How many 2.7 to 3.0 (27230) converts out there?

MotoSook · 08-28-2002, 09:13 PM

With Chris' recent success on his conversion, I 'm curious how many of us 2.7 to 3.0 converts are out there.

Souk H
Go 27230 Go!

Adam · Adam's Garage

I don't know why anyone would want to...

I mean, a 3.0 only offers more hp and torque and an alloy crankcase... aww, crap!!

CamB · CamB's Garage

Chin up Adam.

5hp more, 30ft lbs. Its not that much is it?

Ok, so it is

Just think of all the extra weight slung out there.

08-29-2002, 12:42 AM

Due to our insane tax system here in Denmark we have quite a lot of 76-77 911s. It seems that many of them have had a 3,0 SC engine transplant. Also a few with Carrera 3,2 engine transplants, but certainly not as many as the 3,0 SC transplants.

We have this stupid rule that if you transplant another engine into your car it must be within a 20% hp increase from the original engine. If one exceeds the 20% e.g. Carrera 3,2 engine in a 76 911 2,7 one must pay new tax

Adam · Adam's Garage

Cam,

Yeah, it's not so bad... most 180bhp SCs get a lesson in humility from my mighty 175bhp 2.7!

Not really, but I'd be keen to see how it would compare, given the 2.7's low weight. If I had Matt Holcomb's motor, I'd be out thrashing 3.6s!

(Donning flame proof suit now!)

If I want to smoke people, Kurt B style, I break out the Carrera!

pookie · 08-29-2002, 05:15 AM

I just completed the swap less than a month ago, just in time to use the car as my getaway ride from my wedding. I love it, and have put almost 800 miles on the car since it was finished.
Ryan

cstreit · cstreit's Garage

How do they know? DO they dyno your car after an transplant?

Man... Talk about state oppression...

Dana_Drury · 08-29-2002, 05:40 AM

Yeah I have, but I put a 200 HP Carrera engine in... not some pithy 180 HP SC engine...

MotoSook · 08-29-2002, 07:02 AM

For 5 grand I bolted on an extra 20 horses. Now that is a good investment. That might put me in the ricer camp for performance to dollar ratio. Seriously, the 3.0 feels a whole lot more than 20 extra horses when I compare it to the memory of my 2.7. I get one of these

everytime I drive it.

08-29-2002, 08:05 AM

cstreit,

Denmark has pretty rough laws regarding car ownership, but they're definitely not oppressed. Spend any Saturday night in Copenhagen and you'll see that!

cstreit · cstreit's Garage

Rob,

Heh heh... Yeah, you're right about that...

...maybe I've just watched too much Monty Python... "Help HELP, I'm being repressed!"

08-29-2002, 10:00 AM

God that was funny...Off to the video store!

Hey, I just noticed in your signature that you're a Full Metal Jacket fan as well... Dude, you have excellent taste in movies...

scarebus · 08-29-2002, 12:25 PM

Guys, not all 3.0 are 180 hp. My '78 3.0 is 204 hp with Mahle p/c with 9.8:1. I installed ARP head and rod bolts with sport valve springs. With '74 exhaust, it should give more than 204 hp. And its the joy of rebuilding it yourself.

Rich911E · Rich911E's Garage

I have been thinking about this lately and I don't think it is really as clear cut as it might at first seem. There is no doubt that the magnesium cased engines have a problem with pulling head studs but this can be fixed and with an external oil cooler and an early exhaust, you will not have the overheating problem that caused the pulled head studs in the first place.

However, the 901 trans/mag. engine case combination weighs 150-200 lbs less than the 3.0/915 aluminum combination. If you have a 10 lbs per horsepower ratio (which is pretty optimistic for a 911), you need to have a 15-20 horsepower improvement just to break even with the additional weight. Plus, adding another 100lbs out over the back end of the car is not the right place to put it in a 911, especially a lightweight early car. The additional torque of the larger motors is only good if you can fit tires that can handle it.

