2.0L upgrades

I’m starting to give some thought to an upgrade path for my 2.0L 69T. Over the next couple of years I would like to squeeze as much horsepower out of this car as possible, and need to get my mind around where I will eventually end up. At the moment I’m thinking an eventual conversion to “s” pistons and cylinders, with appropriate mods to carbs. Is it worth considering a ‘E’ counterbalanced crankshaft and would it fit? Any thoughts on alternate cams? The engine has all the recommended early upgrades ( p.f tensioners etc.)

I would prefer to avoid increasing the engine displacement and should note I have read B.A’s book. Any ideas, suggestions or experiences with these engines would be appreciated.

Regards,

------------------
Paul
911T'69

[This message has been edited by Paul W (edited 03-10-2000).]

Hi Paul

You hhould check Warrens reply to ny question about E or S cams in a 2.2 T engine. Your engine is very similar.

Peter

Paul, You may want to check out WebCam at: http://www.webcaminc.com/ They offer several cam grinds for the 911, and may have a suggestion for you. I suspect the 'E' grind or something close is probably your best compromise, and you will want to change to the 'traditional' 911 dual valve springs. I knew an autocrosser who did that and ran a plain distributor rotor during competition and an 'E' 7100 rpm-limit rotor on the street, with no problems. He used to hit the limiter several times during a run using the 'stock' 'T' 6500 rpm limit rotor, much to everyone else's amusement! He richened the main jets up one step on his Webers (5 points: 125 to 130) and had no problems with running NGK B8ES and BP7ES sparkplugs (summer and winter, repectively). I have read that the 'T' crank has no 'weakness' problem when used 7000 rpm and under, it just causes a bit more harsh vibration at those levels, so I don't really think you need to change it out for 'concerns' over strength.

------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa

I was passing through the lists and thought I'd mention something to you. The 911T crank is nice because it is so light. If you want a fast engine, having a light crankshaft is nice. Therefore, don't spend the money if your crank is in good shape. Just my thought on the matter.

Guys thanks for all the input

I read your earlier post Peter and that’s what started me on this line of thought. With the differences in the engines I thought it was best to re-post the question.

I have driven a 2.0L S and thought it was a blast, although I think I would prefer the more useable torque characteristics of the E or T engines. If I was to swap the cams to an E grind, as per Warrens suggestion, is it worth considering the S cylinder and piston upgrade? My thought was this may be the path to more power due the higher compression.

Thanks for the feedback on the crankshaft, I think I’ll leave this and concentrate my efforts else where.

Warren, does the valve spring conversion involve replacing the existing valve assembly or just a spring change?

Regards


[This message has been edited by Paul W (edited 03-10-2000).]

Paul, It's just the spring, a straight swap of the single-coil 'T' spring over to the 'standard' dual springs used in all of the other 911s. Converting to the 'S' pistons and cylinders would be worthwhile from strength and performance due to higher compression, though you might want to consider methods of reducing the compression ratio by 0.5 to ease the octane requirement (such as milling a bit off the top of the pistons) ... stock ratio for 'S' was 9.8: 1 ... a bit too high for 93-94 octane gas!!! Here are some other URLs for a source of cams:
www.carquip.com
www.andial.com

------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa

Thanks for all your thoughts.

Warren re: a post of mine of a week or so back on a rear end noise. According to my mechanic its most likely a bearing. I'm probably going to leave it for a while before getting it fixed (wife vs car(finances)). Just won't do any long trips. From memory I think this was your second guess. Well done.

------------------
Paul
911T'69

Here Paul this might help you in the differant ways to build a 2.0 for power and reliablity. Also if you like the BOTTOM end power of an E, but it runs out of breath and you like the power band af an S but it dos not have that much bottom end GO with a Solex grid on your camshafts it is just right

The 911 Porsche 2.0 Motor
1965-69 changes and modifications

The 2.0 Porsche 911 motor was one of the first 6 cylinders that Porsche put on the market. Starting in September 1964' all the way through 1969. There where many different versions of the 2.0. Ranging from a mere 110HP in a 914-6 all the way up to 220HP in a 911R or the famous 906. There are many different camshafts, compression's, case materials, fuel systems, distributors, flywheels, connecting rods, crankshafts and a lot of other differences. We know there are a lot of other types of rare 2.0 parts, but we are trying to keep with in what is still available on the shelves, not in a museum.

This list is in helping you build your Porsche motor into what you want your Porsche to do. There are a lot of changes and modifications that where done through the years. Some things you may want to change others you may want to keep. Hope this list is helpful in making your decision in your Porsche motor needs.

