane increased the engine temperatures). It can be done, but everything has to be pretty much spot on. S cams might be more forgiving of the CR since they lower the functional CR, but then you might have reversion issues a low rev's when driving around town.

3) I guess there is a machining solution to allow 2.2 heads to be used on 2.0 cylinders. I wonder if they can use 2.0 pistons, or if you need to get special "small bore" 2.2 style pistons to avoid clearance issues. Unless you plan on going for 2.2S style HP, I'd recommend using 2.2T or E heads with the 32 mm intake ports to keep the gas flow speeds up. The 2.0 heads that you have smaller valves then the later models in addition to the larger valve angle.

4) I don't think that you can overbore Birol cylinders more then 1 or 2 mm's at most. Keep in mind that you need to leave enough meat to the iron sleeve to provide the needed regedity to the cylinder walls. 84 mm cylinders would be a better choice, but I believe that you need to machine the spigots.

My thoughts for some options:
1) Replace the stock crank and rods with a 2.4 crank and rods. This will give a CR and capacity increase. Possibly throw in a 1mm overbore on the cylinders and get some pistons to put your CR at ~9.5 or 9.8 to 1. Keep your existing cam or swap out for Solex if you don't already have one. You'll wind up with a bigger motor (and thus have more torque).

2) Just swap in a bigger motor and put the 2.0 aside. This still leaves your oil cooling issues.
__________________
John
'69 911E

"It's a poor craftsman who blames their tools" -- Unknown
"Any suspension -- no matter how poorly designed -- can be made to work reasonably well if you just stop it from moving." -- Colin Chapman
Old 05-17-2005, 03:00 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #2 (permalink)
Moderator
 
304065's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,435
John, thanks for the reply-- you definitely meet the BTDT criteria!

I have to agree with you about the oil cooling. There's no alternative but to run external coolers and the updated shroud. Once that's done, I suppose I could forget about winning. . . so perhaps it would make more sense to install a different motor and restore the original to concours.

But just to run with the idea of a subtle overbore for a moment, let's look at what the spec books say about spigots. . . fortunately Wayne went to the trouble to compile all the data in his engine book, thanks Wayne!

The measurement is called "Cylinder outer base diameter to crankcase"

2.0 (mislabled as 2.2 in the caption, nice proofing Dempsey!)
92.072-92.159mm (checks with spec book p. 27)

2.2 same as 2.0 (checks to spec book p. 39)

2.4 same as 2.0.

It's only when the 2.7 cylinders appeared that the diameter went to 97.072-97.152mm, or a 5mm change, basically.

So the 2.4 jugs have the same spigot diameter, but are 84mm inside (well, sure, they're the same as the 2.2 jugs)

2nd overbore for a 2.2 is 84.23mm.
__________________
'66 911 #304065 Irischgruen
Ex-'71 911 PCA C-Stock Club Racer #806 (Sold 5/15/13)
Ex-'88 Carrera (Sold 3/29/02)
Ex-'91 Carrera 2 Cabriolet (Sold 8/20/04)

Last edited by 304065; 05-17-2005 at 05:45 PM..
Old 05-17-2005, 04:32 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Momence, IL 60954
Posts: 1,822
Send a message via AIM to cnavarro
The birals from the 2.2/2.4 are good for an overbore to 85mm, set up with JE's with say .003" minimum piston to cylinder clearance. I've never been fond of birals for all the same reasons the 356 and 912 guys throw them out. They work well as long as it doesn't get too hot and by that point, they are toast- heat soak is a ***** :-)
__________________
Charles Navarro, LN Engineering
http://www.LNengineering.com
Aircooled Precision Performance

'99 Boxster powered by Flat 6 Innovations; '10 Cayman S (DFI testbed)
Old 05-17-2005, 05:32 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #4 (permalink)
Moderator
 
304065's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,435
Charles, thanks for joining in. I certainly value your input on the matter and I've seen the "Nickies" a couple years ago, and met you personally, at the Hershey Swap Meet. You and LN put out a fine product that I would strongly consider for an all-out setup.

