![]() |
I have a 72 2.4T and live at 3700 Feet, I drove a 72E and it is way faster....
A buddy of mine has a 72E, I drove it. It seems really fast compared to my 72T.
I knew it would be faster... but I can't believe by that much. Is my T motor more affected by altitude because of the 7:1 to compression versus the E. I'm simply blown away. I think my car is running pretty well... Can anyone offer me an explanation that will hopefully make me feel better... |
Uh, when new, the E had a higher sticker price? That help?
|
I think they have a few more ponies I believe 40 or so
|
does 20 HP make that much of a difference? I do realize that its' about 15% difference. I've ridden in an E but I haven't driven my car yet. (Soon, Real soon)
|
The difference .....
Huge. Gigantic.
Different car. Astonishing. I was in awe at the difference. |
I converted my 2.4 MFI T to a proper 2.4 MFI S and whoa baby you are talking some major differences. On cam and with a sport muffler, my S engine rocks. The 2.4 MFI T is a fine motor, better than all the other T motors, but stepping up to E config or better yet an S engine you can' t compare them. However, a 2.4T was/is a better motor than a 2.0E but things get gray comparing with the 2.2E motors. Have I muddled things sufficiently?
|
Let me really screw things up- supposedly, the 2.4T MFI motor I'm building has "E" cams, that did not hit the pistons. While I have not yet verified the cams. I KNOW the pistons are T spec. What can I expect from that setup??? (PO said the pistons/valves did not interfere, nor did I see any evidence of interference).
-dtw |
I have it on a slightly different note. I have both a 71 S and a 71 E. Now the E cannot compete with the S when the S comes on cam, but darting round town the E is great fun. Not that the S is undrivable round town, in fact I feel the S can make a great normal driver, but it does love to rev and boy does that you smile when it hits 5k and keeps going!!!!!
Alan.UK |
How hard would it be to put s cams in a t motor-2.4 that now has rs p\c's and e cams?
|
Quote:
If you have RS (by this I assume you mean 2.7 liter) pistons, this affect will happen even sooner. Even with S (36 mm) intake ports on the 2.7, the engine is port limited at higher RPM's. This is why 2.7 RS's tended to feel more like they had E cams then S cams. Lot's of people use E cams in otherwise 2.7 RS configurations and pick up a little on the bottom end without giving a whole lot away at higher rev's. |
Let me really screw things up- supposedly, the 2.4T MFI motor I'm building has "E" cams, that did not hit the pistons. While I have not yet verified the cams. I KNOW the pistons are T spec. What can I expect from that setup??? (PO said the pistons/valves did not interfere, nor did I see any evidence of interference).
Well, my 2.0T had had a minor rebuild with E cams (by the PO). I had it dynoed at 108hp at the wheels - est 122hp at the flywheel. The factory rating was 110hp with the T cams. This is approx 10% increase. The engine was otherwise standard (AFAIK) with the exception of the addition of an MSD to bandaid the shoddy original Marelli (the car never had a CDI). The engine was on about 180k miles after having that rebuild at about 100k miles. It was used as a race car for a while! I was STUNNED at the power output, given it should have been pretty tired. |
camb - so after you added cams you gained 20hp? I have a 69 2.0T too, and was thinking of cams to get some juice. I don't think racing headers will gain much power with early porsches because the early ones dont have cats. On my 240sx I got headers which replace the cat and hs claim 14hp gains but 10hp is more realistic. I'm guessing 5hp with headers on the porsche and 5 with exhaust, 20 with cams. That should make my T incredibly fun to drive. With the 240sx being 2800lbs, 10hp didnt feel like much, but the powerband was greatly improved and the throttle because much more responsive. Not close to a turbo, but made the car a bit more fun and the hs headers are said to knock off nearly a whole second from 0-60. I'm looking at 0-60 in low 7s. stock is 8.1
|
Actually Cam, your 2.0 is about where you would expect it to be. 2.0E's made 140 HP - 10 HP since you were running carbs rather then MFI = 130. You were down some on CR also using the T pistons (although 911's don't seem to be too sensitive to CR). So 122 +/- sounds about right.
|
I have a 70T which had an engine rebuilt with E cams and pistons.
I suspect the compression ratio was also increased by doing this. It seems a lot peppier than the stated stock 125HP but I don't have anything to compare that to. I am guessing that it is midway toward the 155 HP of the 2.2 E since I don't have the MFI. About 140 or so. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:26 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