Today's 160 mph 2.4 Liter Targa is...

[Jeff Higgins]

Pffft... I scrunched down six cool collars, one for each intake stack...

[URY914]

You know those K&N filters are worth 15 ponies.

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Pffft... I scrunched down six cool collars, one for each intake stack...

Well, that's a start. With dual E-Rams I think you can push that 3.0 to well over 600 HP.

[RWebb]

the hidden "magic" to be found is in '60s Chevy's and Fords; Porsche put most of the magic in already


ask him for the engine dyno sheet (not road dyno) - that might cause a pause in the conversation

[Jeff Higgins]

I asked him for a general rundown of what went into the motor. That's when he went into the "engine builder has spent years honing his skills" and "prefers not to put his secrets on the internet" claims. While the car is complete and he is driving it, he does not yet have the receipts, build sheets, etc. He has absolutely no idea what is in that motor, and if told, I'm sure he would not even know what any of it means.

Photos of the build show a stock crank and stock rods with what appear to be JE pistons. The heads clearly have pretty normal, stock port sizes for a 2.7, probably 36mm or so. Certainly not the monster 40-44mm ports required to feed a motor of this size making that kind of power, spinning at the rpm required to do so.

Oh well, he seems like a nice enough guy, just no background with any of this from which he can evaluate this kind of information. He is kind of at the mercy of what his engine builder told him or, maybe more accurately, what he thinks his engine builder told him. It looks like a great 2.7 build, at least from the photos.

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I just find all of these wild claims rather humorous. I think one's willingness (or eagerness) to believe them runs in inverse proportion to one's actual experience with, and knowledge of, these motors. Yes, we do see some very high specific outputs from some modern engines, but look at the rpm's at which those numbers are produced. Our motors are simply not happy at those rpm's. Then, to make claims for these old motors actually exceeding these amazingly high specific outputs from these modern engines demands that they spin even faster. It's simply not possible.

Oh well. These folks seem to believe there is still some hidden "magic" to be found, allowing 2.7's to make 287 RWHP - at 6,800 rpm... They have no understanding as to why that simply isn't so, and get all pissy when challenged. They don't know enough to even carry on an informed conversation. Their engine builder has a secret...

The secret is in the Cool Collar! Also, casters bolted to the underside of the front make the air flow faster and give less wind resistance.

Checkbook mechanics want to believe they have spent their money for something special. A fool and his money are soon parted.

A dyno sheet from a reputable shop will prove the seller is correct.

[RWebb]

I am going to hazard a guess here... he was not an engineering major

2nd guess... he did not major in the natural sciences


anyway, no reason to harsh his mellow...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by RWebb

anyway, no reason to harsh his mellow...

I agree. In hindsight, I feel like kind of a dick for pointing out what is, for me, the obvious. Bottom line is, he is ecstatic over his newly finished build, and it "feels" faster than any of his newer cars. I'm sure it is much more terrifying to drive, which is what we "love" about the early hot rods anyway. So, I've just let it go. He's sending me a bunch of photos of the build, the specs on everything (once he gets them from the builder), and we actually wound up having a pleasant, friendly exchange after my initial questioning of the dyno numbers. In the end, the numbers really don't matter. He's having fun. That's what matters.

[RWebb]

Different people have different levels or ways of appreciation for different things...

They teach art appreciation courses, and completion gives a different way of looking at the art. An engineer looks at things differently too.

Two people can look at the same thing and see something different. My own personal best example was sitting on some rimrock with an attractive blonde woman - I was marveling at the different places on the cliff the animals could find shelter or places to hibernate, and even at the different flowers in different spots (when not looking at her); after 20 minutes or so she spoke up about the rocks, lava, etc. I didn't see any of that until she pointed out the geology; she didn't see any of the spots I was looking at until I told her either.

When he shows you the info, you can if you want, find something nice to say to deepen his appreciation of his car.


Gotta say.. I now keep thinking of what it would take to get those numbers out of that displacement... direct injection would help but not near enough; 4 valve heads, no; ... back to the air pump model: spin faster or pump air into it...

[Jeff Higgins]

I agree, once again. The engineer and somewhat experienced hand with these old air cooled motors in me got all wrapped around the axle regarding the number he claimed. I hope - and I'm pretty sure at this point - that my anal deconstruction of just why that number is "impossible" did nothing to diminish his enthusiasm for his freshly completed build. He sees something there that I do not, and he is enjoying it tremendously. We've actually kind of made friends, in the end, and he is sending me photos of the entire build, from a rusty '70 T to a down to the bare tub and back restoration. It is a beautiful car, no expense spared.

