2.4 - any good?

[cashflyer]

I've heard that the 3.0 is "bulletproof" and that the 2.7 is a "timebomb".

My personal experience has only been with a 3.0, and I find it durable and peppy.

Anyway, I'm looking at rebuilding another car (discussed in various other threads) and was wondering what people think of their 2.4L engines.

[Scooter]

The 2.4 comes in three + versions; T, E, and S. Which motor are you asking about? My research and limited experiernce has made me believe that a 2.4T motor should last somewhere close to a 3.0.

[GrantG]

2.4S MFI is a great motor (even better with 2.2S hi-comp pistons)!

[Sunroof]

My 2.4 in my 1973.5T has been excellent. For one thing the 2.4 has been known as an engine that will never "overheat". I can attest for that in southern climate with th e AC blasting. My engine was totally rebuilt with new pistons (left "T") and updates like the oil fed tensioners. The 2.4 is very responsive and I have heard as well that its comparable with the 3.0 for longevity. Of course a 3.0 in my 73.5T body would be like having a turbo!!

Bob
73.5T

[GrantG]

Originally posted by Sunroof
Of course a 3.0 in my 73.5T body would be like having a turbo!!

Don't forget that a stock 2.4S has more power than a stock 3.0L...

[Scooter]

Originally posted by GrantG
Don't forget that a stock 2.4S has more power than a stock 3.0L...

Is this true?

[Facey]

yes it the actualy sence of advertised outputs.

however there ia noticable torque differance, and the 3L of course has much more potential, as the reason its output is less, is ude to emissions.

Poor header design, emmission friendly(no hp) CIS, retarded timing.... switch to carbs with SSI's and the 3L is alot more engine then th 2.4S.

[304065]

Nominally, a 2,4 S has 190 HP. A 3,0 SC has 180.

Very, very different engines and driving characteristics.

[Bobboloo]

The 2.4S is only more powerful when wound above 5500 RPM. The 3.0 is more powerful from 0 to 5500RPM.

In otherwords it takes a long straightaway for the 2.4S to catch up and pass the car with the 3.0.

[klaucke]

The 2.4 or 2.7 can easily be built to give "bulletproof" reliability. Of course, it's not going to happen if you go 10.5:1 compression, no twin plug, no front mount oil cooler, RSR Sprint cams, etc. A mild T, E, or even S rebuild w/ proper upgrades to a 7R (some 2.4's are 5R) case can give great power and reliability. Don't overheat the engine or over rev it, use good oil and filter and they last a long time.

The 2.7 is a fine motor w/ proper cooling and no thermal reactors. Much of the bad rep. comes from thermal reactor cars that had no front oil cooler and the AC probably blasting in 95 degree traffic. A recipe for the mag case to pull studs. No one complains about a 2.7RS or 2.8S/RSR motor!

[Jim Richards]

My 2.4E was a great engine, good torque and adequate HP. My 2.7RS engine rocks.

[GrantG]

Originally posted by Scooter
Is this true?

Yep, actually a stock 3.0L has only as much power as a stock 2.2S motor (180hp). And the smaller/older MFI motors rev 1,000 rpm higher (so they can benefit from lower gearing) and have much better throttle response (and sound) compared to a 3.0L CIS motor, imho...

[Deschodt]

>My 2.4 in my 1973.5T has been excellent. For one thing the 2.4 has been known as an engine that will never "overheat". I can attest for that in southern climate with th e AC blasting

I agree 100%. The 2.4 in my 73.5 T felt as good as my 3.0 SC unit, peakier even, and it was a T ! And never got hot - without a secondary cooler to boot ! It's been an excellent engine in my opinion.

[Dan in Pasadena]

Originally posted by klaucke
The 2.4 or 2.7 can easily be built to give "bulletproof" reliability. Of course, it's not going to happen if you go 10.5:1 compression, no twin plug, no front mount oil cooler, RSR Sprint cams, etc. A mild T, E, or even S rebuild w/ proper upgrades to a 7R (some 2.4's are 5R) case can give great power and reliability. Don't overheat the engine or over rev it, use good oil and filter and they last a long time.

The 2.7 is a fine motor w/ proper cooling and no thermal reactors. Much of the bad rep. comes from thermal reactor cars that had no front oil cooler and the AC probably blasting in 95 degree traffic. A recipe for the mag case to pull studs. No one complains about a 2.7RS or 2.8S/RSR motor!

Thank you for posting this in explanation of the much maligned 2.7. I was going to post something like it but saw your conicse response...you are right on, of course. Only thing I would add is to advise the original poster that the 2.7 is about 40 lbs lighter than the 3.0 and that the bad rep came from the early years when many (particularly California cars) still had the five blade fan, TR's and no external oil cooler. The NEWEST of the 2.7's is 30 years old now. Many, many have had significant reliability upgrades performed on them long since.

[cashflyer]

The 2.7 reminds me of the old AMF engines. Everyone says they "mark their territory" by leaking oil constantly.... but I found that once it was rebuilt properly, there were no more leaks and it ran well.

Similarly, from the sound of it, a 2.7 if properly built should be undeserving of their reputation.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by cashflyer
I've heard that the 3.0 is "bulletproof" and that the 2.7 is a "timebomb".

My personal experience has only been with a 3.0, and I find it durable and peppy.

Anyway, I'm looking at rebuilding another car (discussed in various other threads) and was wondering what people think of their 2.4L engines.

Too bad we're not geographically desirable...I give you the same ride I gave Lubemaster. Assuming both in stock trim, a 2.4 S will smoke a 911SC...lighter, and more horsepower...and it doesn't take all that long to get to 5,000 RPM, when a 2.4S begins it's seductive song. That said, not much difference in building cost between a 2.4S and a 2.7RS engine, especially if starting from scratch.