2,2T, Is this a good choice Options

[DavidSweden]

I have the chance to buy a 2,2T motor.

Is this a good motor for a 914 6 conversion? Its not cheap so I want to be sure that its not wasted money. There is also a 2,4 available and its a bit cheaper. Advice required

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads_offsite/i1300.photobucket.com-17452-1472590389.1.jpg)

[Cairo94507]

That is a loaded question. What is the condition of the 2.2? Are you planning to install it and just run it? Are you looking to rebuild it and then install it?

Same for the 2.4.

Personally, I say buy the engine that suits the driving style you intend. Street driving? Track events? Are you planning on keeping it carburetors or going to go to F.I.?

I wanted a reliable, no nonsense, dependable motor that would start every time. I decided to go with a 3.2 with Motronic injection. Straight forward swap from the stock 6 motor with very few modifications, none of which are major. I figure that motor will be good for about 230 HP with terrific low/mid range torque for a street car.

[mepstein]

3.2 is the turnkey, gold standard. But any 6 makes a 914 fun. Remember, the engine only gets you halfway there. All the conversion parts add up and there are still lots of decisions to make. I would get someone who knows Porsche engines to help you, a worn 6 can get expensive very quickly.

[Dave_Darling]

Are you rebuilding either one? If so, then you can change around a lot of stuff and get the driving characteristics you want. If not, then realize that the "T"-spec motor is the lowest-spec one. It makes the least power, but in some ways is more drivable in day-to-day situations.

Larger displacement means the potential for more power. It's not a lot larger between the 2.2 and 2.4 engines, though.

Both will have the flywheel attachment that allows you to use the 1969 911 flywheel and 901-based clutch which will hook up to the 914's transmission.

Both will be expensive to rebuild, if they need it. I am hearing that parts prices start at $10K for a decent rebuild, and can go up from there. And that's not counting labor or machine shop work.

Either one should make for a fun car. Both will put you out of the more-stock racing classes, if that is your eventual intent. Both will sound awesome in a 914, and both will motivate the car pretty well.

--DD

[rgalla9146]

If they're the same money and the same condition I'd go with the 2.4...
size does matter here.
If it's complete with MFI that would be great but....it's no good until you get it right and that'll cost ya. All 2.4s came originally with mechanical fuel injection but many were converted to carbs.
The 2.4 with carbs is a good combo too.

[porschetub]

Not much info to go on here,what isn't cheap? good running or needing work?.
If the engine is a good runner you still should check the engine over very carefully.
Go to Pelican Parts tech article on the six conversion,read up on the cost of conversion parts and because this article is way out of date basically double the price of those parts.Like me you live a long way from the best source of parts so factor in high shipping cost especially the larger heavy items.
My car was 80% converted but the cost to get it to 100% has been expensive.
I think the early engines like this one are the easiest and cheapest to do a conversion with.

[23e Heure]

If they're the same money and the same condition I'd go with the 2.4...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

However it is not correct that all 2.4s came with MFI. The 2.4E and S, yes. But the 2.4T was always on carbs in Europe.
The T was MFI in the US in 72, then CIS in 73 (aka the "1973.5 T" engine)

[matthepcat]

I had a 2.2S motor with carbs on my last car. Pretty fun motor, but not much torque. I personally would go 3.0 or higher if I was doing the conversion.

Like this one: http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=292774

[Dominic]

I had a 2.2S motor with carbs on my last car. Pretty fun motor, but not much torque. I personally would go 3.0 or higher if I was doing the conversion.

Like this one: http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=292774

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) I have to agree with Matt, as I also have a 2.2S MFI engine currently in my 914-6, the short stroke (66mm crank) 2.0 & 2.2L engines are really lacking on torque in my opinion. The 2.4L engine has the longer (70.4mm) stroke crank so you are starting out with more torque. I think you will be disapointed with the power of a 2.2T engine.

[PanelBilly]

Will you enjoy having to work harder (select the right gear and engine rpm) to make the car faster or are you looking to step on the pedal and accelerate from any speed or gear? The smaller engine can be fun if you like to see how much you can push out of them.

