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 Forums > Porsche Forums > 911 Engine Rebuilding Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Reply
Registered
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 846
Short stroke 2.6 vs. Short stroke 2.8

The question says it all. Besides the displacement difference (173cc), it seems the only difference is the heads:

2.6 (CR 10.3:1)
Valves I46/E40
Ports I36/E35
Combustion chamber 68cc

2.8 (CR ?)
Valves I49/E41.5
Ports I39/E35
Combustion chamber 90cc


I’d like to know which is a more potent engine in terms of power band, torque, responsiveness, and characteristics.

TIA


Last edited by blue72s; 09-10-2005 at 11:34 AM..
Old 09-10-2005, 09:24 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #1 (permalink)
Registered
 
jluetjen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Westford, MA USA
Posts: 8,852
Garage
Well the 2.8 that you listed has bigger valves and ports which allows more air flow, so in conjunction with the extra capacity and higher rev's (that the larger valves and ports will allow), the 2.8 example should make more HP. But that assumes that the pistons cams, intake, exhaust and so on are configured correctly.

The reality is that the factory 2.8 RSR engine was a configuration that was specifically developed to fit the FIA's rules. If you built a 2.7 the same way that the factory built their 2.8's (which many people have done), you'll have almost the same HP, if not more due to more modern gas.

What are you trying to get to?
__________________
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 09-10-2005, 12:09 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #2 (permalink)
3 restos WIP = psycho
 
kenikh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: North of Exit 17
Posts: 7,665
Re: Short stroke 2.6 vs. Short stroke 2.8

Quote:
Originally posted by blue72s


2.6 (CR 10.3:1)
Valves I46/E40
Ports I36/E35
Combustion chamber 68cc
I wouldn't use those port specs. I'd open them up. 38mm ports at least.

__________________

- 1965 911
- 1969 911S
- 1980 911SC Targa
- 1979 930

Last edited by kenikh; 09-10-2005 at 08:48 PM..
Old 09-10-2005, 08:16 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #3 (permalink)
Reply


 


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:04 PM.


 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 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.