2.0 Who large?

[effvee]

Hello, I maybe lucky. I am trying to buy a 2.0, from what I'm told, it's from a 1969. This engine may get stuffed into a VW Super beetle. I'd like to know how large can I make this engine, in displacement. I would like to have the crank welded to stroke it, I would like very much to go large displacement. Please fill me in on liter size and weakness of the 2.0.

I have a turbo that may be used in this project. All answers welcome.

[4sd911]

I'm sure you already know that rebuilding that engine will cost more than the VW is worth. I also see from your other posts that you are using a Porsche trans. Why not just get the whole car? In the end you will have one screaming VW, but it will still be a VW. If you want more displacement you can use a 2.2 cylinder kit, or just buy a bigger motor. Bad idea to use a turbo on a magnesium case.

[Raceboy]

Turbo on magnesium case is nothing new, look at the VW Beetle engines, most of them use mag case and it lasts ok. Obviously stock heads (on VW) are crap regarding flow so the cylinder pressures stay low.

If you shuffle pin the case and have decent control of the fuel and spark for boosted engine(=a good engine management, NOT carbs or MFI), you will have no problem.

Revving engine to 8500 rpm and having 300 hp is MUCH harder on the case, rods and crank than getting that 300hp on 6000rpm with 1bar of boost.
BTDT on many Porsche engines.

[kenikh]

Originally Posted by effvee

Hello, I maybe lucky. I am trying to buy a 2.0, from what I'm told, it's from a 1969. This engine may get stuffed into a VW Super beetle. I'd like to know how large can I make this engine, in displacement. I would like to have the crank welded to stroke it, I would like very much to go large displacement. Please fill me in on liter size and weakness of the 2.0.

I have a turbo that may be used in this project. All answers welcome.

This is a lot of money for doing it "hard way". The 2 liter case is very weak and welding a Porsche crank isn't the best approach. I know all of the old VW hot rod tricks being cut from that cloth, but some of those tricks are symptoms of necessity that don't translate well to a Porsche 911. It will be MUCH more cost effective to build a Type 4; the motor will be lighter and will be just as powerful.

What displacement are you looking for?

[djpateman]

You could build a 2.0 into a 2.8, it just costs money.
You could get big horsepower out of it, it just costs more money.
You could get it to be reliable, it just costs even more money.
How much can you afford?

[effvee]

Hi, thanks for all of your responses. I am also building a type IV turbo engine. But I'm told nothing beats displacement. So welding stroking the crank is a bad ideal? I was able to buy a basket case 2.0 engine, I really like the 911 look.


I don't know exactly when I will be able to start the build, but I sure like the look. So back to the bore and stroke. If I stroke the crank and have a company like J&E make the pistons how much of a stroker could I build? What is the largest bore on a case like this? Since I have the crank, having it welded and nitrated and stroke, sounds do-able.

My interest is in going large on the bore and stroke, but again I don't know squat about this case

[euro911sc]

And I thought I had a monster bug... WOW!

-Michael

[kenikh]

That is one SICK build!

The 2 liter 911 is just the wrong basis. If you want displacement, it would be far cheaper to buy a running 3.6 like the on in the pics. 2.7 is the leeding edge for a 2 liter motor and I would never run more than 240HP on a 2 liter case. On the 3.6 motor, the sky is the limit.

[xtremech]

Originally Posted by kenikh

That is one SICK build!

The 2 liter 911 is just the wrong basis. If you want displacement, it would be far cheaper to buy a running 3.6 like the on in the pics. 2.7 is the leeding edge forr a 2 liter motor and I would never run more than 240HP on a 2 liter case. On the 3.6 motor, the sky is the limit.

I am with you. There is no substitute for cubic inches.....a 2.0 liter is capable of 240 HP but......you could spend a lot less.......I mean , a lot less on a build and come out smelling like a rose.
BTW, that is a fantastic looking piece.
Keep going!!!

[effvee]

I talked to a person today, he said the 2.0 I should not go larger than 85mm on the cylinders. I think he said 70 on the crank, something like a 2.4 liter. He further said if I go larger the cylinder studs could pull through. Well than 2.4 it will have to be. Ok next the heads, well I'm missing one and a connecting rod. I think one of the hole must have went south but the rest of the parts were do-able (ah I hope) Mind you this project is way down the road, but since I have three super beetles I'll shelve the 2110 type one for the 2.4 and the look. So if you all would give me some info on how much stroke I can get away with. O the guy said crank are not that hard to come by, is this true. I was thinking, since its a forged Porsche crank have it welded stroked and re-nitride. So what can I do to the heads for breathing, I will turbo it for a little more help due to a lack of cubic inches
.
I won't keep this tread going on for long, once I get a notion I need to do something with it. Wish me luck.

[911pcars]

You can safely go to 2.7 liters on that engine given a later 70.4mm crank/rods, 90mm RS pistons and S cams. About 200 hp or so, basically the same specs as an RS engine. But don't just slap it together.

If you plan to add boost to the engine, you'll have to go another route to keep it together.