Goes back to driving a slow car fast or having an incredibly fast car. I just want to step on the pedal and go

[flyer86d]

I've been mentally beating this to death for the past 35 years. This is my experience. The short stroke engines like to rev and don't make a boatload of torque but can make good power if you twist the motor. The 2.4 is a great engine depending on the tune. When I rebuilt our 73 911T, I rebuilt it to 911E+ spec. I used 2.4 S pistons and cylinders, 911E cams and fuel injection. The heads and port size is the same as a 911T. On paper it makes about 30 more horsepower than a 2.4 MFI 911T but it feels more like 50hp. Back in the mid 1980s, all of my rich friends bought 1973 911RSs to use as track cars. They would pull about 2 car lengths on me up the back straight at Watkins Glen. I would then dive inside them down the loop and shute into the left handler. I could piss all over 911SCs and most 3.2 Carreras. There was this one 3.2 Carrera that I could only stay even with but not catch. I thought that there was something wrong with the car or my driving. I found out from talking to the owner that it was a Ruf 3.4 with Ruf cams and exhaust. Felt better.

Generally, the short stroke engines run cooler and you may get away without an oil cooler if you drive it on the street. The long stroke engines run hotter and our 2.4 MFI 911T needed an external cooler and in 911E tune even more so, I installed one.

The 3.0 SC engines and 3.2 engines are the best that Porsche built. Good power and great reliability, however, they need a cooler. I had a stock SC and a SC 3.2 (98X70.4) 320 HP track car. The track car was stupid fast and reliable too. It was twin plugged, big port, GE80 cams, 46 Webers, headers and phase 9s. In the 8years that I ran it, I changed the oil every event. That's it!!

For the 914-6,my plan is to build a 2.3, (86X66) with 2.7S heads, 911E (911L) cams, 40 IDS carbs, S crank and rods in a 914-6 crankcase. Should not need a cooler as it will not be tracked. I expect about 175 HP which should motivate the 914-6 well for me.

The problem with the 2.2 911T engine is that it has the non counterweighted crank like the 2.0 T and 914-6 does. All 2.4 liter engines have the same counterweighted crank. The only difference is the P&Cs, cams and port size and detail changes in the MFI. They are very easy to hot rod.

Charlie

[flyer86d]

Also, back in the day, the 1980s, we all thought that the 2.4E or 2.4S was the best engine for power and torque in a 914-6 without over stressing the stock chassis and structure.

Charlie

[rgalla9146]

If they're the same money and the same condition I'd go with the 2.4...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

However it is not correct that all 2.4s came with MFI. The 2.4E and S, yes. But the 2.4T was always on carbs in Europe.
The T was MFI in the US in 72, then CIS in 73 (aka the "1973.5 T" engine)

We ain't in Europe. Picky,picky. '73.5 is really a prototype '74 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
You are right sir.

[porschetub]

The problem with the 2.2 911T engine is that it has the non counterweighted crank like the 2.0 T and 914-6 does. All 2.4 liter engines have the same counterweighted crank. The only difference is the P&Cs, cams and port size and detail changes in the MFI. They are very easy to hot rod.

Charlie

Agreed with all you said until you mentioned the crank,its a common load of BS that these cranks aren't up to it, it's wives tale...
As you say there is good scope for developing power from these little motors but that is at the expense of your wallet and how it drives surely.

[SixerJ]

I wholeheartedly agree with the others, base condition is king if you want to throw it in and go

Sounds like the 2.4 needs more work as it is less money? That said it also depends on what kind of work is required on both engines

Once you are into rebuild, the cost of cams, pistons, barrels, machining etc will all become a bit if a wash, especially if you are tactical and go for say JE Pistions rather than OEM

If both need work I would go for the 2.4 every day, better case, pistions squirters are def there as standard (can't recall if they were standard on the 2.2) and lots more option to go bigger, 2.7, 2.8 etc if you have deep pockets

I have a 2.4E waiting in the wings for the -6....ideal for European narrow twisty back roads

Pictures of both please

[23e Heure]

We ain't in Europe. Picky,picky. '73.5 is really a prototype '74 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
You are right sir.

