![]() |
|
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 32
|
![]()
Alan,
Nice 912 motor, too bad it is across the Atlantic. I recently acquired a 67 912 with no engine. After getting it I discovered that the previous owner had already removed the two engine mounting brackets midway in the engine bay and welded the two triangles at the outside corners of the bay needed to mount the 911. So he had already decided to install a 911 engine, but he did not tell me about that. Now I am in a dilemma: Getting the original midbay brackets and welding them on again in exactly the right place and installing a 912 engine, or proceeding along the route of the full 911 installation, opening holes for oil tank, adding rpm dial, new wiring harness, etc. If the 2.0 liter 911 is only 8 horsepower more than the 912 (and the difference would be even less if I find a 912 motor with big bore cylinder modification) I do not see any advantage on switching to the 911. One last question: Are 911 engines much more difficult and expensive to rebuild than a 912 engine? Luis Oakland, California |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bournemouth, England
Posts: 1,099
|
Hi Luis,
I will post a longer reply directly to you later, but in brief, whether you continue to convert to a 911 motor depends on what your really after and what you can afford. If you wanted to replace the 912 mounts and go for a 912 motor then it would not be to difficult, but then again nor would finishing of the with a 911 motor. Good 912 motors are becoming pretty expensive and hard to find and from experience the same monies would get you a good complete 911 motor with tank, lines, clutch, exhaust..... the lot....ask me how I know. My friend recently bought a complete 2.4 T motor for his motorless 912 and it was cheaper than a similar condition 912 unit. Fitting the oil tank and putting together a new loam is relatively easy for some one whom is use to working on cars. Remember the saying "measure twice, cut once". I really enjoy my 911 motor in my 67, after fitting it, it turn it into a different car, and it performance was far better than its 912 predecessor. You mention 8 bhp, I would say more like 15, but that splitting hairs. Remember that is compared to my 69 T 2ltr motor, the weakest of the 911 motors at 110. There is nothing to stop you going 2.2, 2.4.. or staying 2 ltr but with an E or S. BUT before I get any abusive mails, I love the lightness and truly balanced nature of our 912's, hence I thought I would have the best of both worlds and bought another 912, this time of the 69 variety. (which I pick up next week_yippee) If I can help anymore then just drop me a line. There are also others on this list that have done this transplant and will offer advice and tips. I can't really advice too much on cost as I do much of the work myself; maybe some else can help with this. HTH Kind regards to all Aylon.UK 67 912-911 69 912 68 Karmann Ghia Now I just need to persuade my better half to let me get that 1970 911s_grin ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Baltimore/DC area
Posts: 120
|
Luis,
I have extra 912 mounts, they're already cut out of the car, $35 plus shipping. I converted a 911 to a 912, so I've already gone through that process of fitting/installing. If you go that route, and you have questions, let me know. Best of luck with whatever you decide. |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
Alan and others on this board have been helpful to me in preping my car for a 2.4L conversion. It should happen soon, I now have all of the parts. My 1720 cc non-smog engine is still in my car, but it is for sale. Email me if you are interested. Shipping would be $300 or less, depending where you are.
__________________
Adam White Current: 1971 Alfa Romeo GT1300JR Gone but not forgotten:68 912, 76 911S, 72 911T, 1983 Audi UR Quattro |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
__________________
Adam White Current: 1971 Alfa Romeo GT1300JR Gone but not forgotten:68 912, 76 911S, 72 911T, 1983 Audi UR Quattro |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 32
|
![]()
Thanks to Alan, Enrique, and Adam for their helpful comments. I also like the 912 concept and would have kept mine within the 912 family had not the previous owner begun modifying the engine bay to accept the 911. Now, thanks to your input, I am still in a dilemma. To switch or not to switch?
