Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
914World.com _ 914World Garage _ Horsepower for the Porsche Sixes?
Posted by: Scott Carlberg Apr 8 2004, 07:32 PM
2.0 =
2.2 =
2.4 =
2.7 =
2.8? =
3.0 =
3.2 =
3.4? =
3.6 =
I'm looking for the stock HP rating.
If you know of a Link that has this info, please share.
TIA,
Posted by: Eric_Shea Apr 8 2004, 07:37 PM
A bit too many variables. T, E, S, etc...
Posted by: Scott Carlberg Apr 8 2004, 07:48 PM
you could give the range, but....
how about the most powerful model, which I'd imagine would mean the S, or Carrera models.
Posted by: ! Apr 8 2004, 07:50 PM
2.0 S=160 carbs
2.2 S=190 carbs
2,2 S=180 MFI, 70-71
2.4 S=190 MFI, 72-73
2.7 S, 1975= 175, cis
Shit, can't find BAs book, THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER....
Posted by: Dave_Darling Apr 8 2004, 07:52 PM
Here's a link, the numbers seem reasonably accurate for the few that I looked at.
http://www.rennlist.com/FAQ/sect1.html#q1.4
Note that 2.8 is an aftermarket displacement, built for a specific SCCA racing class that goes up to 2.8 liters. 3.4 is a "convenient" overbore size for the 3.2 and possibly 3.0 motors, but it is also aftermarket only.
--DD
Posted by: Scott Carlberg Apr 8 2004, 07:53 PM
thanks Dave, that's awesome.
Posted by: Eric_Shea Apr 8 2004, 08:00 PM
Why you snotty lil bastard!
Here goes... (like I've got all day)
Posted by: Eric_Shea Apr 8 2004, 08:06 PM
NSA
Posted by: ein 6er Apr 8 2004, 08:19 PM
condensed v. to 3.0
disclaimer ..... may not be 100% accurate!! don't quote me!! (-:
67/68 2.0
911, L 130
T 110
S 160
68/69 2.0
T 110
E 140
S 170
69/70-71 2.2
T 125
E 155
S 180
71/72 2.4
T 130
E 165
S 190
73/77? 2.7
911 143
S 167
carrera 152
78/83 3.0
SC 172
Posted by: Scott Carlberg Apr 8 2004, 08:53 PM
Satisfied?
Geez Eric, maybe it's time to move AWAY from Utah, eh?
Thanks for the numbers guys, I appreciate it.
Posted by: Eric_Shea Apr 8 2004, 08:58 PM
Jus joke'n with ya...
Yeah... I need more 3.2 beer!
Posted by: Red-Beard Apr 8 2004, 09:14 PM
2.7 RS = 210+
Posted by: scotty Apr 8 2004, 09:17 PM
2.0, 2.2 = okay
2.4 = good
2.7 = fun
3.0 = fun!
3.2 = really fun!
3.6 = OMG!
Posted by: ! Apr 8 2004, 09:22 PM
NSA
YUP....FOUND MAH BOOK....MISSED BY 10 HP....
My bad....
Posted by: Eric_Shea Apr 8 2004, 09:31 PM
For some oDD reason you're forgiven.
Posted by: cha914 Apr 8 2004, 09:38 PM
Just curious, but what does a warmed over 2.4 with carbs come in at? Not a race motor, just a nice street motor, an equivalent build up to the 2056 for the 4s...
I have some strange attraction to that motor size...can't really put my finger on it... 
Thanks,
Tony
Posted by: ! Apr 8 2004, 09:40 PM
Four or a six?
It all depends on the "warmed" over calculations....cams, compression ratio, stroker versus bigger jugs....all adds to the mix....
Posted by: cha914 Apr 8 2004, 10:00 PM
2.4 six...I know it all depends, but what is the range? I doubt I would want to mess with MFI, and probably wouldn't have the coin to go with a full EFI...
so a mild 2.4 carb motor? ballpark?
Tony
Posted by: Eric_Shea Apr 8 2004, 10:10 PM
The S engine could be considered "warmed over" 190-200 would be my guess...
Posted by: campbellcj Apr 8 2004, 10:25 PM
Eric is correct that you will be somewhat hard-pressed to do better than a factory "S" without a sizable budget. (As in, some people will spend over $20K on small displacement race motors, using exoticatanium innards.)
But the 2.4S was a relatively low-compression (8.5:1 IIRC) configuration to deal with the increasing emission pressures and fuel prices/quality. You could potentially squeek a single plug 2.4 up towards 10.5:1 but most folks target 9.5:1 as the max "safe" C/R for single-plug cars on pump gas.
You could potentially also look at wilder cams but again the engine would be less streetable and more expensive.
I personally think the 2.0-2.2S "zingers" are a lot of fun. They are not the fastest on the track, or the friendliest street cruisers, but the sound and feel as they come on the cam is seriously diluted in the larger, torquier engines.
Posted by: cha914 Apr 9 2004, 09:12 AM
~200hp...thats about what I figured....sounds like a fun motor, for some reason I have always liked the sound of a pre 74 911 with a nice 2.4 motor, course then you see one with a 3.6 and now you are getting really sweet...
ahh well, its 70* and sunny out, I think its time to get up from the computer and go drive my warmed over 914/4 
Thanks guys,
Tony
Posted by: ! Apr 9 2004, 09:17 AM
But the 2.4S was a relatively low-compression (8.5:1 IIRC) configuration to deal with the increasing emission pressures and fuel prices/quality. You could potentially squeek a single plug 2.4 up towards 10.5:1 but most folks target 9.5:1 as the max "safe" C/R for single-plug cars on pump gas.
You could potentially also look at wilder cams but again the engine would be less streetable and more expensive.
I personally think the 2.0-2.2S "zingers" are a lot of fun. They are not the fastest on the track, or the friendliest street cruisers, but the sound and feel as they come on the cam is seriously diluted in the larger, torquier engines.
Yeah I agree....it seems that I am following the path of Chris C......I've done the large 914 engine thing....a strong buzzy sixer is gonna be fun on the track....classic early P-car formula. Momentum and handling versus horsepower and sliding.....
Posted by: TimT Apr 9 2004, 04:48 PM
How about my friends 3.8 turbo?
about 750hp at .7 bar
1 bar =850...
1.2bar= well we didnt run it at 1.2 on the dyno... should be close to 900hp
We believe with the turbo he has in place he can see 1.8-2.0 bar
Unfortunately we also believe the engines life could be measured in seconds at 2.0 bar of boost LOL
He let me drive the thing on the IMSA course at Pocono... this configuration uses part of one of the long straights, and the whole main straight...
The gearing indicated I saw the other side of 200 
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)