Got a black Friday special from them this motor included,no real rebuild history 300 miles since rebuild ,increased compression and numbers supplied which really if a rebuilt motor would be a little off the game for only 300 miles (15+%).
Factor in 2.7 issues and it sounds like a cheap build @13.5 K even its a complete motor,things that come to mind;
Case clean ,measuring and possible line bore and resize,
bearings gaskets, chains and ramps,
pistons and barrels...can of worms costwise,
head studs which would need replacing,
crank ? measured ,polished/reground and cleaned,
heads,cleaned,flycut ,new guides,exhaust valves @ minimum,
rocker arms,cleaning measuring,rebushing if needed,
oil pump stripped and inspected,
parts for injection system,injectors tested,fuel distributor etc,
plus altenator rebuild,clean ,paint engine tin and shroud,
new exhaust fitted,
then sh#t loads of labour to box it up,
etc etc.
Numbers don't work for me if all the correct work has been done ,need this for possible purchase of a 2.7 which I don't really need .
Anyone rebuild a 2.7 and can confirm numbers for a rebuild to a similar motor /
TIA.

Cost the same to rebuild a 2.7, 3.0 or 3.2.
I would rather have the two later ones.

Thanks Mark always assumed the 2.7 would be more due to correctional work with the crankcase,the early mag cases are fairly understressed .

3.0 or 3.2. A "good" 2.7 is ok but it requires more work. Case Savers or Time Serts if the engine suffered "pulled" studs. The really hot running Thermal Reactor '75-'77 cars were notorious. Line boring should definitely be considered.

The 3.0 and 3.2 will eventually break studs. Last two SC's I owned required all the studs to be replaced. Breakage isn't uncommon and I for one would budget for a top end rebuild when purchasing either engine. FWIW: The SC rod bolts are larger so it's a bit more hearty. That's something that could be addressed with a full rebuild but either car should last a long time on the stock bottom end unless you're beating it like a rented mule.

The 3.6's cooked their exhaust valve guides due to the engine tray (for sound abatement) which as best I can tell was better at keeping oil off the floor because it sure as heck didn't dissipate heat.

I'm not a big horsepower person. A really sweet high strung 2.0 or 2.2 would be fine. It's all about balance. Gearboxes are another place to find hidden "horsepower". Stacked gear sets/close ratio/airport etc. are a lot of fun and if done right can keep the engine in the "sweet spot".

[quote name='sithot' date='Nov 27 2017, 03:56 PM' post='2552106']
[quote name='mepstein' post='2552082' date='Nov 26 2017, 09:00 PM']
Cost the same to rebuild a 2.7, 3.0 or 3.2.
I would rather have the two later ones.
[/quote]




3.0 or 3.2. A "good" 2.7 is ok but it requires more work. Case Savers or Time Serts if the engine suffered "pulled" studs. The really hot running Thermal Reactor '75-'77 cars were notorious. Line boring should definitely be considered.

The 3.0 and 3.2 will eventually break studs. Last two SC's I owned required all the studs to be replaced. Breakage isn't uncommon and I for one would budget for a top end rebuild when purchasing either engine. FWIW: The SC rod bolts are larger so it's a bit more hearty. That's something that could be addressed with a full rebuild but either car should last a long time on the stock bottom end unless you're beating it like a rented mule.

Yes thinking that way and thanks,the seller of the motor bought a Japan import RH drive 911s car ..fairly rare in my country,he put in a 3.2 and found found a less than honest seller of it ,it is a beautiful rust free car with a poo motor,he is a good guy but I got a price about a year ago of 6K UZD and really knowing why his sell price has changed cause his motor is $$$$ ,anyway long story short the price has bounced to 10k and its only had a top overhaul,so may stick with my lowly 2.2T powered conversion which is a fun car and runs pretty good.

When I started down the /6 path I got a 2.0 then a 2.7 and finally a 3.0 core.
I had rebuilt several 911 engines before my 914 project, but they were all stock or basket cases and low budgets that I just put back together. I never really researched to see what was the better engine, just worked with what I had.

I didn't lose on any of the core deals I didn't use, but it was a learning curve.
I still have a rebuildable 2.7 core, debating on what to do with it. I'll keep it for now, just as a backup in case something catastrophic happened to my 3.0, but knock on wood so far so good.

All the engines (2.7, 3.0, 3.2, and 3.6).have their issues and now should all be considered cores unless recently rebuilt. Pulled studs on the 2.7s, broken Dilivar studs on the 3.0 and 3.2 (along with CIS pictons on the 3.0) all create their own issues. However, there are fixes for all these issues, it just takes money.

Thanks for the replies,sounds like a can of worms, the local seller I'am dealing with says ROW Japanese motor with work done,just over 100k kilometers on it documented but finally he comes clean and tells me its had headstuds replaced on one side only.... .
Run Forrest run .