914World.com [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Posted by: bfrymire Mar 21 2010, 05:11 PM

Ok. Finally did it. Went and bought a high torque starter. The 2.7l was a bear to get started. Slow cranking, etc.

So, bought this starter... As you can see, it only weighs 8 lbs! And much easier to get to the bolts. Stock starter weighs 12.6lbs.

The real difference is in starter, the motor spins much faster, and actually catches faster! Worth the bucks to me! Got it from GPR, thanks Jonathan!

Attached Image

This shows the two side by side...

Hope someone else finds this useful.

Posted by: smontanaro Mar 21 2010, 06:53 PM

What makes the 2.7 hard to crank? Does it have unusually high compression or something? Could the old starter just have been tired?

Posted by: bfrymire Mar 21 2010, 07:22 PM

QUOTE(smontanaro @ Mar 21 2010, 05:53 PM)

What makes the 2.7 hard to crank? Does it have unusually high compression or something? Could the old starter just have been tired?

I don't have experience with any other 2.7. But, it's very slow cranking. (Or at least it was.) The PO did put high compression pistons in it. Don't remember what it was, but it was much higher than stock. (I am thinking about 10:1)

-- brett

Posted by: J P Stein Mar 21 2010, 08:52 PM

+1 on the hi torque starter.

It spins up my 6 much faster making the thing much easier to start.
One thing needs attention in some cases. My bendix drive engaged too deeply and rode the angled portion behind the cog up onto the flywheel teeth. I need a .06 shim on the mounting surface. Some folks have had severe damage to the flywheel over time...it makes an odd noise. Some prussian blue on that angled face will stay pristine if yours is not hitting.

Posted by: Downunderman Mar 21 2010, 09:03 PM

And on the other hand mine did not engage far enough, and chewed the teeth off the flywheel in a couple of spots.

Posted by: bfrymire Mar 21 2010, 11:28 PM

QUOTE(J P Stein @ Mar 21 2010, 07:52 PM)

+1 on the hi torque starter.

It spins up my 6 much faster making the thing much easier to start.
One thing needs attention in some cases. My bendix drive engaged too deeply and rode the angled portion behind the cog up onto the flywheel teeth. I need a .06 shim on the mounting surface. Some folks have had severe damage to the flywheel over time...it makes an odd noise. Some prussian blue on that angled face will stay pristine if yours is not hitting.

Thanks. I will take a look.

Love the new starter. We both have the same results.

-- brett

Posted by: Root_Werks Mar 22 2010, 10:59 AM

High torque starters are very cool!

Buddy of mine had one on his 914-6 with alum flywheel. We static set the timing after some parts changes, wound up being just a tad off initially. Went to start it, turned over great, fired and stopped before continuing and then starting. We dailed in timing, cool.

Wound up with no teeth were the engine fired and stopped though. The high torque starter ripped them right off the flywheel. Had to pull the tranny and replace the flywheel.

That's a lesson I'll never repeat!

Posted by: Root_Werks Dec 23 2010, 10:24 AM

This is on my list of "things to buy" sooner than later.

Status report? Still working good?

Posted by: 9146986 Dec 23 2010, 06:35 PM

I've got one of those in my "core pile". I did a conversion for a customer who didn't want to pop for a Bosch starter. Occasional use car for sunny days and light track/autocross events. Three years and it trashed the new flywheel I had sold him for the conversion. Chewed up the gear teeth. I like the idea of those starters, but I wouldn't use one.

Posted by: SLITS Dec 23 2010, 06:40 PM

If you guys had bought the one from R&B Performance (now Proline) you wouldn't have had that problem.

Posted by: Chris Hamilton Dec 23 2010, 07:16 PM

I got my Hi-Torque starters from Pelican Parts.

Have one on my 1970 914-4 with a type-IV
Have one on my 1971 914-4 with a type-IV
Have one on my friend's 914-6 with a 3.6
Have one on my 1966 912 with a type-I.

All are working great with no flywheel damage.

Posted by: bfrymire Dec 23 2010, 08:35 PM

QUOTE(Root_Werks @ Dec 23 2010, 08:24 AM)