Picked up a 912, opinions? Options

[McMark]

I agree with going to a six.

But I make some mounting stuff for the conversion which is based on the 912E stuff. You can use the bus engine bar and the stock engine mounts. But the 912E style system removes about 5-8" of height from the engine bar to body mount span. Using the stock body mounts with the type 4 results in a long U shaped mount bar. This tends to allow the motor to shift forward/backward in the car because it has so much leverage. It works. I've done it. But it's not great and will chew up transmission mounts pretty quickly. Add body mounts below the frame rail and you'll be much better off.

[KELTY360]

Thanks for the links.

On ebay right now: This awesome car seems to utilize the bus motor mount.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Porsche-912-912-91...=US_Cars_Trucks

Barnum was right.

[thomasotten]

Since I am leaning towards a six, what is conventional wisdom as to the largest motor that I could install and still use the original gearbox?

Another related question. This is a SWB car. I presume that means I must stay with a SWB transmission. I want a fairly straightforward six conversion.

[Dave_Darling]

Andy's got a 993 3.6 liter in front of a 901-based 914 gearbox... It will work as long as it's in good shape and you don't abuse it.

--DD

[thomasotten]

Thinking of doing a 2.4 Liter or 2.7 Liter 911 engine install, and keeping the fuel injection system intact. Do these engines require an ECU or brain box similar to the 914's fuel injection system? I other words, if I buy one of these engines, is there some electronics that I need to make sure I acquire as well?

[JmuRiz]

2.4 CIS and 2.7CIS do not have a brain. They are very simple systems. If you have a 2.4 with carbs they are super simple as well, the 2.4 MFI are complex but do-able if they MFI is tuned correctly.

[Steve]

I would do a 2.4-2.7 if you want to stay with the stock trans. 3.2-3.6 you will end up starting off in second and more or less only have a 4 speed. 2.4-2.7 you can use an early 2.0 flywheel and stock clutch. I loved my 2.7 with webers and the stock trans.

[thomasotten]

So the 2.4 and 2.7 do not have a brain box like the 914 fuel injection? So then it is pretty simple bolt on then, huh? Do you need an external oil cooler for either 2.4 or the 2.7?

[JmuRiz]

Need...no, want...yes (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[bigkensteele]

If you decide to go with a T4, I have a set of engine tin that I have pulled off my 2.7 donor which could be used to fashion a set for your conversion. I would be glad to donate to your cause.

If you go with a 2.7, look for a '74. They did not have the thermal reactors that caused the later engines to bake themselves. Most have been rebuilt by now, but I have been told is that a '74 is what you want to start with.

[r_towle]

I agree with going to a six.

But I make some mounting stuff for the conversion which is based on the 912E stuff. You can use the bus engine bar and the stock engine mounts. But the 912E style system removes about 5-8" of height from the engine bar to body mount span. Using the stock body mounts with the type 4 results in a long U shaped mount bar. This tends to allow the motor to shift forward/backward in the car because it has so much leverage. It works. I've done it. But it's not great and will chew up transmission mounts pretty quickly. Add body mounts below the frame rail and you'll be much better off.

Mark,

IC a tubular bar that maybe you made.....got that.
What is the cast part? Is that a stock bar from a 912e?

Is that a specific part that can be purchased?

[Dave_Darling]

So the 2.4 and 2.7 do not have a brain box like the 914 fuel injection?

None of the 911s have a brain box until you hit the Motronic injection with the 1984 3.2 Carreras. No electronic injection at all until then.

At some point--probably 1980?--the CIS cars had a "frequency valve" that was an electric gizmo controlled by the O2 sensor which fiddled the CIS mixture. But that's not the same as a "brain box".

--DD

[euro911]

I'm just finishing up a '68 616 (912) motor that I was going to stick in my wife's '67 bug, but we decided to sell the bug (as-is).

Not sure if I'm going to sell the motor or keep as a spare for my '66 912 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Sounds like you're leaning towards a '6' anyway. Go with the 2.7L (IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif)

[jcd914]

So the 2.4 and 2.7 do not have a brain box like the 914 fuel injection?

None of the 911s have a brain box until you hit the Motronic injection with the 1984 3.2 Carreras. No electronic injection at all until then.

At some point--probably 1980?--the CIS cars had a "frequency valve" that was an electric gizmo controlled by the O2 sensor which fiddled the CIS mixture. But that's not the same as a "brain box".

--DD

Except if by "brain box" you mean the typical looking Bosch control unit with a 25 pin connector that controls the frequency valve. 1980 thru 1983 911 SC's used the the O2 sensor & frequency valve and the control unit that came with them.

Jim

[cmpski]

www.PompoloDesign.com
2.4 liter
3.0 to 3.2 torque
180 rear wheel hp. Close to 2.7 RS gross hp.
100 pounds lighter than a 6.
6 to 8 inches shorter for better weight distribution. This helps alot on the early SWB cars.
Expensive but worth it. About the same price as a quality 911 rebuild.
Built by Dean the designer, RUF, Craig Smith, Canepa, Rothsport, Jerry Woods, and others.
Handles like a 912 and goes like a 911.
Chris

[barefoot]

So the 2.4 and 2.7 do not have a brain box like the 914 fuel injection?

None of the 911s have a brain box until you hit the Motronic injection with the 1984 3.2 Carreras. No electronic injection at all until then.

At some point--probably 1980?--the CIS cars had a "frequency valve" that was an electric gizmo controlled by the O2 sensor which fiddled the CIS mixture. But that's not the same as a "brain box".

--DD

YES, 1980 911SC was first year (in USA) to use O2 Lamda sensor to adjust fuel mixture with feedback system.

[funk]

realistically place a 914 in the same condition next to this 912 and from restoration design prices the panels aren't much more to do a solid stock conversion. go with a talented old school vw mechanic to rebuild and you can pump up the volume without the raby hype and price !! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif)

[BK911]

Recently picked up a 69 912. The stock 4 has plenty of power to zip around the local roads. No need for -6 power.

[euro911]

Recently picked up a 69 912. The stock 4 has plenty of power to zip around the local roads. No need for -6 power.

Awesome. The reduction in weight coupled with a more centralized weight distribution makes the 912 pretty nimble, and will give a 2.0L T '6' of the same vintage some serious competition. If you ever get the opportunity, see what a mere increase to 1720cc does (IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif)

Congrats (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)