2.7 in a long nose Stupid idea?

[Iowa911]

I am considering a project. Phase one: rebuild a 2.7 engine I may be able to get real cheap. Phase two: find a long nose roller to rebuild and mate the two projects. Dumb idea? I haven't seen this combo before. Any real reason to scrap this idea? I am not overly concerned about the overall cost as I am doing it for the enjoyment rather than an investment. Thoughts?

[dtw]

A 'real cheap' 2.7 is going to cost a 'small fortune' to rebuild . Sounds like a fun project, though.

[HarryD]

IMHO, the much maligned 2.7 has a lot going for it once it's problems are addressed. Be sure you add an external cooler to help the longrvity.

[Iowa911]

I know the rebuild will be pricey. I'm hoping the engine is in relatively good shape and I won't have to replace everything, it has already been converted to carbs. At this point I am not sure what updates have been done to it.
So, no real strong argument against this car/engine combo?

[911s55]

There are many "Longhoods" with a 2.7
Porsche made them, 73 RS Carrera, and there's one transplanted into my 71'
Cheap is relative I suppose! Go for it!
David

[RSBob]

The original long nose with a 2.7 is the '73 Carrera RS.

My long nose has a 2.7 RS spec motor which puts out 220 at the flywheel. I find the car's light weight combined with the scalded cat fast motor a ton of fun. I say, if cost is no consideration and you want a 2.7 versus, 3.0, 3.2, or 3.6, then go for it.

Keep us posted.

[jmz]

yeah great idea. rebuild a 2.7 into an R.S . Spec motor ...should produce around 200-220 h.p depending on cams head work etc. You can use S, Solex or E. cams L. Cams work too...a good long-hood car from say 69-73 - nice light cars.

What a winning combination!

-Heavy Sarcasm- (sorry ) Pretty much cook-book stuff and has been done countless times. Finding a good long hood car has become difficult. Porsche parts have got relatively expensive lately.

-still possible and this has been done countless times.

[RWebb]

which does NOT mean you shouldn't do it again

I went with an Al cased 3.2L, but you will just have more machining opes to worry about and measure for & a different place on the hp vs. torque gradient

[JohnJL]

I have one and its a hoot. I am however transplanting a spare 3.0 into the 71.

[dd74]

Go for the 2.7. The engine is lighter, it spins faster than a 3.0 or 3.2, and has more than enough torque if you have the early gearbox. If built RS style, the 2.7 will eclipse the 3.2's hp.

[lateapex911]

I think the "feel" of the engine comes into play as well. As mentioned, the 2.7s spin easily...they have a certain feel and revability.

[stevemfr]

Not a stupid idea IMO either.

Who the fQ&% cares if its been done a million times, if it rocks your boat, do it! And the nice thing about cook books is that you don't end up cooking something that needs to be dumped into the trash can.

Although I'm new here, I have to say that the tone in this forum is pretty damn negative at times.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Don't listen to the 2.7 haters. It's a fine enough engine as long as its kept cool and maintained properly.

Do it!

[deathpunk dan]

I'm obsessed with the idea of getting a CIS 73.5T and swapping a euro 3.0 in. That would be a pretty simple way to get 200 hp and a big fat tq curve, no?

Back to reality: One project at a time. Sigh.

[cgarr]

Those 2.7's are junk, how many do you have?

[jmz]

...not a 2.7 hater, nor am I saying not to do it. Seriously, it's a great combo. I was amused that it was thought of as a new idea. ---couldn't resist the attempt at sarcasm. It was once one of the most common mods for hot rod 911s.

I had a 3.2 many years ago that I was going to use to replace my 2.7 w/ solex cams and carbs. After driving a friends 3.2 in a similar car to mine I decided not to. I thought it felt heavy back there and "lazy" compared to the rev-happy 2.7. I sold the 3.2 to a friend - he installed it in his 73 RS replica and loves it.

[Iowa911]

Wow, thanks for all of the input. Excuse my my obvious oversite, when I said I had not seen this before I was really thinking of earlier cars 1969-70. I am of course aware of the '73RS and the growing number of clones. This is not my intent at all. I love the classic lines of that era of 911 and was really inspired to do this afteer looking at numerous threads, especially the story of Hester. That is one beautiful car! I prefer the understated clean look of these cars. I am not wanting to build a race car. I want a nice driver and I want to do it right. If this pans out I will be looking for LOTS of guidance from thhis board. So, far I am really encouraged by your comments.

Thanks!

[tcar]

Had a 2.7 in my 73.5T targa. With CIS, 11 blade, no thermal reactors. Was a GREAT combination.

Still see it around, it's got well over 100k on the engine, no probs.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by dd74

Go for the 2.7. The engine is lighter, it spins faster than a 3.0 or 3.2, and has more than enough torque if you have the early gearbox. If built RS style, the 2.7 will eclipse the 3.2's hp.

Hmmm.... the 2.7L is lighter - but most of that is related to the type of induction and exhaust hung on the stock motors. The MG case is maybe 40 lbs. lighter however (I forget exactly).

Spins faster - He must mean that the _stock_ 2.7L motors will spin UP to higher revs faster. Again, watch out for stock vs. modified comparisons. I doubt that this is true for a motor with carbs or aftermarket EFI or MFI.

The early gearbox is 'geared' lower so it feels like you hav emore torque. Bill V. has called this thrust.

The bigger motor will have more hp when all else is equal. Again be sure to distinguish stock from modified motors...

[1972_911T]

Originally Posted by RWebb

The MG case is maybe 40 lbs. lighter however (I forget exactly).

40lbs lighter? a 7r mag case weighs approx 20kg and a SC case is about 27kg