So....2.7L or 3.0L or 3.2L?

[Eharrison]

First of all I've done the searches and I would like to point out that Pelican has an issue with searching for 3 character words, so 2.7, 3.0, or 3.2 is not easy unless you use 3.2L, 3.0L etc.

Anyways, for the threads I've found and discussions I've had with other Pelicanites, I still do not have a firm choice in what I'm looking at doing for a motor for my 71.....

I've seen 2.4L and 2.7 motors for cheap. I've seen 3.0 and 3.2's for more.

Is it worth it to move up to a 3.0 or 3.2? Or can you make the 2.7 motor doable (doable meaning it will not need smog goodies and none of the heat generating items that they are used to, so they are more reliable).

There are several ways I can go about the motor for this car.

1. Get one that runs and enjoy the car for a while since it's been over a year not being able to drive a Porsche. And either buy another and build that one, or just drive it for a while and then rebuild it.

2. Buy one and rebuild it before it goes in the car.

Now I'm not looking for crazy HP but I do want to eventually go with a carbed motor. I've had one P-car addict say that there's nothing wrong with the 2.7 especially if it's been gone through. Do I look for the 2.7 or should I wait and spend the money on a 3.0 or 3.2? What motors cost more in the long term? Availability in parts? Is the 2.7 limited in mods since it's cylinders are maxed out?

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Ed

[Flieger]

I've got a 2.7. It is a lot of fun. But mine is RS spec including the MFI.

[dipso]

I have a carbed 2.7. Big as a mo fo. I love it!

[al lkosmal]

The 2.7 is one of my favorite motors.....I am on my 3rd and one of my favorite configurations is/ was my 2.7 with 9.5:1 JE pistons, E-cam, Webers, SSI's, sport muffler...etc. sweet motor, looked good, sounded good, went good...great personality......................but, and it's a big butt.....................I now have a 3.2 in my 73................I am hooked on the grunt.

Regards,
al

I may be slowly turning into a "no replacement for displacement" disciple. save me...............

[ALXinNZ]

Nothing wrong with any of the motors. Why carb's over efi. Its all good. easiest cheapest most reliable bang for buck is a 3,2 with sports exhaust and Steve Wong chip.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Eharrison

Now I'm not looking for crazy HP but I do want to eventually go with a carbed motor. I've had one P-car addict say that there's nothing wrong with the 2.7 especially if it's been gone through. Do I look for the 2.7 or should I wait and spend the money on a 3.0 or 3.2?

I agree. Nothing inherently wrong with a 2.7. If one goes back and reads the contemporary magazine articles in the mid-'70s, the motoring press almost universally loved the 2.7s and thought they were a vast improvement over the 2.4 liter engines. Having said that, longevity issues tarnished that view somewhat, but those issues are easily understood and rectified.

The stock 2.7 in my car was a fabulous engine.

One thing the 2.7 has going for it is its uniqueness these days. Everyone has a 3.0 or 3.2 in their cars, but not many people have a well-built 2.7. I'd definitely leave the 2.7 on your list but I wouldn't view it as the "cheaper" option - only different.

[trak ratt]

All are old enough to prolly need a refresh. A worked over 2.7 (pistons, cams, carbs/EFI/MFI etc.) wil be as much $$$ or more than a refreshed 3.2. For that it won't have much more HP in street trim and require way more fiddling to keep sharp.
That said I'd love a 2.7, MFI, S cam motor in a '72 RS tribute

[carr914]

For long-term usage, a 3.0 or 3.2 is better. a 2.7 is now 35 Years Old 7 Magnesium gets brittle with age. Aluminum is heavier but stronger

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by Eharrison

First of all I've done the searches and I would like to point out that Pelican has an issue with searching for 3 character words, so 2.7, 3.0, or 3.2 is not easy unless you use 3.2L, 3.0L etc.

Here's an ancient Chinese secret. Use Google Advanced Search and load in the main link (URL) to the 911 technical forum in the domain field and then your search criteria in one of the find fields.

Google will only search in the PP 911 tech forum and has the functionality to work with numbers only.

What I find really helpful is if I need to see a picture of a part, I load in the part description and then use the images function within Google and it will show pics that are named what you entered. It won't get them all but given 2 million posts there is a good chance you will get a few.

Google Advanced Search

Here is the 911 Tech Forum URL - load this into the Google Advanced Search domain field and have some fun. Note: will work with any site you enter.

Porsche 911 Technical Forum - Pelican Parts Technical BBS

[Tippy]

This is not first hand experience but what I read here:

I would avoid a 2.7 just because if you have to tear the engine down, it requires line boring (aluminum cases generally don't need) and time certs for the head studs - if it doesn't have them already.