The old factory spec book says a clearance of .005 for the E and S pistons. JE calls out (as you correctly cite) a range of .003 to .0036.

Why tighter with the modern slugs, do you think? Different materials? Presumably the modern piston has a lower thermal expansion? Is that because it has a higher silicon content? (Can you tell I've been reading Carroll Smiths books all weekend? )
__________________
'66 911 #304065 Irischgruen
Ex-'71 911 PCA C-Stock Club Racer #806 (Sold 5/15/13)
Ex-'88 Carrera (Sold 3/29/02)
Ex-'91 Carrera 2 Cabriolet (Sold 8/20/04)
Old 05-17-2005, 05:58 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #5 (permalink)
Moderator
 
304065's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,435
Some quick port and valve sizes:

901/05 (what I have now): 39I/35E valves, 32/32 ports

901/02 (1966 2.0 911S) 42I/38E valves, 36/36 ports

911/01 (Race Car's '71E) 46/40 valves, 32/32 ports

911/53 (1972 2.4S) 46/40 valves, 36/36 ports

hmmm. . . no wonder those "S" heads are expensive!

What are the specs of the cheapo heads?

911/43 (1975 911S) 46/40 valves, 35/35 ports (pretty close, on the small side of "S" good!) . . . but I suppose there's the question of combustion chamber volume- those engines were pretty low compression (but also used a near-flat piston to work with the CIS and mild cams)

hmmmm. . .
__________________
'66 911 #304065 Irischgruen
Ex-'71 911 PCA C-Stock Club Racer #806 (Sold 5/15/13)
Ex-'88 Carrera (Sold 3/29/02)
Ex-'91 Carrera 2 Cabriolet (Sold 8/20/04)
Old 05-17-2005, 06:10 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #6 (permalink)
 
Now Available for Ordering:   101 Projects For Your BMW 3 Series 1982-2000  [more info]
up-fixing der car(ma)
 
YTNUKLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 3,724
Garage
Send a message via AIM to YTNUKLR
Here's what I think I'd do (with an external cooler, I think) to make it look stock and run strong:
-2.4 crank/rods
-2.2 84mm Birals bored to 85mm
-2.2/2.4 heads from a T or an E (something like 32/32mm)
-JEs with relatively high compression
-E cams or similar


Is this supposed to be more a street engine or a stronger track engine? That would dictate some changes in the ports and cams. But the rest should be a very good base, if I ever build out my 2.4 it will be to a similar spec.
__________________
Scott Kinder
kindersport @ gmail.com
Old 05-17-2005, 10:33 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #7 (permalink)
Registered User
 
jluetjen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Westford, MA USA
Posts: 8,592
Garage
One other thought John....

911 guys always seem to gravite to bigger and bigger motors. The result is "supercar" performance, but in which you can hardly crack the throttle without putting your license at risk unless you track it.

I've taken the opinion with the 2.0 that in many respects it shares more with the likes of the MGB-GT, Triumph GT6 and the 2 liter Fiats and Alfas. I believe that my 911 is a "sports car", not a supercar - GT. As such a great big torquey engine takes away from the fun of driving it. It's far more fun to row through the gear box and roar it up to the redline while still staying within a fines-width of legal speeds -- or better. And do this every day.

Call it the James Hunt school of performance driving. He pointed out that it's a heck of a lot more fun to drive a "plain jane" mini like an F1 driver then it is to drive a supercar like a grand-mother.

In that light -- why not keep the motor a 2.0, bump the CR up to "S" spec, make the engine tin mods around the cylinders and use something like a GE40 or GE60 camshaft. If needed try using some internal coatings on the heads to keep the temps controlled some. If you really want to be period correct, would a mid-60's S shroud be acceptable? That would be considered a period update.
__________________
John
'69 911E

"It's a poor craftsman who blames their tools" -- Unknown
"Any suspension -- no matter how poorly designed -- can be made to work reasonably well if you just stop it from moving." -- Colin Chapman

Last edited by jluetjen; 10-24-2005 at 10:36 AM..
Old 05-18-2005, 03:12 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #8 (permalink)
Moderator
 
304065's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,435
John,

I totally agree with your philosophy. I am NOT the type of person who would put 930 power in a 901. I actually sold my 3.2 Carrera and bought the E because I wanted to learn to race in a low-power "momentum" car-- and I got my butt kicked by Peter Brittingham at Lime Rock in a 110HP "J" class '69T! (Peter's an ex-356 guy so he KNOWS momentum!)

