3.2 vs 2.7 weight difference

[eddie914]

The 2.7 in my 914/6 dropped a valve resulting in a shattered piston.

I've decided on a used 3.2 instead rebuilding the 2.7.

What is the weight difference between a 3.2 and a 2.7?

Both engines will use Webers and headers. The 914/901 transmission is also staying.

Thanks

Eddie

[Brant]

I can't verify the accuracy of this chart... but I've seen it passed around frequently:

lbs-- models-- Source
400 lbs - 2.4L E, S, RS 1972-73 - Tech. Spec. book
403 lbs - 2.4L T 1972-73 - Tech. Spec. book
440 lbs - 2.7L 1975-1977 - Aichle - 911 Engines
419 lbs - 78-83 930/09,19,10 78-81 78-81 & 82-83 - Tech Spec. book
441 lbs - 78-83 930/03-08,13-17 78-81 & 82-83 - Tech Spec. book
462 lbs - 3.0L 1980-82 - Aichle - 911 Engines
483 lbs - 84-87 930/20,26 84-87 - Tech Spec. book
485 lbs - 84-87 930/21,25 84-87 - Tech Spec. book
482 lbs - 3.2L 1987 - 1988 - Aichle - 911 Engines
524 lbs - 964 89-94 M64/01,02 ROW &US 964 - Tech Spec. book
497 lbs - M64/03 RS 964 - Tech Spec. book
605 lbs - M30/69 3.3L 964 - Tech Spec. book
608 lbs - M64/50 3.6L 964 - Tech Spec. book
510 lbs - M64/05-08 993 - Tech Spec. book
487 lbs - M64/20 993RS v-ram w/o ZMS 993 - Tech Spec. book
507 lbs - M64/20 993RS v-ram w/ ZMS 993 - Tech Spec. book

[Bill Verburg]

I was the one that originally put that list together. I did u=in clude sources references.

It is certainlt fair to compare the Tech Spec. s

keep in mind early engines did not included AC as standard while later ones did.

[Porschekid962]

Is your car lightened so much that a somewhat heavier engine will throw off your weight ditribution? I think the grunt makes it worth it but I have only driven about 60some odd different 911's and 914's. I met a guy here in pasadena not too long ago that had a 3.2 with 993 rs cams and headers and said it was the best thing he ever did. When he took off out of the school parking lot it was like seeing the heli's come over the beach in appocalypse now. Scary fast but badass!

[Brant]

Bill,

that list rocks!

brant

[afterburn 549]

I am thinking the numbers are no where correct for the 2.7......

[Brant]

Originally posted by afterburn 549
I am thinking the numbers are no where correct for the 2.7......

You thinking its lighter than that?
brant

[afterburn 549]

lots lighter....I am not a big bad strong dude and can lift the whole thing up....well not far,..... but i am guessing here 300 tops that is on the bench,,and I know the dif between 400 and 300 hundred is alot..one is un bugable the othere is doable

[Brant]

wow..
I would find that hard to believe.
not saying your not telling the truth, just that I want to hear more about it.

were you lifting a long block?
I'd love to hear more input, because I know that there was no WAY my 6cylinder was 300... and I've always heard that ALL 6cylinders were 400up.

I hope your right though

brant

[afterburn 549]

hmm well some here knows for sure,,,,I cant belive its 400, rensport or someone has a list of everthing (what weighs what)....al I know is 400 is hard to shove around, 300 is ez

[Brant]

I once saw someone post a pallet shipping weight of a motor that was less than 400. but I dismissed that, because once I shipped a motor and rather than actually weighing it when I dropped it off, the guy at the counter asked me how much the pallet weighed..

so I dismissed the guys comment, since he was only reading a shipping company statement instead of a tare tag.

bump..
someone must have more experience on this.
brant

[eddie914]

The car was down to 2040lbs with the 2.7. It still needs a lot of lightening to get down to Brant's weight of 1850!

The goal was to get the wieght under 2000lbs.

I'm thinking the major weight difference should be the aluminum case versus the magnesium case. I'm sure the 4 bearing cams, and larger pistons/cylinders and aluminum intake also add a few pounds here and there.

An increase of 40lbs seems reasonable.

I'm expecting a power increase of about 40hp.

The 2.7 CIS engine with Weber 40s and headers was probably making about 180 hp (it was pretty tired so most likely not even that). The stock 3.2 with Weber 46s and headers will hopefully make 220hp.

The power increase will be more than 15 percent (with driver) and the weight increase will be less than two percent. I think the performance difference it will be noticable.


Thanks

Eddie

[afterburn 549]

me too, I dont know for sure what mine puts out the lil gravity thing (that you put in the windshield) says over 180...... but it sure flys

[Brant]

I think its gonna fly Eddie!

[Eagledriver]

You should be able to get 250 easily with your engine. What are you doing for ignition?

-Andy

[eddie914]

Stage I (get it running):

Ignition: points type distributor and permatune (from the 2.7)with 3.2 motronic drive gear.

Induction: 40 IDA3C (from the 2.7)

Exhaust: Bursch 1 5/8 headers and two in/two out OEM muffler (gutted)

Stage II: (most likely later this summer)

Ignition: early istributor with pertronix and permatune (from the 2.7)with 3.2 motronic drive gear.


Induction: Weber 46 IDA (currently working on a trade)

Exhaust: Bursch 1 5/8 headers and SuperTrap megaphones

Stage III: the future will tell ...



Anyone willing to trade a beautiful set of Weber 40IDA3C for a set of 46IDA + $$$


Thanks

Eddie

[safe]

Originally posted by Brant
[B]
403 lbs - 2.4L T 1972-73 - Tech. Spec. book
440 lbs - 2.7L 1975-1977 - Aichle - 911 Engines
419 lbs - 78-83 930/09,19,10 78-81 78-81 & 82-83 - Tech Spec. book
441 lbs - 78-83 930/03-08,13-17 78-81 & 82-83 - Tech Spec. book

The 2.7 must be way off.
I'm guessing its slightly heavier or equal to the 2.4T (2.7=CIS, T=cast iron cylinders), but 20 lbs lighter than the 3.0.

When Porsche went from a mag to alu case the weight went up 20 lbs.

[Bill Verburg]

You'll notice the source for the 2.7 #?

it was only included because I didn't have a 2.7 spec book handy at the time.(still don't)