 CIS on a /6 2.0 911S Engine, Inquiring minds want to know |
|
|
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
|
  |
| lapuwali |
 Nov 17 2005, 01:54 PM
Post
#21
|
||||
|
Not another one!  Group: Benefactors Posts: 4,526 Joined: 1-March 04 From: San Mateo, CA Member No.: 1,743   |
Yes, the '75 and later (there was no '74 S) is a 2.7, and the S is strictly for marketing purposes. The 911 and 911S made the same power in the 2.7 era. The S may have had some different options on it, but the engines were all the same. The differences in the 2.0 engines were much more marked. The 2.0 911T engine only made 110, where the 2.0S made 160hp, and most of the differences were down to the cams used. The 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4S engines were all tuned to the very limit of streetability. |
||||
   |
 
|
||||
| goose2 |
Nov 17 2005, 01:55 PM
Post
#22
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 976 Joined: 30-March 05 From: Eugene, Oregon Member No.: 3,847 Region Association: Pacific Northwest |
aluminum case huh?
|
|
|
|
| Cap'n Krusty |
Nov 17 2005, 02:40 PM
Post
#23
|
||||||
|
Cap'n Krusty Group: Members Posts: 10,794 Joined: 24-June 04 From: Santa Maria, CA Member No.: 2,246 Region Association: Central California |
No 1974 911 S? You are mistaken. The standard 911 made 150 HP, the "S" made 175. The 1974 Carrera model was a tarted up "S". There was no 911 T. Rumor floating around the Pcar school in LA was it was because of the short-lived gummint price regs which were in effect at the time. They couldn't raise the price of the 911T, so they renamed it the "911". BTW, one of the big differences between the 2.0 T and the S, besides the cam profile and timing, was the CR. T pistons were nearly flat with partial cutouts for the valves, the E's somewhat domed with bigger cutouts, and the S's had large domes with big valve pockets. CIS probably wouldn't even run with early S cams. E and S cams won't work with T pistons, nor with CIS pistons unless you cut huge pockets in them. The Cap'n |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
| tracks914 |
Nov 17 2005, 06:18 PM
Post
#24
|
|
Canadian Member Group: Benefactors Posts: 2,083 Joined: 15-January 03 From: Timmins, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 153 Region Association: None |
Were there any early engines that had to run on high octane fuel (because of high CR's) or will they all run on regular gas?
|
|
|
|
| brant |
Nov 17 2005, 06:24 PM
Post
#25
|
||
|
914 Wizard Group: Members Posts: 11,641 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Colorado Member No.: 47 Region Association: Rocky Mountains 
|
fuel has changed a LOT! The testing, rating, and composition has all changed so much... but I think the early motors still like higher octane. I know we run actual 98 octane gas on our 1967S 2.0/6 (stock 1967S compression) We blend race gas and street gas to get 98 octane. comes out around $4.50/gallon not absolutely necessary... but I wouldn't go throwing 85 octane into the gas tank of ANY early motor... and since were under high load and thermal stress I'm fine with this conscesion. brant |
||
 |
|
||
| SLITS |
Nov 17 2005, 06:25 PM
Post
#26
|
|
"This Utah shit is HARSH!" Group: Benefactors Posts: 13,602 Joined: 22-February 04 From: SoCal Mountains ... Member No.: 1,696 Region Association: None |
I believe the CR on an early "S" was like 9.8 or 9.9:1
|
|
|
|
| tracks914 |
Nov 17 2005, 06:27 PM
Post
#27
|
||
|
Canadian Member Group: Benefactors Posts: 2,083 Joined: 15-January 03 From: Timmins, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 153 Region Association: None |
$4.50 a gallon - I wish I could get 85 octane for that cheap!!!! (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/mad.gif) |
||
|
|
|
||
| r_towle |
Nov 17 2005, 06:37 PM
Post
#28
|
|
Custom Member Group: Members Posts: 24,591 Joined: 9-January 03 From: Taxachusetts Member No.: 124 Region Association: North East States
|
There is a porsche shop here in the East that has developed a new FI system to replace the costly to fix MFI.
Check out Autosport Engineering in Stow MA. Ask for Lenny. They have a web site also. Rich |
|
|
|
| brant |
Nov 17 2005, 06:37 PM
Post
#29
|
||||
|
914 Wizard Group: Members Posts: 11,641 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Colorado Member No.: 47 Region Association: Rocky Mountains
|
Well part of my deal is that I'm legally not using it in a registered street vehicle. so I'm blending LEADED - offroad use only fuel to get that price..... that and my government places the cost of a gallon of gas above alot of other priorities... oh crap am I going to get this thread banned? I'll retract if necessary. brant |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| SLITS |
Nov 17 2005, 06:38 PM
Post
#30
|
||||||
|
"This Utah shit is HARSH!" Group: Benefactors Posts: 13,602 Joined: 22-February 04 From: SoCal Mountains ... Member No.: 1,696 Region Association: None |
You get the taxes back on the fuel then......... |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
| brant |
Nov 17 2005, 06:41 PM
Post
#31
|
|
914 Wizard Group: Members Posts: 11,641 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Colorado Member No.: 47 Region Association: Rocky Mountains
|
hmmm....