The goal here is a MILD update that would be invisible to the eye, or nearly so, but that would increase displacement and performance moderately. Going from 2.0 to 2.2 would be a fairly simple mod that would be easily reversible (hence, no boring the spigots) and invisible (not even the most tenacious judge can see the casting numbers on the bottom of the heads.) As well, the better detonation character of the 2.2 heads would seem a desirable upgrade.

Usage of the car is pure street, it will never be on the track (have the race car for that) and pure pleasure. Hence, while street applications tend to favor a low-end cam like the Solex, the "fun factor" might suggest something like "S" cams.

Hmmm. . . you mentioned cams . . . with thanks to Steve Weiner:

Cam Intake Dur Exhaust Dur L/C
911 E 230 @ .408" 222 @ .393" N/A
911 S 264 @ .450" 236 @ .400" 101
Solex 244 @ .439" 234 @ .406" 97
GE-40 256 @ .470" 238 @ .440" 102
GE-60 266 @ .490" 248 @ .455" 102
906 282 @ .465" 252 @ .406" 95

So the GE-40's are an intermediate step between the Solexes (in the engine now AFAIK) and the "S" cams, the GE-60's an intermediate step between the "S" and the 906 (or GE-80, 100).

Hmm. . . this whole discussion has me thinking I should find a mag case 2.2 E that's been rebuilt and drop it in, then set the 901/05 case aside for a concours rebuild down the line. I could paint the shroud black and retain the 40 Webers with the factory aircleaner and few would be the wiser. -12AN fittings for an external oil cooler plumbed through the heat tubes in the rockers. The other advantage is that if the race car's engine grenades (touch wood) I could pull the street car's engine . . .
__________________
'66 911 #304065 Irischgruen
Ex-'71 911 PCA C-Stock Club Racer #806 (Sold 5/15/13)
Ex-'88 Carrera (Sold 3/29/02)
Ex-'91 Carrera 2 Cabriolet (Sold 8/20/04)
Old 05-18-2005, 06:48 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #9 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Momence, IL 60954
Posts: 1,822
Send a message via AIM to cnavarro
They were more cautious with the clearances early on and progressively tightened up those clearances as improvements in metallurgy were made. Same process we followed with our cylinders to determine the optimal clearances. The first sets were spec'ed with .0025" clearance and we progressively tightened them up to the .0015" standard we now use and we do know that it is possible to run them as tight as .001" with the JE and a near zero clearance with high-silicon pistons, like the ones made by Keith Black for the Porsche 914. That said, on a cast iron bore, I would most definately coat the piston skirts to help reduce the scuffing that will occur at the the tight end of that .003-.0036" clearance as specified by JE for their forging in an aircooled cylinder.
__________________
Charles Navarro, LN Engineering
http://www.LNengineering.com
Aircooled Precision Performance

'99 Boxster powered by Flat 6 Innovations; '10 Cayman S (DFI testbed)
Old 05-18-2005, 06:49 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #10 (permalink)
Moderator
 
304065's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,435
Charles, thank you for that insight.

To bore, or not to bore?

84 x 84 x 66 x 3.1416 / 4 x 6 / 1000 = 2195 cc

85 x 85 x 66 x 3.1416 / 4 x 6 / 1000 = 2247 cc

Difference = 52cc, or 2% increase in displacement.

Now, how material is a 2% increase, compared to, for example, the displacement increase caused by going from 80 to 84?