Sorry, really didn't mean to be picky.
My thought was that European engines have made their way West across the pond, and wanted to make sure the OP knew what to look for. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Wdunster]

I have a 2.4 in my car. I rebuilt it two years ago and have "e"cams "s" heads 9.5:1 compression Pistons running carbs. The car runs really strong but as stated above it lacks in torque. Bob Saville has the 3.2 in Huey with factory fuel set up. Huge difference in torque and performance based on the butt Dyno. If I did it all over again I would have not rebuilt my engine ($10k) and would have invested the extra in a 3.2. Just sayin'
B (IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

[JmuRiz]

Re 3.2: I think it's hard to find a good one that doesn't need $10k in rebuilding on it's own these days.
They are all old engines at this point and need some work. I have a 2.7 that'll need some work and would change to a 3.2 in a second if I could find a known good one for a good price.

[0396]

I've been mentally beating this to death for the past 35 years. This is my experience. The short stroke engines like to rev and don't make a boatload of torque but can make good power if you twist the motor. The 2.4 is a great engine depending on the tune. When I rebuilt our 73 911T, I rebuilt it to 911E+ spec. I used 2.4 S pistons and cylinders, 911E cams and fuel injection. The heads and port size is the same as a 911T. On paper it makes about 30 more horsepower than a 2.4 MFI 911T but it feels more like 50hp. Back in the mid 1980s, all of my rich friends bought 1973 911RSs to use as track cars. They would pull about 2 car lengths on me up the back straight at Watkins Glen. I would then dive inside them down the loop and shute into the left handler. I could piss all over 911SCs and most 3.2 Carreras. There was this one 3.2 Carrera that I could only stay even with but not catch. I thought that there was something wrong with the car or my driving. I found out from talking to the owner that it was a Ruf 3.4 with Ruf cams and exhaust. Felt better.

Generally, the short stroke engines run cooler and you may get away without an oil cooler if you drive it on the street. The long stroke engines run hotter and our 2.4 MFI 911T needed an external cooler and in 911E tune even more so, I installed one.

The 3.0 SC engines and 3.2 engines are the best that Porsche built. Good power and great reliability, however, they need a cooler. I had a stock SC and a SC 3.2 (98X70.4) 320 HP track car. The track car was stupid fast and reliable too. It was twin plugged, big port, GE80 cams, 46 Webers, headers and phase 9s. In the 8years that I ran it, I changed the oil every event. That's it!!

For the 914-6,my plan is to build a 2.3, (86X66) with 2.7S heads, 911E (911L) cams, 40 IDS carbs, S crank and rods in a 914-6 crankcase. Should not need a cooler as it will not be tracked. I expect about 175 HP which should motivate the 914-6 well for me.

The problem with the 2.2 911T engine is that it has the non counterweighted crank like the 2.0 T and 914-6 does. All 2.4 liter engines have the same counterweighted crank. The only difference is the P&Cs, cams and port size and detail changes in the MFI. They are very easy to hot rod.

Charlie

Charlie,
Thanks for responding with such an in depth analysis / recommendation for a - 6 motor on this site that I've seen here in a long long time. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/pray.gif)

[morgan_harwell]

I also have a 2.4L-T in my 914. It has been a great engine for me.

I bought my '73 914 in 1986, shortly after getting a chance to drive one. I was hooked right away. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I converted the 914 into a /6 in 1988 with a 1973 CIS fuel injected 911-T 2.4 liter engine,
911 Carrera front suspension & brakes, 911SC rear brakes, etc.

The engine had ~90K miles on it when I bought it and swapped it in.
The same engine is still in my 914, running strong 28 years later.
I have put approximately 210K miles on the engine and car since the /6 conversion.

It is a blast to drive on the local twisties and is very reliable. Hop in, turn the key, Neet VROOOM !
( if the engine is cold, Neet Neet VROOOM ! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )
I drive it all the time, to work etc., whenever there is no rain in the forecast (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)
It keeps up with traffic no problem.

Will this engine continue to perform for another 28 years like it has? Not likely LOL !
But I am torn about what to do when the 2.4L-T engine finally calls 'uncle'.
I could rebuild it as a 2.7L engine, or I could go the 3.2L route at roughly the same cost.
It will be an expensive decision to make either way.