64 Lotus sports racer gets new Porsche engine

[Henry Schmidt]

Here is the start of a new 2.0 Porsche engine built to replace the 2.2 engine installed back in the late sixties.
Major features:
Lightened Nitrited 2.0 "S"
Main and rod bearings treated with Moly Dry film coating
Carrera oil pump w/Supertec flow mod
Shuffle pins
Oil by-pass
2.0 Nitrited Rods
ARP rod bolts & Supertec nuts
Oil squiters
Oil galley plugs removed and threaded plugs installed
Customs dome ligthened JE pistons and pins
906 Nikasil cylinders
906 cylinder cooling tin
Supertec head studs

[Henry Schmidt]

[gestalt1]

hi Henry,
Any pics of the lotus this is going in? sounds like a perfect match
-matt

[andrew15]

Umm - WOW!

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally posted by gestalt1
hi Henry,
Any pics of the lotus this is going in? sounds like a perfect match
-matt

[Facey]

ummm, wow, +1


how is it so clean!!!!
one day i want an engine from you....one day...

thanks for the pictures, and please keep us updated!!!
what are the #'s for this engine?

[ghnat]

That looks like a brand-spanking new case. What did you do to make it look sooooo beautiful!!!

[Grady Clay]

Guys,

It was very common in that era for there to be a variety of chassis/engine combinations. I raced my ’60 718-055 (RS-60 Spyder) against many in SCCA BSR (a 2-liter class). There were Elva-BMW, Lotus-Climax, Cooper-Porsche (called a Pooper) and many more. It was not uncommon for the number of any one type to be listed on one hand.

My 718 was originally 1.6 delivered to Carel de Beaufort in late ’60, went to Ben Pon, then to probably to Ludwig Heimrath in Canada (who also raced -057) and then to me in ’69. I bought it with about 17 4-cam engines in various stages of disrepair (including a MFI flat-fan). I always raced it with 587/2 or 587/3 engines. These fit the 2.0 class (no sense giving up displacement). The difficulty with a real 587/3 case is the distributor mount and case studs had to be removed to get the engine in the chassis.

Most of the time I used a 587/1 (Carrera-2) case –same as 904 except for distributor/engine mount. While I had two OE 587/2 engines, I wanted to save them for my ’62 2000GS/GT coupe. Of course these all had the latest 904 updates of the time; 3-dot cams, intake manifolds, heads, exhaust system and oil system mods.

I test-fitted 911 engines several times (901/01 to 901/21 and more). The later 911 engines were considerably lighter than the 4-cam 4-cylinder – and put out more power. The 911s were much tighter fit – almost having to be assembled in the chassis. That (and the fact that the 4-cam cost less at the time) had me using the 4-cylinder.

The draw for a 6-cylinder mostly was light weight with a 3R case and all the other mag parts. There was also the issue with the comparative ease you can assemble a 911. The Spyder with the 587/2 weighed 1175#, I figured I could drop almost 100# with a six – perhaps more..


The Lotus that Henry is building an engine for is very unique. Very few of the period chassis were wide enough in the engine bay to accept a 911 engine. Most were built for an in-line-4, afterward, a few with the small V-8. VERY few wide enough for a 911. Was this chassis originally built for a Porsche 4-cam?

While I’m too Scot to actually race a 4-cam today, an engine like Henry’s 901 is ideal. For that car a very high CR, twin plug, 46IDA, 7R mag case & other, Ti hardware, lighten everything and other. With 12:1 a 1991 cc would be great. If there isn’t a displacement restriction, the same weight engine could be 2808 cc. The marginal weight reduction benefit with a 1000# racer is very significant.

Henry’s project looks like great fun..


If only I had known in ’69 what I knew by the early ‘80s….


Best,
Grady

BTW, 718-055 is being raced in the UK and on the Continent. It even might come to the States this summer – stay tuned.
G.

[LarryP]

My Lotus guru tells me the car is a fiberglass repro. But I still want to drive it.

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally posted by LarryP
My Lotus guru tells me the car is a fiberglass repro. But I still want to drive it.

OOPS, your Guru missed this one. ID plate shows this is the real deal.


Here she is back in the day. History is well documented.

[LarryP]

I'll tell him. Thanks!

[Grady Clay]

Was this chassis originally built for a Porsche 4-cam?

If not, how modified?

Best,
Grady

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally posted by Grady Clay
Was this chassis originally built for a Porsche 4-cam?

If not, how modified?

Best,
Grady

Not a 4 cam (see old picture)
The rest I don't know.
I'm the engien builder not the owner.
Cheers

[YTNUKLR]

Awesome , Henry...

[Henry Schmidt]

Thanks Scott
Where's yours?

[Henry Schmidt]

The Portus saga continues.

Heads cut for nos 69 "S" valves. 45in 39ex.
Ported to 40in 38 ex
Supertec valve springs
Aasco Titanium retainers
Cut for 906 style Nikasil cylinders
Small diameter 4 lournal cam housings (906 style)
DC62 camshafts 4 lournal cams
Spray bar cam towers converted to fit period corect 6 hole
valve covers
Note the old style cam timing wheel. Cool or what ?
Enjoy

[Grady Clay]

Henry,

Not a 4 cam (see old picture)

Interesting.
What signs are there of a conversion?
What was the original engine?
A sports racing chassis of the era that fit a 911 engine was VERY unique. This is 1964.