Sherwood

[effvee]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

You can safely go to 2.7 liters on that engine given a later 70.4mm crank/rods, 90mm RS pistons and S cams. About 200 hp or so, basically the same specs as an RS engine. But don't just slap it together.

If you plan to add boost to the engine, you'll have to go another route to keep it together.

Sherwood

Wonderful, thank you. I would like to turbo it, using a small turbo a DSM T-25 upgraded to a T-28 on the boost side. Can you speak on the "another route" when turboing this engine?

[Raceboy]

I don't recommend using some kind of hybrid turbos on aircooled Porsche engines as those create heck of a lot backpressure and thus you will get loads of detonation and no power.
Instead you should use biger turbocharger than you normally would use on similar size watercooled powerplant.
Here's the cracker: why do you think 930 turn out such a laggy (but nevertheless, fun) machine?

And besides, I strongly recommend to twin-plug the heads for boosted car as this reduces the need for advance and you will get more power at the same boost levels.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by effvee

Wonderful, thank you. I would like to turbo it, using a small turbo a DSM T-25 upgraded to a T-28 on the boost side. Can you speak on the "another route" when turboing this engine?

On the engine side, I would build an engine to Porsche Turbo specs; e.g. aluminum case, low compression forged pistons, etc. And a turbo engine will have excess heat to reject, otherwise terminal engine death is inevitable.

On the turbo side, I would study and research using Corky Bell's Turbo book to guide you in turbo and intercooler selection.

Not sure your application, racing or street, max. power or long service life. You can't have it all, but some is a lot better than naturally aspirated if done within reason.

Oh yes. A healthy budget does not hurt at all.

MHO,
Sherwood

[effvee]

Thanks again for all of your insight

[effvee]

Good morning. Concerning the early 2.0 heads, can anyone tell me if it is at all possible to build up these heads? Well what I mean is, since I have five and I am in the process of sourcing the sixth, I thought about getting the later 2.4 version or the later 2.0 heads with the shallow combustion chamber (I hope you all understand my meaning) I want to have larger valves install and do some mild porting work. I don't want a lot being as cheap as I am, so a little will do. I hope to go with 74mm crank and 90mm pistons. Would someone share with me as to larger valves, if this can be done. O the head must be cleaned and inspected in order to find out if I have not just bought someones trash

[911pcars]

All things being equal, combustion will be less finicky (detonation, that is) with later heads.

As for larger valve sizes, 2.2-2.7 heads will provide that. The dimensions might be less important if the engine is boosted.

Sherwood

[Raceboy]

I wouldn't run 90 mm cylinders on magnesium case. Stick with 84mm ones or go with 3.0 case.
With 70.4mm crank and 84mm cylinders you'll get 2.4 liters which is a less than 2.7 but a lot stronger and that is more important than 300cc displacement when boost is in game.

[304065]

Originally Posted by effvee

Good morning. Concerning the early 2.0 heads, can anyone tell me if it is at all possible to build up these heads? Well what I mean is, since I have five and I am in the process of sourcing the sixth, I thought about getting the later 2.4 version or the later 2.0 heads with the shallow combustion chamber (I hope you all understand my meaning) I want to have larger valves install and do some mild porting work. I don't want a lot being as cheap as I am, so a little will do. I hope to go with 74mm crank and 90mm pistons. Would someone share with me as to larger valves, if this can be done. O the head must be cleaned and inspected in order to find out if I have not just bought someones trash

2,0 heads are just about the worst choice from a performance vs. dollars standpoint. Stock, they have 39/35 valves and wheezy little 32mm ports.

Sure, they can be CNC ported and have larger valves installed to resemble 69S heads, but you won't have much change from a $10,000 bill AND the heads will be more prone to detonation than later heads. Also you will have to have the mating surface cut, 84mm and later cylinders have a different seal that requires irreversible modification of the sealing surface of the heads. (but there is an adapter to go back).

There are no later 2,0 heads with the shallow combustion chamber-- all the early ones have a 72cc chamber and different valve angle. In 1970 the combustion chamber was revised, 68cc, and the valves were made larger.

What you probably want are a set of 2,7 heads that will work better with 90mm cylinders. They aren't that hard to find or particularly expensive. Good luck!

[effvee]

Originally Posted by john_cramer

2,0 heads are just about the worst choice from a performance vs. dollars standpoint. Stock, they have 39/35 valves and wheezy little 32mm ports.

Sure, they can be CNC ported and have larger valves installed to resemble 69S heads, but you won't have much change from a $10,000 bill AND the heads will be more prone to detonation than later heads. Also you will have to have the mating surface cut, 84mm and later cylinders have a different seal that requires irreversible modification of the sealing surface of the heads. (but there is an adapter to go back).

There are no later 2,0 heads with the shallow combustion chamber-- all the early ones have a 72cc chamber and different valve angle. In 1970 the combustion chamber was revised, 68cc, and the valves were made larger.

What you probably want are a set of 2,7 heads that will work better with 90mm cylinders. They aren't that hard to find or particularly expensive. Good luck!

Alright then, thank you very much