Engine selection, Early 911

[landstew]

Hey all. Figured I'd get some insight here. I have a '72 911T that is ready for an engine. I started the project, without engine, to be a budget custom driver, to put like a 3.2 into it when the time came. But as time has gone by, being an earlier year, I've changed gears to go stock, even finding the original Aubergine, and tracking down some good original seats, door pockets, etc.

That being said, the very trustworthy guy who I have lined up to do my engine has a good 2.7 that he could refresh for a very good price, also solving the issues of that particular engine (studs etc.) Or should I stick with my plan to have him build a 2.4 (or even 2.5)? Which, being a newly built engine will be at least 3-4k more, at least 50 hp less. I'm tempted to just go ahead and save on the 2.7, but of course don't want to have problems down the road when needing to resell, with the negative stigma of that engine. pros for 2.7 are it will be less expensive, more hp, quicker install, since he has it all there. cons are of course, its that darn old stigmatized engine that seems people want to shy away from, even when issues addressed. Is it better on this year car in the long run, especially value-wise to spend more and go stock? and if so, should I also be tracking down a FI for it, instead of carbs? Thanks for the input.

[jpnovak]

Those in the know will not shy away from a DOCUMENTED rebuild. There are specific upgrades and machinework that need to be applied to the 2.7 magnesium case.

I think you will enjoy a warmed over 2.7 more than a stock 3.2. While the 3.2 will be quick it will not have that rev-happy character that makes an early car feel so special. Besides, the extra weight in the rear can be felt.

Carbs are easy to install. MFI is great but very expensive to find and rebuild. EFI with ITBs would the modern equivalent with vintage appeal.

[HRHski]

I've driven a number of really good 77 S cars, the engine pulls like a 3.0 and even revs better.

[Jack Stands]

Just build the 2.7 correctly and you'll love it! The problems have all been found and addressed by experienced engine builders. All the 3.0 and 3.2 are now old enough that they also need studs replaced and other work performed as well.

[landstew]

Thanks for all the input. I'm leaning toward the 2.7 even more. But just wondering if the 2.7 will essentially hurt the 'early year' value of the car, and essentially make it a mid year. Not that I wouldn't drive a mid year myself, any day, but obviously and unfortunately the values are very different. And mechanics always tell me it's the engine. (Although this engine builder doesn't really see the difference between them reliabilty-wise. But I guess there's a market perception.)

Or since I won't have a numbers matching 2.4 anyway, does that really all matter anyway?

[Evans, Marv]

A numbers matching engine might not be that big of a negative for lots of buyers. Plus 2.4L engines can be had pretty easily, since lots come up for sale. I would definitely go for the 2.7L in your case if it's in good condition. I'd make sure I would know what the guy is saying when he says "refresh" and check with someone familiar with the engines if you aren't. If you are new to older Porsches, you should be aware the 2.4 & 2.7 liter engines are expensive to do a proper rebuild for. A good rebuild on either one will cost you a bunch more than $3 or $4K over a used one.

[Bill Douglas]

2.4 MFI would be a bit more period correct. Those E spec engines were (are) really nice.

[tharbert]

Save your money and warm up that 2.7. If you still have that urge to make it period correct, then start looking for that 2.4 and build it at your leisure. They are right, you see 2.4's crop up fairly regularly that have been sitting somewhere, no doubt removed for larger/bigger/better.

[scootermcrad]

Interesting thread! I'm sort of in the same boat. I have a project that is less a drive train as well. A '70T. Been weighing my options and trying to take into consideration the big picture as well. My car had a 3.2 in it at one point, but also a 2.7 after the stock engine was removed. My project has been pretty well molested at the track, so I'm already too far from stock to go back, so I've been planning on going 3.0 or 3.2, simply to avoid the extra machining required that a 2.7 would need, but maybe that is a mistake.

Curious to see this thread expand on comments of 2.7 vs. the next generation 3.0/3.2 engines, regarding rebuild/refresh.

[landstew]

Now I'm curious what everyone thinks about a good used 2.7? Is that a different story?

[Charles Freeborn]

A stock 2.7 properly tended is a very nice engine. I say leave it stock with CIS, as increasing hp is what brings on the problems. In a light chassis like a 72 it will be loads of fun. Add an oil cooler and you'll be good to go.
-C

[landstew]

Do you have more issues with oil leaks? As one seasoned mechanic told me yesterday (and might be the one who sadly gave me bitter taste toward this engine.)

[911s55]

I have a '74 2.7 with Weber's in my '71 and didn't add any oil between my last oil change. Weeps a bit but hey. Also goes like stink, revs quick and much more torque than you might expect. Revs to 6500 effortlessly with no weak or flat spots, it is fun!

David

[jclotz]

I built a 2.7 for my 72t and am very happy. Case was from a 77, and I added MFI plus a front oil cooler. Compared to the 2.4 with Webers it is quicker and smoother.
Does have an oil leak behind the flywheel. Not sure yet whether it is an assembly problem or a case problem

[E Sully]

I have driven my friends 1974 and it was nice except for the fact it got very hot in the summer months. A fender cooler is a necessity in warmer climates.
You have done the beginnings of a restoration and are considering resale value. The 2.7 when set up properly is a nice engine, but it will not bring in the value of a period correct 2.4L.
I also had an '86 engine and transmission in my 1973.5 for a couple of years, and found it to be a wonderful engine. I did not feel any issues due to extra weight, I don't think the 3.2L is noticeably heavier than the 2.4L. What I felt was a tremendous increase in torque. When the time came to sell it so I could put back in the original engine, I had no problem getting most of my money back. Since I did the installation myself, cost was kept low. It also would need a front fender oil cooler.
Biggest part of converting back to stock was welding a patch in where i drilled under the passenger seat for the Motronic wire harness.
In my opinion, period correct 2.4L would bring in most value, second would be the 3.2L, and third would be the 2.7L. 2.7L MFI would be worth a bit, but the cost of MFI these days is extremely high.

[NYNick]

Where is an upgraded 3.0 in all this?
I think this is the perfect compromise between availability, reliability, 'going like stink', weight and cost. Keep the original engine for down the road originality, but put a rebuilt and upgraded 3.0 in that T.
Nick

[landstew]

Actually the 3.0 was my original plan. But after seeing the value of originality in these cars, I slowly gravitated back to a 2.4. but then this 2.7 became available, and having heard things, I wanted to gain real world clarity on the matter.

[scootermcrad]

Originally Posted by NYNick

Where is an upgraded 3.0 in all this?
I think this is the perfect compromise between availability, reliability, 'going like stink', weight and cost.
Nick

This was sort of my frame of mind as well.

I always here about the extra work to be done to a 2.7 block versus the 3.0 or 3.2 later blocks. How much more overall work are we talking about here (from the money $$ end)?