2.7 six for sale, price seems good Options

[ppickerell]

ran across this on C-list

email this posting to a friend


Porsche 2.7S Complete Motor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: anon-25489837@craigslist.org
Date: 2004-03-01, 4:05PM PST


Motor is complete including the fuel injection, distributor, flywheel, wiring harness. It ran until one cam went bad with a flat spot. The cam has been replaced and the motor is on a stand now. I would like $1,200 obo, or interesting trades.
Exhaust and oil cooler are not included, thanks for looking


it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests





25489837




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2004 craigslist terms of use privacy policy feedback forum

[lapuwali]

I think they were used on all US '75-'77, not just CA. Federal regs got a LOT tighter in '75, and CA switched to tighter still standards that same year. If you look, you'll notice that very many cars suddenly had catalytic convertors in '75, like the 914 itself.

Thermal reactors were what a very few manufacturers chose to use instead of catalytic convertors. None of them used them for long, partly because they didn't work as well as catalytic convertors at removing emissions, and mostly because they generated such incredible underhood temps. Big cast-iron things designed to get hot and stay hot, like 900-1100dF hot. The idea was, where early catalytic convertors use a platinum catalyst to promote reaction of HC and CO with O2 to create H20 and CO2, the thermal reactors would do the same thing, but with heat alone.

Why a bunch of German engineers ever thought it was a good idea to take an air-cooled engine already stretched to its limit and place a 900dF cast-iron block next to it, I don't know. The '74 2.7s worked fine, as none of them had thermal reactors. The later ones expired with pulled studs, worn-out guides, etc in such a short time that Porsche got a very black eye with many US owners. To make amends, they stuffed the Turbo case in the '78 3.0SC along with catalytic convertors and very mild tuning, and as a result, the 3.0 is one of the most durable 911 engines of the entire series.

If you ever wondered why mid-70s 911s are cheaper than earlier or later cars, now you know. If you're just looking for a core to rebuild, the 2.7 is generally cheaper than others, and costs about the same to rebuild, so they're a good deal as long as you're going to fit them into a car that doesn't require you to run the stock thermal reactors to meet local emissions regs. If you're looking for a Six you just want to plonk into a 914, I'd use a 2.2 or a 2.4. They're much lighter than the 3.0 (magnesium v. aluminum block), and generate plenty of power for the light 914, and they're going to be cheaper than the 3.0 or 3.2 engines, to boot.