Cases
Aluminum 1965-1967
a. Heavy and strong
Magnesium 1968-1969
a. Light weight
Magnesium 1970 ( will fit on 2.0 bore cylinders )
a. Light weight
b. Double lay shaft bearings
Magnesium 1971 ( will fit on 2.0 bore cylinders )
a. Light weight
b. Double lay shaft bearings
c. Oil piston squirters
Magnesium 1972-74 #7R ( will fit the 2.0 bore cylinders )
a. Light weight
b. Piston oil squirters
c. Double lay shaft bearings
d. Extra thick spigots, holding cylinders

Crankshafts
Non counterweight
a. Light weight, for fasting spooling up of motor
b. Less stress on movable mass
Counterweight
a. Heavier then non-counterweight
b. Much more smoother in balancing
Billet custom
a. Strongest made
b. Made for any applications
c. Heavy


Connecting rods
Factory 1965-1969
a. Standard
b. "S" Rods where nitrated
Factory 2.2 1970-1971
a. Longer rod bolts
b. Reinforced big ends
c. "S" Rods where nitrated
Race Prepped Rods
a. 2.2 Rods
b. Shot peened
c. Re-sized
d. New rods bolts
e. New rod nuts
f. Bushings ends redone
g. balanced end for end
h. All parts blue printed
* Never re-use old rod nuts and bolts, they are stretch type.
* When replacing a rod, there are different weight groups

Cams
L & R 1965-66 Solex
a. Center lube cam
b. Great midrange power through out
c. Intake duration and lift, 244 deg .439 in.
d. Exhaust duration and lift, 234 deg 406 in.
L & R "Factory L"
a. Great midrange power through out
b. Intake duartion and lift, 244 deg .439 in.
c. Exhaust duration and lift, 234 deg .406 in.
L & R "Factory T"
a. Very mild and smooth came for touring
b. Carberated and MFI
c. Intake duration and lift 216 deg .387 in.
d. Exhaust duration and lift 207 deg .345 in.
L & R "Factory E"
a. Great bottom end, popular for Autocross
b. Carburetor and MFI
c. Intake duration and lift 229 deg .408 in.
d. Exhaust duration and lift 223 deg .393. in.
L & R "Factory S"
a. Great top end, power band comes on late good for Time Trails
b. Carberated and MFI
c. Intake duration and lift 267 deg .459 in.
d. Exhaust duration and intake 235 deg .396 in.
L & R " Factory 906"
a. Full out Road racing cam
b. Intake duration and lift 281 deg .462 in.
c. Exhaust duration and lift 251 deg .403 in.

Oil Pumps
Early aluminum oil pump pre 1967
a. First standard type
Magnesium oil pump 1968-1975 1/2
a. Same as the pre 1967
b. Light weight compared to the pre 67
Magnesium oil pump 1975 1/2 -1977
a. Light weight compared to pre 1967
b. Pressure pump section larger
c. Different ratio
d. Same oil pump functions as a 3.2 oil pump up to 1988, less oil pump pick up
Aluminum oil pump from 1978-1983 SC
a. Stronger aluminum material
b. same as 1975 1/2 -1977
* Never re-use old oil pump lock tabs

Pistons
1965-1967 Compression 9.0:1
a. Good on street gas
b. Medium torque
c. Cast aluminum
1967 S Compression 9.8:1
a. High torque
b. Lots of horse power
c. Hi Octane only
d. Cast aluminum
1968 L Compression 9.0:1
a. Good on street gas
b. Medium torque
c. Cast aluminum
1968-1969 T Compression 8.6:1
a. Very good with local gas
b. Low torque
c. Low Horse Power
d. Cast aluminum
1968-1969 E Compression 9.1:1
a. Good on street gas
b. Better Horse power
c. Better Torque Improvement
d. Cast aluminum
1968-1969 S Compression 9.9:1
a. Hi Octane a must
b. Hi Horse Power
c. Hi torque
d. Forged aluminum
906 Compression 10.3:1
a. Racing gas only
b. Hi Torque out put
c. Hi Horse Power improvement
d. Valve clearance a must
e. Forged aluminum

Specialty Pistons ANY COMPRESSION!
a. Light weight
b. Forged Billet Aluminum
c. Valve clearance to your specification
d. Any compression for your needs
e. Longer squirted for better noise reduction
2.1 conversion
a. must use the Specialty pistons listed above, with use of over bore cylinders
2.2 conversion
a. Higher horse power
b. More torque
c. Same compression variables as listed above for stock application
d. Must change cylinders for conversion
e. Direct bolt on, no machining needed.
* When replacing one piston, there are many different weight groups
* When replacing one piston there are valve clearance you must be careful of

Cylinders
Birol cylinders
a. half cast iron and half aluminum
b. Thinner walls of each material
Cast iron cylinders
a. Thicker walls for strength
b. Better for performance applications
* When replacing just one cylinder you must becareful of group height