80 x 80 x 66 x 3.1416 / 4 x 6 / 1000 = 1991 cc

So the 2.0 > 2.2 change is 204 cc's, which accounted for a power increase of 15 horsepower from the '69 2.0E (140 HP) to the 2.2E (155HP). = 0.07353hp/cc = prox .07 hp/cc

This is fun! 84 x 84 x 70.4 x 3.1416 / 4 x 6 / 1000 = 2341 cc, so the 2.2 > 2.4 change was 146 cc, and the difference was 10 HP from the 2.2E to the '72 2.4 E (165 hp). 0.06849 hp/cc = prox .07 hp/cc

So, 52cc displacement increase from the overbore x .07 hp/cc average for the "E" cars = 3.64 hp, which if I were racing, would be a meaningful amount.

However, for the street, it's not worth the hassle or risk that the barrels would be too thin.
__________________
'66 911 #304065 Irischgruen
Ex-'71 911 PCA C-Stock Club Racer #806 (Sold 5/15/13)
Ex-'88 Carrera (Sold 3/29/02)
Ex-'91 Carrera 2 Cabriolet (Sold 8/20/04)
Old 05-18-2005, 10:38 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #11 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Momence, IL 60954
Posts: 1,822
Send a message via AIM to cnavarro
That said, go for the 85s, if you decide to recondition a set of 84mm birals (or cast iron cylinders for that matter). That will let you bore the cylinders out and make sure they are 100% perfect and properly sized for the new pistons.
__________________
Charles Navarro, LN Engineering
http://www.LNengineering.com
Aircooled Precision Performance

'99 Boxster powered by Flat 6 Innovations; '10 Cayman S (DFI testbed)
Old 05-18-2005, 10:52 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #12 (permalink)
 
Now available:  101 Projects for Your Porsche Boxster!
Registered User
 
Fred999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally posted by jluetjen
John;
If my memory is correct, the first S's had external coolers -- so that will give you a clue regarding the HP level when you should be considering using an external cooler. I believe that the number is ~150-160 HP. If you absolutely must keep the stock shroud and no external cooler, you'll be hard pressed to keep the engine cool.
Actually the first S's didn't have external coolers - mine doesn't. They started putting external coolers with the '69 S, but not before.
I did the shroud (later T shroud painted red) update on my '67S and the larger duct was good for a 30 degree drop in oil temps. I went from a oil temp of 210F to maybe 180F. But I also had a 120mm pulley installed. This might have to be changed back to the old 110mm one as the engine has problems getting over 140F when its in the early 60s outside. Based on my experience you don't need an external cooler.
__________________
J. Fred
'67 911S
Old 05-21-2005, 04:43 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #13 (permalink)
3 restos WIP = psycho
 
kenikh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: North of Exit 17
Posts: 7,675
I am trying to get the consensus on this thread. What is the largest diameter piston you can run on a 2.0 without boring the case? This didn't come across very well above: 84mm or 85mm?
Was this when overboring Biral cylinders?
Will 2.2 Biral cylinders fit a stock 2.0 spigot?
What piston diameter can you get on a stock 2.0 case bore with Nickies , considering how much stronger they are?
Thanks.
__________________

- 1965 911
- 1969 911S
- 1980 911SC Targa
- 1979 930
Old 09-05-2005, 07:55 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #14 (permalink)
up-fixing der car(ma)
 
YTNUKLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 3,724
Garage
Send a message via AIM to YTNUKLR
Kenik, safely, 85mm is probably the biggest you can run without boring the case. You might be able to get to 85.5mm but that approaches the limits of the 84mm Biral cylinder in terms of iron thickness. And yes, that's an overbored 84mm biral.

The 2.2 cylinders will drop in to a 2.0 case. The spigot size for all 2.0-2.4 engines is 92mm.

