|
|
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 849
|
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.. |
||
09-10-2005, 09:24 AM
|
|
|
Registered
|
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 |
||
|
09-10-2005, 12:09 PM
|
|
|
3 restos WIP = psycho
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: North of Exit 17
Posts: 7,665
|
Re: Short stroke 2.6 vs. Short stroke 2.8
Quote:
__________________
- 1965 911 - 1969 911S - 1980 911SC Targa - 1979 930 Last edited by kenikh; 09-10-2005 at 08:48 PM.. |
||
|
09-10-2005, 08:16 PM
|
|
1969 Porsche 911E 2.0 E