I had considered a 3.0 engine, but it seemed that unless I was going to make a big HP motor which generates a lot of heat or plan on driving it 30,000 miles per year, the lighter weight of the early magnesium engine and gearbox combination made more sense, especially for a fun car. Plus, you can get stuff for the magnesium 2.7 motors so cheap it is pathetic compared to a 3.0/3.2 liter engine.

For myself, I am afraid how the weight distribution would affect the character of the car's handling so I am sticking with the early combination.

Rich

MotoSook · 08-29-2002, 04:15 PM

Rich,

What is the weight differential between the 2.7 and the 3.0? We all use the same 915 trans, so the additional weight of the 3.0 is the only addition. I also have removed all the smog equipment (OK for me in IL, I think). If I were to be sniffed by the smog patrol in IL (no visual inspection), I could use the cat that came w/ my motor. Removal of the cat will also make up for some of the additional weight. No more heater blower (still have heat though..sneaky engineering) During the installation, I also removed the charcoal canister and plumbing, more weight shedding. I now run Fuch 17-inch wheels w/ 205 tires in the rear (no more ugly heavier cookies for me

). So what is the weight differential once you have considered all this? As for tires, I don't think that is a problem for me as I have not been running with the 185 tires since I don't know when. The minimal weight added can be distributed by suspension setting, right (I'm not there yet).

I don't mean to start an emotional discussion, but there are advantages to this setup. More useable torque is the first that comes to mind. Financially, I could have rebuilt my 2.7 as Ron in LB has and been very proud of it, but I now have a reliable motor from a trusted source, for the same or less money as a 2.7 rebuild. Yet I still have my 2.7 for my first rebuild project, in which I hope to have a killer motor.

How did I lose on this? I highly recommend the 3.0 conversion if one can't afford a 3.2 or 3.6 or a 2.7 210 HP motor (I'm drooling and waiting for mine). The reward of doing my own transplant and the lessons learned along the way are priceless! Given the experience I have gained and the results, I put a small price on the cost and a large gain in the results. I'd like to run up on a 2.7 (not the monster ones you silly man) and see if he can do what I can do?

Souk
Go 27230 Go!

beamonk · 08-29-2002, 04:32 PM

I concur with Souk. I just put in my Euro SC motor with fresh top end, raceware studs and new SSI's and cant wait for the first drive. An additional 20 lbs can be shaved and just the satisfaction of doing most of this myself is enough. Oh, got the tach working well, thanks Souk!

scarebus · 08-29-2002, 05:18 PM

John, your euro 3.0, is it 9.8:1 cr? How about the fuel distributor, is it standard or Euro, or you are using carbs. I want to see the outcome, since my new motor with Euro setup is having a rough idle.

s2per · s2per's Garage

My first 911 was a '75 Targa that submitted to the dreaded stud-pulling phantoms. I swapped in an '82 3.0, put on a '74 exhaust and never looked back. Nearly bulletproof and lots more power. Big fun.

If it had been a coupe, I'd probably still have it. So, what am I doing with another Targa? Now that's another story......

beamonk · 08-29-2002, 08:34 PM

Chris, I have an 83 full Euro, with 9.8. It does idle rich now and my buddy Howie said the Euro's idle strange sometimes. It cycles rich, but I have been putting the body and interior suspension, hell, everything back together and not messing with the engine too much. I wil be going to Gulfport soon and Howie will do the final tune on it. I think the warmup reg. may need to be adjustable and we shall see how it idles I will post it all when I get it finished, hopefully SOON!

Dana_Drury · 08-30-2002, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Souk

How did I lose on this? I highly recommend the 3.0 conversion if one can't afford a 3.2 or 3.6 or a 2.7 210 HP motor (I'm drooling and waiting for mine).

Souk,

It depends on the 3.0L engine, for instance, the 3.0l 200HP Carrera engine has more torque then the 2.7 210 HP engine despite the 10 HP difference, its torque is also much more usable. I also believe that engine is lighter, and it has a better crank case.

The conversion to a 3.0l could be just as valid as the 3.2 or 3.6. Remember, some people don't want a monster on their hands. Fit a 3.0L engine into a original 2.7l and you aren't going to have to be upping the brakes, suspension and all other fancy bits to get a decent jump in power. Lose some weight and its even better!