Yeah, and back to the numbers game, at least here, on this forum. At 330 crankshaft horsepower (15% correction applied from 287 RWHP), we see 122.24 hp/liter, a specific output that closely matches that of the modern 4.0 liter GT3 engine wherein at 500 horsepower from 4.0 liters, we see 125 hp/liter. So, yes, we can see what it takes to get there. Water cooling, four valve heads, direct injection, and I believe about 9,000 rpm. It can be done. Hell, modern, normally aspirated liter bike engines are now exceeding 200 hp/liter - at 14,000+ rpm.

In the end, though, like I said, it just doesn't matter. He's ecstatic about a very cool, freshly completed build. That's all that matters.

[Clint Lando]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

A 287 RWHP 2.7. I'm currently in a discussion on another forum with its owner. It's twin plugged, 10:1 compression, running PMO throttle bodies and some form of EFI. That's all he can tell me - he just "writes the checks", and besides, the guy who built it has "spent a lifetime honing his skills" and would prefer his "secrets" not be shared on the internet. This is a street motor, on pump gas.

I'm trying to convince him it's really 187, not 287, which is still respectable for a 2.7. He's having none of it. The engine builder told him it's so, so that's just the way it is. Besides, he's spent a lot of money on this...

he is fos

[asphaltgambler]

If you think people pad numbers in the P-car world, especially with old units like in the subject, you should try bench racing with a bunch of performance minded Harley Davidson crowd.

I cannot even tell you how many times I had guys wanting a specific number with a specific combination from me. I used to break their hearts really..............

A good benchmark even today is 1 HP / TQ per cubic inch with pump gas with a good shelf life.

[Jeff Alton]

The motor could have been on a dyno in England..... The land of over optimistic dyno numbers....

[onewhippedpuppy]

If I paid a shop to do a high performance 911 engine build for me, I sure as hell would want a dyno chart to substantiate their claims. Which I believe most of the reputable builders do typically provide.

With enough money anything is possible. Singer/Williams gets 500 HP out of 4.0 liters without a turbo.

[911 Rod]

Knowing my luck it would blow up on the dyno. lol

[Gogar]

Guy I work with loves telling stories about going 150 in his stock 1981 SC. He seems to enjoy the telling of the stories so I don't ruin it for him. Life's too short.

I never understood how he knew he was going 150 when he has the 85 mph speedo.

[David]

I went to a PCA dyno day after my 930 engine was done. I think most were surprised that their prized air-cooled 911 made less than 200 hp. The only car I remember making more than 300 was a supercharged 993 that made about 350 hp. And then my 930 went on the dyno

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

If I paid a shop to do a high performance 911 engine build for me, I sure as hell would want a dyno chart to substantiate their claims. Which I believe most of the reputable builders do typically provide.

He has told me he will send me one along with the build photos. For now, however, he is apparently unable to post photos to the site on which we had this discussion. So, we'll see.

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

With enough money anything is possible. Singer/Williams gets 500 HP out of 4.0 liters without a turbo.

Well, um - no. That's not true. I don't care how much one has to spend, attaining that level of specific output from that era of air cooled 911 motor is simply impossible. There are inherent design hurdles that simply cannot be overcome. Those have been overcome in the Williams motor, but it is essentially a clean-sheet redesign of the top end, utilizing air cooled 3.6 cases.

Again, the photos show a stock crank with stock rods. There is a well established rev limit on those components, I don't care how carefully massaged they might be. And these appear to be dead stock in every respect. The rods are not even polished. The crank is not polished, much less lightened with knife-edged counterweights, as is standard practice when seeking much higher than stock revs. Hell, for any real increase in rpm potential, either Pauter or Carrillo rods are deemed virtually mandatory. Certainly for the revs required to do what he claims of this motor. This motor has stock rods.

And, again, the port sizes are visibly what one would expect to see in a stock 2.7 - probably around 36mm. The flow required to support the hp claims made would require a substantial enlargement of those ports. I believe RSR ports are somewhere around 44mm. There is a very visible difference, with the monster RSR ports pushing the edge margin to the studs to a very bare minimum. These ports clearly do not even come close.

So, essentially, the photos reveal an essentially stock-ish rebuild. No tricks in the bottom end, no tricks in the heads.

And just to clarify - this car is not for sale. I'm not sure where some of you came up with that idea. It's simply a recently completed build, with its rightfully proud owner showing it off. He is not making these claims in an effort to sell it. I did not refute these claims in an effort to drive down the price. I was just concerned that an engine builder was blowing smoke up a less than savvy customer's ass.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Jeff, not questioning your assessment, only stating what is possible with a big budget.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Gogar

I never understood how he knew he was going 150 when he has the 85 mph speedo.

Apparently, you’ve never read an owners manual for one of these... Forget the speedometer, you have a tachometer and some charts in the back of the book. If the tachometer is anywhere close to accurate, you can figure the top end speed just as Norbert Singer used to do at Le Mans.