|
2.7s suffer now from years (decades?) of perceptions that taint it as an inferior engine. If you go back read the magazine press at the time (1974 or so), the 2.7 was welcomed as an improvement over the 2.4. Valve guide material and ill-fated decisions to deal with the head stud/case issues doomed it in the court of public opinion, but in reality it was a good engine. The original 2.7 in my car was rebuilt at about 70k miles due to worn valve guides. Fortunately for me, they did not use Dilivar studs and I thrashed that engine for a full decade of track use before swapping in a 3.2. It was an awesome engine with no disappointments.
'Numbers matching' and 'period correct' means a lot these days when it comes to "value", but I would not shy away from a nice 2.7 from a pure performance standpoint.
My 2 pfennigs.
__________________
Mike
1976 Euro 911
3.2 w/10.3 compression & SSIs
22/29 torsions, 22/22 adjustable sways, Carrera brakes
|