I have a 72 2.4T and live at 3700 Feet, I drove a 72E and it is way faster....

IAN · 04-08-2003, 06:14 PM

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...

pwd72s · 04-08-2003, 06:21 PM

Uh, when new, the E had a higher sticker price? That help?

72 four door · 04-08-2003, 06:49 PM

I think they have a few more ponies I believe 40 or so

Tim Walsh · Tim Walsh's Garage

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)

IAN · 04-08-2003, 08:47 PM

Huge. Gigantic.

Different car.

Astonishing.

I was in awe at the difference.

zotman72 · 04-08-2003, 09:19 PM

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?

dtw · 04-08-2003, 11:15 PM

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

Alan.UK · 04-09-2003, 04:08 AM

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

tobluforu · tobluforu's Garage

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?

jluetjen · jluetjen's Garage

Quote:

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?

When you get to a 2.4, the E cam was pretty much as wild as you can get without enlarging the 32 mm intake ports in the heads. You can put an S cam in it, but it will pull like an S below 5000 RPM (which means not that well) and start to get choked off by the intake ports around 6000 RPM, so you won't get the full affect of the the S's top end HP.

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.

CamB · CamB's Garage

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.

APZak · 03:31 PM

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

jluetjen · jluetjen's Garage

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.

lagrassa · lagrassa's Garage

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.