If it doesn't have time certs, it may be a matter of time before a stud pulls.

[jjwood]

I've got a 2.7L in my '71 and I'm very pleased. It's got Web Cams, JE pistons, Weber carbs, race headers. BUT I sure would like a built-up 3.2L. It's only money!

[LakeCleElum]

I had this same decision on a motor for my 73.5. Here's what I ended up with for $4,500 + $240 shipping:

FS engine and transmission.

Couldn't be happier with the outcome for the money.

[Charles Freeborn]

The cost of the engine change is not only the engine itself, but all the other "support mechanisms" involved. Oil cooler will have to be upgraded, electrical harnesses, etc. It's not as cheap as you think. Then added weight and power changes suspension settings, tire widths, fender flares....
I went through all this with a calculator and decided to leave mine alone.
Properly tended a 2.7 is a fine engine for US highways
-C

[Dantilla]

My reason for stuffing a 3.2 into an early car was simple-

I found a clean, low mileage '87 that got hit in the nose pretty hard at an insurance auction.
Buying the entire car meant that I had the engine, complete wiring harness, DME box (guarenteed to match!) along with aluminum banana arms, brakes, flares, yada yada along with a great assortment of fasteners, with plenty of parts left over to sell at John Walker's swap meet, further reducing the cost of the transplant.

For a non-mechanic like myself, this worked out much better than scrounging up individual parts.

I recently saw another early car sitting in a back yard near a rental home I have. I'm debating if I should go knock on the door and see about the possibility of doing it all over again.

[Jerome74911S]

My '74 has a '75 S 2.7 in it. It's fine, runs well, is dry, makes "Porsche music", etc. More grunt would be nice, but if I had that I'd just get into more trouble on the road. My engine has been redone, with the proper, normal upgrades. Most of these engines have been 'fixed' by now, if they ever had issues in the first place.

[Evans, Marv]

I have a 2.7L I'm putting into my '69. I've had it for a loooong time and I'm not interested in a bigger engine. Mine has all the upgrades and some nice mods (pretty much identical to Al's). Having said that, if I were to be out looking for an engine, I wouldn't necessarily consider a 2.7L. The reason is they cost a ton of $$$ to rebuild. If you really want a 2.7L, I would prefer at least a '76 or '77 since they have all of the latest mods for that engine. I think a 3.0L or 3.2L would be my preference.

[Charles Freeborn]

The way Dantilla went about it is pretty much the only way that makes sense. Buying all those parts piece meal would drill a hole in your wallet that you could drive a truck through.
-C

[Jerome74911S]

Originally Posted by Evans, Marv

I have a 2.7L I'm putting into my '69. I've had it for a loooong time and I'm not interested in a bigger engine. Mine has all the upgrades and some nice mods (pretty much identical to Al's). Having said that, if I were to be out looking for an engine, I wouldn't necessarily consider a 2.7L. The reason is they cost a ton of $$$ to rebuild. If you really want a 2.7L, I would prefer at least a '76 or '77 since they have all of the latest mods for that engine. I think a 3.0L or 3.2L would be my preference.

There are certainly things I don't know about, but the '76 and '77 engines didn't have the Carrera cam chain tensioners, nor did they have cylinder head studs that were superior to earlier 2.7s. As well, they were equipped with additional smog gadgetry that was not present on the earlier 2.7s, especially the '74 model.

Any 2.7 that has been properly rebuilt and updated is OK, and the bulk of the cost is in the past.

[Christien]

I put a 1982 3.0 in my 72 last year. The trick to keeping the cost down, and making the swap fairly easy, is to reuse as much stuff as possible. I reused all my carbs, ignition, exhaust and fan/alternator, as well as the original wiring harness. I had to get the distributor recurved (still waiting for that) because of lack of vacuum advance, and swapping exhaust is a miserable job. I also had to buy a 9-bolt flywheel and a new pilot bearing. But I recouped several hundred $$s from selling off stuff I didn't need that came with the motor. Total cost including shipping and after selling stuff I didn't need was around $3000. the engine had 120k on it iirc but compression and leakdown done before the engine was pulled were fine.

[RSBob]

I have both a 2.7 RS spec MFI and a 3.0 with Webbers. The 3.0 has gobs of torque and is very smooth. It's almost like driving a powerful V6. The 2.7 has immediate throttle response, seems to rev faster and is more viceral. A massaged RS spec (220 hp) and a massaged 3.0 (225 Hp) are very different animals. My preference is the 2.7.