Piston Pins and clips
Standard piston pin
a. Standard weight
b. Good all around for street application
Light weight piston pin
a. Light weight
b. Best for Performance applications and Racing
c. Lighter better on movable mass
Standard stock wrist pin clip
a. Half circle
Racing wrist pin clip
a. Spirol lock design, double wrapping around diameter
b. Best for Performance application and Racing
* Never re-use old piston clips when motor is being reassembled

Rockers and Shafts
Forged rocker on all Pre 1967
a. Strongest made
b. So strong if problem accurs will break other parts, then just rocker breaking
c. Heavier then cast type
Cast Rockers 1968 - 1969
a. Not as strong as forged
b. Lighter then forged
c. No inner bushings
Cast Rockers Late style
a. Not as strong as forged
b. Lighter then forged
c. Built in inner rocker shaft bushings
d. Best for all around reliability
RSR rocker shaft seals
a. Prevent leaks that may accur

Flywheels
Standard 1965-1969
a. Heavy weight 11.75 pounds
b. Very smooth response
Factory 'S" 1967-1969
a. Light weight factory type
b. Quicker response
c. Lighter on all moveable mass
Custom lightened
a. Light weight custom made 9 lbs.
b. Quicker response
c. Lighter on all moveable mass
* Replace flywheel bolts with new, when removing after time has passed

Valve covers
Aluminum 1965-1967
a. Strong
b. Not interchangeable
Magnesium 1968-1969
a. Light weight upper
b. Light weight lower
c. Weak, tending to leak
Aluminum
a. Heavy strengthen upper
b. Heavy strength lower
Turbo lower
a. Heavy duty and strong
b. Extra ribbed out side
c. Extra ribbed inside
d. The best they make
* Do not use silicone to install gasket, can get silicone in valve train area
* Always replace aluminum crush washers and nylock nuts when removing and installing valve covers

Chain Tensioners
Standard 1965-1967
a. First type made
b. Open resivor type
c. Safety stops required
Standard 1968-1969
a. Sealed resivour type
b. Second version of tensioner made
c. Safety stops required
Turbo Tensioners
a. Newest model made
b. Sealed resivour
c. Safety stops required
Carrera oil feed chain
a. Will fit 1968-1969
b. Best tensioner made at hand
c. Pressure feed by oil
d. Need to replace chain housing covers, to aluminum
e. Need replace cam oil lines
f. They do not make a safety stop
Full mechanical tensioner
a. Will never fail
b. Noise
c. Wears chain sprockets
* Never reuse old safety stops when rebuilding a motor
* Non factory tensioners can not be rebuilt

Intermediate shafts
1965-1967
a. Early type
1968-1969
a. Later type
b. Size "0"
c. Size "1"

Cam housing covers
1965-1967
a. Aluminum type
1968-1969
a. Magnesium light weight
Turbo
a. Aluminum type
b. Stronger
c. Will fit 1968-1969
* When being removed and replaced, always check with straight edge for warpage
* When removing and replacing always replace aluminum crush washers and nylock nuts

Heads
1965-1966
a. small port size 32X32
b. small valve size 45X39
1967-1968 Factory "S"
a. Port size 36X35
b. Valve size 42X38
1968-1969 Factory "T", "L" and "E"
a. Port size 32X32
b. Valve size 42X38
1969 Factory "S"
a. Port size 36X35
b. Valve size 45X39
Factory 906
a. Port size 38X38
b. Valve size 45X39
Custom Heads
a. Valve size Factory 46X40
b. Custom port size, Any size available
c. Heads are built to order
* Make sure when doing head work, that heads where not decked before
* Always check your spring height
* Make sure your manifold port size matches your head port size

Roy,

Wow, thanks for all the detailed information, you’ve given me heaps to think about, none the least how to finance my engine upgrade.

I have further defined my future upgrade to wanting to achieve as close to 200hp as possible (or better!), whilst keeping the car 2.0L. At the moment I am leaning towards 2.0L “S” P&C’s and heads (rods etc to suit), “S” fly wheel, later oil pump and appropriate mods to carbs. I will have my local Porsche guy advise me on all other matters at the time of the work as I am sure many other potential issues will present themselves at the time. The engine already has p.f tensioners and turbo valve covers and electronic ignition, which will remain. I’m interested in your comments regarding the Solex cams; I’ll try to find someone with these in their car to test drive.

My engine currently runs very strongly and has done about 40K miles since an “open cheque book” rebuild (by the PO), so I anticipate a rebuild in a couple of years. The plan is to start collecting parts now to defray some of the cost later, especially as I travel a fair bit and parts cost a lot less in the US and Europe relative to Australia.

Thanks again for the response.


------------------
Paul
911T'69