Yes, I believe so. From Wevo's blog:

"Within a few minutes we established that the 993 Tiptronic starter was a direct interchange for the early 911 starter - all the physical aspects were the same, the mount pattern, pinion projection, pinion design - all the same... with the starter from a 1972 911.

Oh, did I mention it is just over 3 lbs lighter too?…… fantastic"

Now my actual trans is a short bell housing 993, but all indications are it should bolt straight into a 915 and save over 3 lbs.

And what did that bad boy cost?

As I said, they paid less than $300.

It looks like the bellhousing may have been modified to accommodate the starter. At least here is what my 915 looks like.

[edit] While drafting my post I see you posted that you are using a 993 gearbox.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1290040466.jpg

Looking at the high torque starter sold by our host it appears very similar to the one in my Toyota Tundra. The Toyota starter is made by Denso and has a great motor but the solenoid section is failure prone. If you remove the yellow zinc pentagonal cover you will see a spring-loaded round copper plunger. Under this are a pair of L shaped copper contacts. When energized the plunger is pulled making bridging the contacts allowing current to pass. This is what fails. The current passing accross these parts is great enough to eventually arc/melt the edges of contacts and plunger causing them to no longer conduct. In Toyota circles, this results in the infamous "click of death" and no start when the key is turned. I had this failure at about 90K on my Tundra. Naiively I asked the local dealer for a quote and he told me $1300 to replace the starter!!! The contacts from Toyota list for something like $25 each in the US. Fortunately they are fairly generic Denso design and I was able to get a new plunger and contacts for less than $10 from a local electric shop. I can't say enough good things about my friends on these forums because they walked me through the starter removal process. Despite some of the infamous German design glitches in our cars, we should be thankful the starter placement wasn't done by Toyota - they put their starter in the engine valley necessitating removal of the COP ignition, fuel injection system, plenums and intake manifolds to get to the starter!

bfunke-
I have a 2000 landcruiser with the same engine / starter as your tundra. After 165k miles, my contacts wore out in the starter. The reason the R&R quote is so high is the starter is buried under the intake manifold within the v-8. I took me about about 4 or 5 hours labor to change. I changed those contacts for the same $20 or so and it has been working flawlessly for another 10k miles, since.

Moral of the story, it is a good starter and motor. More power to those who are starting and driving their 911s to hit 100k + miles. For me, that will be in +/- 2030, at this rate.

If I did it again, I would have sprung for the tiptronic starter pointed out by Pete, but in the 911, my cheap high torque starter continues to perform its function.

Doug

bfunke-
i see you made the comment about the location of the Toyota starter, sorry. I've heard $1k for the toyota replacement, but $1300 is plausible. Initially, it had me nervous doing several hours of labor without changing the entire starter motor assembly, but after reading some online, I was no longer concerned about just changing the contacts.

I'd agree with you, the high torque unit looks very similar to the one in my toyota. it just has a different bolt pattern.
Doug

Yes, that does look like it would be pretty tight. Might fit, or might come down to the particular 915 housing?

Maybe it's my POV, but the photo of the 993 Tip starter motor pinion housing looks like it needs to be "clocked" in a different orientation for an earlier 911 which mounts on the passenger side and has the solenoid positioned on top. The photo shows the pinon gear housing opening that would only allow contact with the starter ring gear on the driver side of the bellhousing. Either that or it mounts upside down with the solenoid positioned below the motor.

What do you mean when you say the Tip starter is "stronger" than the Hi-Torque or stock starter? If it's a direct-drive starter, in order to crank the engine faster or with more torque, the battery must provide more electrical current. No free lunch here.

BTW, so-called hi-torque starters are not necessarily hi-torque. Due to the gear train installed between the armature and the pinion gear shaft, the motor can be smaller, lighter and consume fewer starting amps. It just spins faster to generate the equivalent (or add'l) torque to crank the engine.

Sherwood

I don't think I agree...
I'm not sure if they improved electrical motor efficiency, changed the windings and increased the current draw or improved mechanical efficiency.

Certainly a motor is not a motor- both efficiency and stall current, etc do vary a fair bit, and it wouldn't surprise me if the newer motor provided more stall torque and/ or higher efficiency, meaning more output power for a given input. However I suspect the bigger difference is higher mechanical efficiency through friction reduction. With my motor both the "Hi-Torque" and stock starters would struggle to fire the car, probably partly because the starting torque was forcing the pinion shaft back and creating addition friction, (mostly in the bearings I assume). Eliminating the unsupported shaft knocks the load on the bearings way down, reducing mechanical loss.

Whatever the reason the tip starter fires the car significantly more quickly and easily. Of course unless you have a GT3 motor I'm not sure you care- I never had any trouble firing my 993 motors with normal starters.

Surely, at $300 for a Tip starter, it probably uses state of the art field coils and brushes.:rolleyes:

I have no doubt this starter creates more starting torque. Isn't the compression ratio on these engines on the order of +10:1?

S

Uh, remember it only needs to be improved vs 50 years ago. It obviously got a lot smaller, much higher power density, coil density and efficiency are related...

By "these engines" you mean the 993? 11.3:1 nominal. The GT3 is 12:1

I had an IMI High Torque starter for years (10+) and it worked flawlessly. Then it died when I rebuilt the engine. I sent the starter back and had it re-built for something like $60. I expect another 10 years out of it... so now I have spent $140+60=$200... and I'll get an estimated 20 years of service...

If I could get that out of all my equipment I'd be rich!

-Michael

Check the fender well of you landbruser. IIRC some had an access panel to get to the starter. I did a swap out on one that has such an access in the fender and the dip stick tube was even 2 parts to gain access. Might not be the case here but worth a look.

I have one of the above mentioned hi-torque starters on a 95 993 motor/ 915 trans and it is working fine ...so far.

That is likely for the straight six cylinder. You'd have to have an access panel through the block. It is in the V between the cylinder banks, under the intake manifold - no easy access.

I'm having some trouble with a high torque starter. Chewed up a ring gear, triggering an engine drop to replace it :( Hoping to confirm that the 993 tip starter will plug in without modifications and will mesh with the ring gear 100%. Can someone please confirm?

The IMI 101N starter was modified with a different starter gear but I'm not feeling very confident about it after trial fitting it.

My setup is: 1975 911s, 3.6L swap, 915 trans, PMS flywheel, Sachs power clutch. New ring gear is made by Kennedy Engineering (KEP) which should have identical dimensions to factory ring gear, but with hardened steel.

In this first photo, I'm holding the damaged ring gear. This was with the original IMI 101N starter (starter gear had 9 teeth)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1520217590.jpg

In this second photo, i used a red sharpie to mark where the starter would basically sit when mounted.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1520217590.jpg

Positioning the starter with that red mark and engaging the starter, you can see it only contacts about 70-80% of the ring gear. This is with an 11-teeth gear that I was under the impression would fix this issue. The mounting place was also replaced to account for the larger diameter of the 11-teeth gear.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1520217590.jpg

Thank you in advance.

I still can’t confirm fitment, but your wear pattern looks similar to what I needed to address, though mine was more circumferential:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1520219873.jpg

what did you end up doing?

That starter, it’s worked great. I just can’t tell for sure if it will work for you- I have a 993 G50 gearbox, etc, so quite a different install.

We take all our used starters and alternators to our local battery shop. They rebuild them to new specs for $75-125. 2 day turnaround. Cheaper and faster than buying rebuilt and sending back cores and we know they will fit and work correctly.