Need info on 2.2 vs 2.4
 

Hi all, I'm on the hunt finally for most likely an early '70s "T". I've fallen in love with a well-sorted '71, but my initial plan was to find a '72-73.5 with the 2.4 motor.

My reason was from what I've read (I've never driven either) the 2.4 with its longer stroke provided more low-end torque so consequently is more satisfying. But I've also read the 2.2 is the best "screamer" of the early motors.

I tend to do long-distance drives on the hwy generally which is what I'd primarily use the T for, yes of course some local twisty stuff too but more long-distance.

What is your opinion? Should I hold out for the 2.4 or be perfectly happy with the 2.2?

It has been said by others that the 1973.5 911T is one of the best early touring cars. Torque down low and once the CIS is operating properly, dead nuts reliable. I tend to agree. I have had mine since 2002.

You don't hear much about them. but I nearly bought a 1973 911E. Now that was a great car! For lack of better description; I'd say it had a very lively feel about it. Light and ample eager power.

I believe the 2.4 7R case starting with the 73.5 was the strongest.
From opinions I have read, the 73.5 was one of the best daily drivers, with the 2.4E giving a good hp boost without to much revving.

I have a '72 T, 2.4 MFI. I really like it. MFI has a bit of immediacy that the CIS cars don't quite match. But my friend's former '73.5 T was a better normal use car. Reliable, and nice drivability. And while many of us don't pay much attention to this, the CIS cars get MUCH better fuel economy than either carbs or MFI.

I'd love an E, but they are not common. Seems like not a lot of love for the 2.2 compared to the 2.4 then?

In some ways it depends on what you are looking for. If you want to wind the car up to get the last ounce pf performance, a 2.2 may be the way to go. Want a nice cruiser with sporting ability, go with the 2.4 with CIS.

MFI has a cool sound but is relatively primitive and is dialed for top end performance.

In 1972 a good friend had a 1971-T with carbs and I had the 1972-T with MFI. We drove each others cars and had many races testing each other. The differences between the two was minimal. You would be happy with either model that comes your way.
I cannot comment on the performance of the 1973.5 911 T with CIS but Porsche owners were disappointed when the engine lid was opened and the carbs or velocity stacks were missing...

I think they are all good. A CIS in good condition, is way better than a MFI one in lousy condition. Get one in good condition.

Other than running out of breath at about 5000 rpm, the CIS is a fun car. I agree the engine room look of the CIS (and EFI) motors pales in comparison to the MFI/Carb'ed cars. The price of progress.

But then again, all air cooled motors look kinda funky.

Thanks gents. Out of curiosity, what is the MPG on the CIS vs MFI or even carbs? (My '76 E has been converted to twin Webers and bored to 2.056 - it pulls hard to 5k rpm but at 80+mph gets a lowly 21mpg).

This may be helpful.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1607649166.jpg

A CIS 2.4T should get highway mileage in the mid-to-high 20s. My 24.T MFI gets around 18 at best. In 1972, Car and Driver tested all 3 - T, E and S. They said the T gave around 18, the E 16 and the S 12-14.

Love the character of the 2.2 1971 911T. Happily runs on the hiway 70-90mph all day long and will attack the twisting with gusto too. Never driven a 2.4 so I can’t comment on how much better it may be.

As an old Porsche add from the early 70's used to say (paraphrasing):

This year, the "T" goes more like an "E", an "E" goes more like and a "S" and an "S" goes like Hell !

This whole issue of "hp creep" goes on today.. Base /S/GTS/GTx/Turbo/TurboS. Sometimes the simplest cars are the nicest. That said, unless its a project car you are looking at, get the nicest you can afford and be happy. If you think an extra 10-15hp/tq (and of course, a bit more weight) of a 2.4 car is what you want, then get what you want.

As a 914/6 owner with a stock 2.0L "T" engine of 110hp, the 125hp of a 2.2T would be nice... but compared to all the modern cars you've owned/driven, you might be hard pressed to notice the small hp bump.

imho, the ease of a well running CIS "T" would be appealing vs earlier Carb or MFI set ups. As mentioned, CIS appearance is a bit lacking vs the earlier cars, but my SC (CIS) was a dream of ease when it came to starting/running/smoothness vs carbed cars.

Very much enjoying this discussion. I'm feeling a whole lot better regarding my fuel economy, phew! - I had no idea these early 911's got fuel economy on par with my dad's old mondo station wagon :D

I'm also starting to feel more keen on the 2.2, sounds like the 2.2 vs 2.4 is a somewhat subjective preference.

I Have a 2.2E and absolutely love it.

I don't think you will notice any difference between a 2.2 and 2.4 assuming they are both running properly.

Better to focus on overall car condition, including rust than difference in capacity.

Ok I hope this isn't seen as heresy but here goes...

I own a '76 E. My second Pcar after a first gen Boxster (stay tuned you folks rolling your eyes!) I also own a '72 2002tii and a '88 M3.

My opinion of the early T/E/S cars are pretty much all from reading and watching videos. And from that vantage point all I can think is I need to own one.

I will say currently I regard my E as my favorite car. I'm a lifelong 2002 fanatic, and my tii is my dream car, a very nice example I've tuned and gotten to better than new state. I've done the same for the E (plus some crucial mods - bored to 2056, converted to twin 40 Webers, suspension mods, short shift kit, etc). So it occurred to me to film myself driving the car today to see what it looks like. So I did that, here's the result:

https://youtu.be/0H1FIYiqt28

IMHO, after seeing this video I thought "maybe I already have a car that's as good...". Any thoughts? (BTW this is not some elaborate act of self-aggrandizement! Just something that occurred to me so wanted an outside opinion cheers).

All depends on what you want from the car. An early 911 (1973 and older) is lighter. This means that it is more responsive to power, steering and braking inputs.

FWIW, A T makes about 130 hp which is close to the output of you 912E.

Are you looking for a touring car, a car with modest track expectations or a track monster? The answer to this will guide you in your search.

BTW, a BMW 2002tii is one of personal holy grail cars. The fun of a 911 crossed with the usefulness of a sedan. Inka Orange please.

The tii is very sweet, the car I wanted since I was a teen. I never thought I'd say it but I actually like the E better. The tii is complicated in comparison, lot's of stuff going wrong perpetually it seems - I jokingly nicknamed it "2002 problems". It's more traditional whereas the E (in my configuration) feels like a sports car. Still the massive greenhouse, sweet engine, handling and looks make the '02 a special car. Here's a pic of mine, all that said, I'll never sell it.

As far as the T goes, it'll be used for long distance drives as well as drives to work and enjoyment. No track or racing.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1607783877.JPG