Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Porsche 911 Technical Forum (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/)
-   -   Seeking input on ROW/German Spec 2.7 (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/962468-seeking-input-row-german-spec-2-7-a.html)

Overlander 80 07-06-2017 04:43 PM

Seeking input on ROW/German Spec 2.7
 
This is my first thread even-though I've had my 911 for 15 years, 'hello everybody'.

And thank you for the terrific community and resource.

Couple questions below about my German spec '77. It was sold new in Berlin to a US serviceman and brought to the states in '79 per the import door tag.

Can someone describe the engine difference between this model and a us spec. I understand the thermal reactors were not required and there is a difference in compression on the German 2.7, but what else? Pistons? Fuel system/injectors? Cam profile?

Any gearing difference in the 915?

A side note that I'd like some feedback on.....my car FEELS quicker and more nimble than both the '84 3.2 Carrera US spec and '90 3.6 C4 US spec I drove recently. They are both well sorted and maintained.

I have an 'earlier' S cam (I'm told by the tech that did the rebuild), SSI heat exchangers, Dansk exhaust, K and N filer and green Bilsteins at euro ride height.

Has anyone else had this type of experience? Is it a delusion?

Your time and expertise are appreciated.

47silver 07-10-2017 06:10 PM

Engine number?
Is it a cis system?

75 911s 07-10-2017 06:59 PM

77
RoW: 90 mil bore X 70.5 mil stroke, 2.7, 8.5:1, CIS, 165 hp at 5800rpm, 176 flbs of torque at 4k

US: air pump , thermal reactors, and EGR
same specs as above

carrera and 930 had 3.0 200hp

Via Redbook

Sans emmisions crud and the s cam and exhaust upgrade you might have gained 20 or more hp. They are snappy and lightweight. I love my 2.7 middie.

Overlander 80 07-11-2017 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 47silver (Post 9657415)
Engine number?
Is it a cis system?

Engine number is *6371222

Yes it's CIS

Appreciate your feedback......

lvporschepilot 07-11-2017 10:12 AM

The 2.7 cars are just significantly lighter. They used a lighter gauge steel so they rust more, but as long as they are looked after it's not problem. The engine and gearbox are lighter, the braking system doesn't have a booster, and I'm sure I'm missing some other things. They weigh stock under 2400lbs or thereabouts, that's what my 74 weighed in stock form before I started tearing it apart to restore. Because of this they are undoubtedly my favorite street 911s, especially the 2.7 MFI cars. For some reason 2.7 engines just rev better, much happier sounding engines.

T77911S 07-11-2017 10:45 AM

I think my 77s was around 2800. it was a targa and had steel wide body flares and a tail.
I was told the 77 was a good/better year because it had the lighter steel but was galvanized, as the earlier cars were not.

I really liked the brakes in that car. the seals were not in great shape and the brakes were still extremely impressive. if I did not buckle in or brace myself I had a very bad domino effect in that the more I braked the more I slid forward thus pushing more on the brake and sliding more.

Overlander 80 07-12-2017 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 75 911s (Post 9657459)
77
RoW: 90 mil bore X 70.5 mil stroke, 2.7, 8.5:1, CIS, 165 hp at 5800rpm, 176 flbs of torque at 4k

US: air pump , thermal reactors, and EGR
same specs as above

carrera and 930 had 3.0 200hp

Via Redbook

Sans emmisions crud and the s cam and exhaust upgrade you might have gained 20 or more hp. They are snappy and lightweight. I love my 2.7 middie.

I'll dig into the Redbook as a resource. I thought I read somewhere that there was a compression difference 8.0: vs 8.5:1

I'd think there was a HP variance from the factory with all the emisssions stuff on US market cars.

Thanks for the feedback, I think you hit the nail on the head; snappy and light weight.

Overlander 80 07-12-2017 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T77911S (Post 9658204)
I think my 77s was around 2800. it was a targa and had steel wide body flares and a tail.
I was told the 77 was a good/better year because it had the lighter steel but was galvanized, as the earlier cars were not.

I really liked the brakes in that car. the seals were not in great shape and the brakes were still extremely impressive. if I did not buckle in or brace myself I had a very bad domino effect in that the more I braked the more I slid forward thus pushing more on the brake and sliding more.

This is a targa and they were galvanized in 77, I'm going to a find a car/truck scale and get an exact weight. I think weight is a major factor here.

The brakes are sweet. I think they have great pedal feel and an ability to be very precise.

Overlander 80 07-12-2017 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvporschepilot (Post 9658164)
The 2.7 cars are just significantly lighter. They used a lighter gauge steel so they rust more, but as long as they are looked after it's not problem. The engine and gearbox are lighter, the braking system doesn't have a booster, and I'm sure I'm missing some other things. They weigh stock under 2400lbs or thereabouts, that's what my 74 weighed in stock form before I started tearing it apart to restore. Because of this they are undoubtedly my favorite street 911s, especially the 2.7 MFI cars. For some reason 2.7 engines just rev better, much happier sounding engines.

I think the steering is totally manual and believe there is no hydraulic assist on the clutch either. It's got a very simple, mechanical feel all the way around. My thought is that this simplicity results in the feel I prefer over the later Carrera and 964.

I'm dying for a little seat time in a ROW SC for comparison.

T77911S 07-12-2017 10:48 AM

that's what makes the early cars so great.

lighter, "bare bones" with no frills. gives great feedback thru the steering.

been a very long time since I drove an early car or even my home built 914-6, but they were all different up through my 77 and now my 930.

the 914-6 was by far the most fun. would loved to have had better brakes though.
I had a 2.2e in it.

never driven a "newer" car. heard they just weren't the same as the older ones.
I did hear good things about the 993 though.

Overlander 80 07-13-2017 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T77911S (Post 9659682)
that's what makes the early cars so great.

lighter, "bare bones" with no frills. gives great feedback thru the steering.

been a very long time since I drove an early car or even my home built 914-6, but they were all different up through my 77 and now my 930.

the 914-6 was by far the most fun. would loved to have had better brakes though.
I had a 2.2e in it.

never driven a "newer" car. heard they just weren't the same as the older ones.
I did hear good things about the 993 though.

I bet a 914/6 is a hoot..... more fun than a 930, wow! I rode on a track called Nelsons Ledges in a four speed 930 when I was about 17/18 years old and it felt like the front tires were lifting off the ground when the driver was hard on the gas coming out of corners, unreal. One a few Porsche experiences that committed me to seeking out a 911 as soon as I landed a real job.

T77911S 07-14-2017 03:12 AM

I just missed out on buying another 914-6 the other day. I have felt like crap since I saw it listed and it was sold. $16k. with GT flares.

Steam Driver 07-14-2017 03:22 AM

914-6's are wonderful cars! I owned one for 18 years and it was my DD for six of those. Nothing I've had since has been so much fun. And with the two trunks practical as well. Nothing on today's market even comes close!

47silver 07-14-2017 10:27 AM

info for motors/bodies
 
Porsche 911 Modelle 1974-77


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.