I really shouldn't of said that.. just messing around... I guess I'm reaping the benefit of US fuel prices versus Canada and europe... thats all I meant. (hey I heard that premium in Kuwait was at $.85 a gallon this week....) brant |
|
|
|
| Allan |
Nov 17 2005, 06:47 PM
Post
#32
|
||
|
Teenerless Weenie Group: Members Posts: 8,373 Joined: 5-July 04 From: Western Mesopotamia Member No.: 2,304 Region Association: Southern California |
Got a good recommendation on plugs for a '77 2.7 S motor running 46mm webers??? |
||
|
|
|
||
| Duffster |
Nov 17 2005, 10:46 PM
Post
#33
|
|
OFWG Group: Benefactors Posts: 258 Joined: 29-August 03 From: Riverside, CA Member No.: 1,087 |
Hey Alan... 46s might be a little heavy duty unless you run something like 906 cams. On the other hand, I'm at 36mm in mine and still lean out a little too much when the holy sh*t pedal is all the way down at high RPMs. Twin plugs maybe? Gotta get all that gas burned somehow. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
| airsix |
Nov 17 2005, 11:12 PM
Post
#34
|
|
I have bees in my epiglotis Group: Members Posts: 2,196 Joined: 7-February 03 From: Kennewick Man (E. WA State) Member No.: 266 |
ANY digital programable ECU (Megasquirt, SDS, PerfectPower, Link, etc. etc.) and a set of individual throttle-bodies is a better-than-MFI MFI replacement. Any modern ECU can be programmed to run using only temp, rpm, and throttle possition as inputs (no manifold pressure) - just like MFI, and do it well. My ECU has a map sensor but I ran it MFI-style for a while once just for the heck of it to see how well I could program it. I was utterly SHOCKED at how easily it was tuned and how accurately it maintained the mixture once tuned. Piece of cake. IMHO if you are sourcing induction for an engine there is no reason today to use anyting but a digital ECU regardless of whether it's a tame-cammed or wild-cammed engine.
-Ben M. |
|
|
|
| Allan |
Nov 18 2005, 08:11 AM
Post
#35
|
|
Teenerless Weenie Group: Members Posts: 8,373 Joined: 5-July 04 From: Western Mesopotamia Member No.: 2,304 Region Association: Southern California |
I'm getting alot of feedback from the 911 guy's telling me that the 46's may be too much. Most of them are running 40's on the 2.7 S cam motor...
I gotta call the Cap'n today. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/hijacked.gif) Sorry Ron. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif) |
|
|
|
| Root_Werks |
Nov 18 2005, 10:02 AM
Post
#36
|
|
Village Idiot Group: Members Posts: 8,338 Joined: 25-May 04 From: About 5NM from Canada Member No.: 2,105 Region Association: Pacific Northwest
|
Those 46's might be jetted a little much for a 190hp 2.7, but I don't think they are too much. Porsche ran 46's on 911 2.0's at 200hp in the 60's I thought? (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/idea.gif)
Run W7DTC's in there, good heat range tripple electrode plugs for a street car. |
|
|
|
| SLITS |
Nov 18 2005, 10:34 AM
Post
#37
|
||
|
"This Utah shit is HARSH!" Group: Benefactors Posts: 13,602 Joined: 22-February 04 From: SoCal Mountains ... Member No.: 1,696 Region Association: None |
If you're going to defect to the dark side for information, we're gonna have to ban you forever. You are now in the middle...Not a NARP and Not a "real" six....you have no home...you have no country....you can only lift your pinky halfway and eat semi-rotten cheese.... Looks like we'll have to set up counseling for you (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/chairfall.gif) |
||
|
|
|
||
| Aaron Cox |
Nov 18 2005, 10:36 AM
Post
#38
|
||||
|
Professional Lawn Dart Group: Retired Admin Posts: 24,541 Joined: 1-February 03 From: OC Member No.: 219 Region Association: Southern California |
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/laugh.gif) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Allan |
Nov 18 2005, 10:57 AM
Post
#39
|
||||
|
Teenerless Weenie Group: Members Posts: 8,373 Joined: 5-July 04 From: Western Mesopotamia Member No.: 2,304 Region Association: Southern California |
I gotta go find my wife some Birkenstocks. Or is that for the gender challenged? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| SLITS |
Nov 18 2005, 12:54 PM
Post
#40
|
|
"This Utah shit is HARSH!" Group: Benefactors Posts: 13,602 Joined: 22-February 04 From: SoCal Mountains ... Member No.: 1,696 Region Association: None |
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/hijacked.gif) Hijacker notice....Alert.....Alert
The last post was not PC....it will be ignored unitl the word "L........n" is changed to "sexually challenged". (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/hijacked.gif) Hijacker Notice Alert Over You can now return to your normal voyeurness! |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 16th June 2024 - 06:33 AM |
Invision Power Board
v9.1.4 © 2024 IPS, Inc.