I believe Nickies can do 88mm in a 2.0-2.4 case. On a 2.0 crank that yields 2409cc.
__________________
Scott Kinder
kindersport @ gmail.com
Old 09-05-2005, 12:00 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #15 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Momence, IL 60954
Posts: 1,822
Send a message via AIM to cnavarro
87.50mm based on a standard 2.2/2.4 Nickies are common. More uncommon is an 89mm thinwall slip in based on a 2.7 cylinder that we turn the skirts down on to fit a 2.2/2.4. Those cylinders are automatically cryogenically treated and don't have any windage notches in the skirts. Don't try the above on a cast cylinder :-)
__________________
Charles Navarro, LN Engineering
http://www.LNengineering.com
Aircooled Precision Performance

'99 Boxster powered by Flat 6 Innovations; '10 Cayman S (DFI testbed)
Old 09-05-2005, 04:14 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #16 (permalink)
3 restos WIP = psycho
 
kenikh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: North of Exit 17
Posts: 7,675
Short stroke 2.5 on a standard case bore; whodathunkit?
__________________

- 1965 911
- 1969 911S
- 1980 911SC Targa
- 1979 930
Old 09-05-2005, 04:33 PM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #17 (permalink)
Moderator
 
304065's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,435
Charles, that's way cool information.

87.5 bore at the standard .07hp/cc would yield 167 hp. At the '66 911's minimum weight of 2183#, that's a power-to-weight of approximately 13 pounds per horsepower, slightly better than a '67 911S.

It would be 2381cc, vs. the 84mm 2.4 displacement of 2340cc, so you'd end up with slightly more power than the 2.4, without having to change cranks. That's with an "E" cam/compression/ports combo. With an "S" cam, you'd probably end up slightly better than 190HP, assuming you bumped the compression and upgraded the heads as well.

With 190HP in a 2183# car, you'd have a power-to-weight of about 11.5 pounds/hp, right between a Boxster S and a 2.7 Carrera RS.

So the parts list for this project is looking like:

LN Engineering 87.5mm jugs with JE pistons, 9.8:1 compression
Set of 2.2 or 2.4 heads
GE 40 cams
External oil coolers and lines.
__________________
'66 911 #304065 Irischgruen
Ex-'71 911 PCA C-Stock Club Racer #806 (Sold 5/15/13)
Ex-'88 Carrera (Sold 3/29/02)
Ex-'91 Carrera 2 Cabriolet (Sold 8/20/04)

Last edited by 304065; 11-17-2005 at 12:46 PM..
Old 09-07-2005, 08:26 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #18 (permalink)
Registered User
 
KobaltBlau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: City of Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,374
sounds like fun
__________________
Andy
Old 09-07-2005, 10:05 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #19 (permalink)
Moderator
 
304065's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,435
Well, I knew the 901/05 engine was shot when I bought it.

Going through the paperwork in fine detail revealed the following:

1982: Cylinders honed, crank ground, rings replaced.

That's ALL. Engine was torn down and the only documentation is of that work being performed.

NO tensioner update (easy to check)
No re-harden crank (could mean crank ground with no fillets or ground undersize or excessive wear due to no re-hardening)
NO piston replacement-- probably the reason why this engine shows 30% leakdown through the oil breather is that it's got the same old slugs in there from 39 years ago!

Which means I'm potentially looking at:

Pistons and rings
New crank
Tensioner update
Weld, regrind, reharden cams (if lobes are worn out)
Case work (while I'm in there, squirters, oil bypass mod, later oil pump)
New cast rockers (probably has original forged rockers)

Now, it seems to me if I'm dealing with potentially worn-out cylinders and crankshaft AND need some 2.2 heads anyway, the thing to do is find a run-out 2.2 or 2.4. Cast-iron cylinders aren't my idea of cool, so I should find a 2.2 or 2.4 E motor as a donor for the parts. Which is no guarantee that they'll be in any better shape, but I bet I could find a core engine cheaper than a crank and heads on the loose.
__________________
'66 911 #304065 Irischgruen
Ex-'71 911 PCA C-Stock Club Racer #806 (Sold 5/15/13)
Ex-'88 Carrera (Sold 3/29/02)
Ex-'91 Carrera 2 Cabriolet (Sold 8/20/04)
Old 10-24-2005, 08:37 AM
  Pelican Parts Technical Article Directory    Reply With Quote #20 (permalink)
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

 

Tags
901/05 , john cramer rebuild


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:12 AM.


 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2016 Pelican Parts - 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.