How far beyond 7K have you been??

[robert walsh]

Spun it well beyond the old 6.2, then pushed it beyound 7K, stock 3.0 SC , only 29 K on the engine. I've turned it a good 7.5K and it asked for more??

[theiceman]

if it is stock wouldn't the rev limiter have kicked in ?

[crashmy911]

Just alittle bit more and wait for the explosion!!!!!!!!!!

[JeremyD]

Tachs are not always accurate.

[Gogar]

I'll let you do it, thanks. When I pass you it means I just shifted.

[Bobboloo]

Considering it looses power after redline the question becomes... Why would you??

[iamchappy]

Stock valve springs were not engineered to perform at those thresholds. Your heading for an expensive lets see how far it will go. i occasionally ran mine up to 7 but really you shouldn't.

[dfink]

I'm guessing at somewhere around 11K to 12K.....

Once............

[porsche930dude]

probrobly has the eqivelent of 60k on it now

[Mark McClure]

I have a red line set in the ECU of 8.2.....! but guess what it is built to handle it!

[Steve@Rennsport]

Originally Posted by robert walsh

Spun it well beyond the old 6.2, then pushed it beyound 7K, stock 3.0 SC , only 29 K on the engine. I've turned it a good 7.5K and it asked for more??

You won't do that for long without paying a very dear price,...

The consequences are utterly catastrophic and leave you with VERY few usable parts.

I'd keep it under 7K unless you spend some $$$$ to make it reliable.

[JohnJL]

Note to self: Never buy a 1983 SC Red Cab from Saratoga.

[Ole Petter]

Certainly when you hit the rev limiter it feels like it could could go on a whole lot higher in the rev band - but for power it is really just stupid. Sometimes on the track you could wish to go a little higher rpm's just to avoid shifting up just to shift down again, but that is the only time when I want more rpm's.

I read somewhere that as the earlier cars reved way past 7000, that the walve-train mechanism is built to handle that? But the bigger deplacement engines that followed really doesn't have the cams to give any power higher up the rev-band. And I guess that "if **** hits the fan" way past 7000 rpm's then you'd better get a new engine....!

If one build an engine like an RS/RSR then 7000 rpm's and more should be safe! So these engines have it in them... If I had the money....

[cgarr]

Around 8k in my 69 912, it was so smooooothe!

[JohnJL]

Originally Posted by Mark McClure

I have a red line set in the ECU of 8.2.....! but guess what it is built to handle it!

Uh, what does that mean?

[Az911]

Originally Posted by JohnJL

Uh, what does that mean?

I'm guess he build the engine to handle higher then stock rpms

[Mark McClure]

Originally Posted by Mark McClure
I have a red line set in the ECU of 8.2.....! but guess what it is built to handle it!


Uh, what does that mean?

It means that I have a rev limit of 8.2k but the engine has all the bits to handle it.....! if I had a stock engine the rev limiter would also be stock!

As many have now pointed out it is a bit silly to push harder than the limit of the valve train.......unless it is a destructive testing excercise.

Mark........

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Ole Petter

Sometimes on the track you could wish to go a little higher rpm's just to avoid shifting up just to shift down again, but that is the only time when I want more rpm's.

Before I really knew better (and before the internets were around) I replaced the stock rev limiting rotor in my '76 2.7 with a rotor from a '73 S (?). The new rotor had a allowed 7300 rpm IIRC. I used to use it. Especially coming out of turn 7 at Road Atlanta in 2nd - the extra rpms came in handy there and many other places.

My stock 2.7 routinely saw 7k+ rpms and never missed a beat. YMMV.

[bkreigsr]

my son took the 73 up to 7,500 - ONCE

Bill K

[theiceman]

Originally Posted by JohnJL

Note to self: Never buy a 1983 SC Red Cab from Saratoga.

..funny.. that is EXACTLY what i was thinking