These are very significant race cars (even if not Porsche).

Now that it has a 901 engine, what is the history?

Since it isn’t your car, you didn’t decide on the engine, Can you approach the owner with the issue of “light weight” 911? If this wasn’t an original Porsche six, I see no problem with using all the “semi-period correct” Porsche parts for a 911 engine. As you know that includes a lot.

I see ’68-’69 2.0N heads. Why not more?

I agree with your engine design. Since you posted it, why not have collaborative design? For this car, there are many issues: provenance, history over it’s career, current use, available technology, weight and more.

Best,
Grady

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally posted by Grady Clay
Henry,

Interesting.
What signs are there of a conversion? body work, pictures show widened rear and two air filters vs one
What was the original engine?inline 4
A sports racing chassis of the era that fit a 911 engine was VERY unique. This is 1964.

These are very significant race cars (even if not Porsche).

Now that it has a 901 engine, what is the history? vintage for last 15 years

Since it isn't your car, you didn't decide on the engine, Can you approach the owner with the issue of light weight 911? We discussed many different engine combinationsIf this wasn't an original Porsche six, I see no problem with using all the semi-period correct Porsche parts for a 911 engine. As you know that includes a lot.It's not your call

I see 68-69 2.0N heads. Why not more? For the rpm and hp output we are after, 69"S" configuration w/large ports was the most appropriate

I agree with your engine design. Since you posted it, why not have collaborative design? The important people in this equation did collaborate For this car, there are many issues: provenance, history over it's career, current use, available technology, weight and more.
Believe it or not, we took all pertanent issues into account even without your help..
Best,
Grady

Grady, what is your question.
Why we chose the engine we did?
Could we build a different engine?
Could we have built a higher performance engine?
Could we put a larger engine in this car?
Why didn't we ask you?
What?

I posted the engine to let the people interested in Porsche engine rebuilds a chance to see how it can be done. You are welcome to post the engine you are building for our inspection

BTW: red was used as a hi-lite not an emotional statement.

[Grady Clay]

Originally posted by Henry Schmidt

Grady, what is your question.
Why we chose the engine we did?
Could we build a different engine?
Could we have built a higher performance engine?
Could we put a larger engine in this car?
Why didn't we ask you?
What?

I posted the engine to let the people interested in Porsche engine rebuilds a chance to see how it can be done. You are welcome to post the engine you are building for our inspection

BTW: red was used as a hi-lite not an emotional statement.

[Grady Clay]

Henry,


quote:

Originally posted by Grady Clay
Henry,

Interesting.
What signs are there of a conversion? body work, pictures show widened rear and two air filters vs one
What was the original engine?inline 4
A sports racing chassis of the era that fit a 911 engine was VERY unique. This is 1964.

These are very significant race cars (even if not Porsche).

Now that it has a 901 engine, what is the history? vintage for last 15 years

Since it isn't your car, you didn't decide on the engine, Can you approach the owner with the issue of light weight 911? We discussed many different engine combinationsIf this wasn't an original Porsche six, I see no problem with using all the semi-period correct Porsche parts for a 911 engine. As you know that includes a lot.It's not your call

I see 68-69 2.0N heads. Why not more? For the rpm and hp output we are after, 69"S" configuration w/large ports was the most appropriate

I agree with your engine design. Since you posted it, why not have collaborative design? The important people in this equation did collaborate For this car, there are many issues: provenance, history over it's career, current use, available technology, weight and more.
Believe it or not, we took all pertanent issues into account even without your help..
Best,
Grady



Grady, what is your question.
Why we chose the engine we did?
Could we build a different engine?
Could we have built a higher performance engine?
Could we put a larger engine in this car?
Why didn't we ask you?
What?

I posted the engine to let the people interested in Porsche engine rebuilds a chance to see how it can be done. You are welcome to post the engine you are building for our inspection

BTW: red was used as a hi-lite not an emotional statement.
__________________
Henry Schmidt
SUPERTEC PERFORMANCE
Ph: 760-728-3062
Email: supertec1@earthlink.net
Last edited by Henry Schmidt on 04-11-2007 at 10:53 PM

Henry,

I haven’t been directly involved with building 911 engines for almost 20 years. I’m not inclined to do so now. I am nor a competitor.

My sole interest is to pass along my lame knowledge and experience. Since you posted about this engine and car, my input should be accepted for what it is; experience.

You can accept it or not.

This Pelican Engine Forum is an open discussion about these engines. I (and others) welcome your input and experience. I don’t slight that in any way. Here we should analyze any configuration of a 911 engine and application. This is how everyone learns.

I and others may appreciate your skilled input. I (we) may also question some of your decisions, recommendations, etc. Please don’t take that personally. The point is to have this forum a place for learning and a repository for technical information. If you don’t accept other’s input, go somewhere else.

I probably make more than one mistake of fact each month. The good news is the Forum corrects that. I welcome and accept that. Your post seems that you don’t.

Best,
Grady