Alan told me he would send me some more info which I still have to read. Adam's engine looks very neat, but in California for a 67 chassis I dont need to worry about the smog inspection. Has anybody done a survey of people who have switched to a 911 engine and later regretted their decision? Is the maintenance much more complex on the 6 cyl. (with its chains) than on the 4 cyl. (with frequent valve adjustments and carb coordination)? Also, my 67 912 has the five old-style (green) dials and the RPM dial has a red mark at 6000. Can I use the same RPM dial with the 911 motor? The transmission should stay the same (gear ratios), being a 901 type and actually overdesigned? Back in the early 60s the Porsche engineers designed a chassis-body-suspension-transmission combination to serve a dual purpose: first, a simple economic sports car (the 912); and second, a more expensive and powerful version (the 911). In fact, somewhere I read that the 912 came as an afterthought of the 911 after customers complained about the high price of the 911. I hope I am not offending anybody by changing to a 911 powerplant. It is not as if I was suggesting to go to a Buick V6, or anything like that, right? |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bournemouth, England
Posts: 1,099
|
Hi Luis
Sorry for the delay, works has been maaaaaad today. Firstly you will need to get an early (green) 6 cy tach for your car. If you get stuck give me a shout I think there's one in the loft somewhere. I can't remember if you said you gearbox was four or five speed ? If you fit a 911 motor you would really need a 5 speed box. I think Adams engine looks and I’msure performs excellent, maybe this is a good option, which you should consider. Maintenance for a 911 is like any other car maintenance , you read, take things slowly, ask for advice...... If your basing your final decision on maintenance, if your willing to take the time and learn you will be able to work on both the 912 or 911 motors. Ultimately no one on this list can make your decision. Go for what best suits you. Keep us up to date HTH Alan.UK Ps. Right it's 8pm and I've had enough of work for one day. Speak to you all soon. PPS. Only a few days now till I pick up my new 69 912. I will take a few snaps with my digital camera. |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Falls church Va
Posts: 725
|
Don’t get stuck in the HP # trap. The early 911 motors have more torque and power across a wider power band. I have fits with 911s in the track. I will come out and say it “The 911 has a better motor” With that said I will be a long time driving my 912 both on the street and the track. If you can work on them your self the 912/356 motors are a joy to work on. I can, by myself, pull the 912 using one floor jack in 30 min put it on the motor stand and be down to the crank in about 2 careful hours of disassembly.
912s handle better than 911s but the power advantage normally makes up for the difference. I like the feel of the 912. Light and nimble. The trick is to just not brake too much for the turns and then push it through. On the other hand i like the power the 911s have on tap. you can build some good power into a 912 motor but you have to work harder to get it. Lots of 911 at the track and on the street. Not so many 912 left in the world. Whatever way you go is good early Porsches 911 and 912 are a ton of fun and are true sports cars, light and no fake stuff and 912s make good easy to live with daily drivers. |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Falls church Va
Posts: 725
|
Don’t get stuck in the HP # trap. The early 911 motors have more torque and power across a wider power band. I have fits with 911s in the track. I will come out and say it “The 911 has a better motor” With that said I will be a long time driving my 912 both on the street and the track. If you can work on them your self the 912/356 motors are a joy to work on. I can, by myself, pull the 912 using one floor jack in 30 min put it on the motor stand and be down to the crank in about 2 careful hours of disassembly.
912s handle better than 911s but the power advantage normally makes up for the difference. I like the feel of the 912. Light and nimble. The trick is to just not brake too much for the turns and then push it through. On the other hand i like the power the 911s have on tap. you can build some good power into a 912 motor but you have to work harder to get it. Lots of 911 at the track and on the street. Not so many 912 left in the world. Whatever way you go is good early Porsches 911 and 912 are a ton of fun and are true sports cars, light and no fake stuff and 912s make good easy to live with daily drivers. |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bournemouth, England
Posts: 1,099
|
Thats one sweet looking motor.
Do you have any stats on it... |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 32
|
I was reading the Morgan and Porter book on 911 restoration and came to the conclusion that the only difference between a 1967 912 with the optional 5-dial dash and 5-speed transmission and a 1967 911T, is the 2.2 liter 6 cyl. engine. That is because the 911T was the most basic 911 model offered that year.
Am I right here or were the disc brakes, suspension, and transmission different in the 911T? OK, I forgot that the RPM dial was different in the 911T. Does the T in the 911T mean "touring"? A mechanic told me it means "Targa" but that can't be true. By the way, today I went to see a truly renegade 912E with an all-aluminum V8 and modified to look like a 930. Amazing how the engine bay in a 912E can hold a small V8. The owner told me that the stock transmission in the E could handle the V8 torque easily. Greetings from sunny Nor. California (in the low 70s today, not as warm as the Los Angeles basin though). Luis |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Swansea, MA
Posts: 278
|
You Wrote:
>Does the T in the 911T mean "touring"? A mechanic told me it > means "Targa" but that can't be true. Hey there, Early 911's came in three basic configurations. 1) T - touring. Lowest Hp of the three 2) E - Espritz (spelling??) which is german for "Fuel Injected" 3) S - Special (??) Highest Hp of the three. I'm not 100% sure on all this, as I've just started doing research on buying my first Porsche. I'm still undecided, but I'll be looking at 912's and pre-74 911's once spring comes around in New England. Hope this helps,
__________________
John - no pcar, just doing "research" 03 Acura CLS 6spd 79 VW Westfalia - 2.0L, 4spd, 67hp 87 Craftsman 11/36 lawn tractor 78 John Deere 316 garden tractor w/ 46" deck |
||
![]() |
|