Is 2.7 a good motor for a six conversion?

Brian Miller · Post by **Brian Miller** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 12:38 pm

I friend has the opportunity to get a 2.7L motor from a wrecked 911 and suggested putting it in my 914 instead of rebuilding the 1.8 I have now.

Is this a good motor? What about the tensioners? How much would a rebuild typically cost? What else is involved in converting a 1.8 FI four to a 2.7 six?

Any and all info is much appreciated... this seems like a good opportunity but I don't want to rush into anything.

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

Brian Miller
1974 Delphi Green 914 1.8 F.I.

Brian Miller 914 · Post by **Brian Miller 914** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 5:30 pm

What about a 3.2?

stevestromberg · Post by **stevestromberg** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 9:13 pm

See: http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate/Fo ... 12863.html

Steve

Brian Miller · Post by **Brian Miller** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 11:10 pm

I just wanted to say thanks again for the info. After reading a few articles and looking at the parts involved I can see where a six conversion can really add up.

Still, it would be an interesting project. I'll probably go with one of Jake's Type IV rebuilds for now and consider a six project in the future.

Thanks again,

jmb10001 · Post by **jmb10001** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 2:24 pm

who is this jake's company? im looking for a rebuild.

kevin powers · Post by **kevin powers** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 4:29 pm

go to www.aircooledtechnology.com

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:19 pm

The 2.7 is probably the worst 911 engine ever made....

------------------
Jake Raby
Raby's Aircooled Technology
www.aircooledtechnology.com

kevin powers · Post by **kevin powers** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:25 pm

i was hot to buy a 911 sc about three years ago.(i still would like to have one some day). i looked at and drove quite a few. they were all in the same ballpark price wise and they all had approx the same mileage. why were all of these people selling their cars? mileage became the common denominator. the quoted base prices for rebuilds often times was equal to or more than the cost(value) of the car. that put my 911 fever out. with the other costs and modifications associated with 914 6 cyl conv you should consider your expenditures to be like water spilling out of hoover dam, and you still would'nt have a 914-6 (which are appreciating),just a 914 with a very expensive motor.

for those looking to buy a 914-6 beware. have a list of chassis numbers in your hand to compare to the car you are looking at. it's the attack of the clones.

[This message has been edited by kevin powers (edited 01-26-2002).]

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:29 pm

It's real easy to tell an original. The 6's chassis #'s all start with 914. The 4's all start with 47.

HotRod · Post by **HotRod** » Mon Jan 28, 2002 6:58 am

The answer to your original question is yes and no.

Yes, a 2.7 would be a good motor for a 914-4 to 6 conversion.

No, 2.7s are generally not a good motor to buy.

If you can find one that has had the modifications done to it (and done correctly), it would be a good motor to have (especially if upgraded with the RS pistons). And, again if properly modified, should be a dependable as the 2.0, 2.2, or 2.4.

I got rid of the 7R case on mine and backdated to a 67 aluminum case, ditch the CIS, RS pistons combined with 2.7 heads for slightly higher compression than the RS...makes for a nice little motor.

JmuRiz · Post by **JmuRiz** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 11:57 pm

From what I know the 2.7 gets a bum rap. They can be great motors, if they are properly upgraded and built by someone who knows what they are doing.

HotRod, where are you located in Burke? I have my 914 in storage at my parents' place in Burke (the Oaks).
T

HotRod · Post by **HotRod** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:16 pm

Uh..the Oaks, Jackson Oak Ct. to be exact...

johnhora · Post by **johnhora** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 3:02 pm

Brian...
As mentioned the 2.7 six was not a bad engine as such. It just had some very serious heat related problems that you need to be aware when checking out one of these engines. The problems were caused by two main things. The new Nikasil cylinders expanded at a different rate than the old biral type this added with the attempts at the new USA polution controls...read this as the early 70s changes....and the use of the infamous Termal Reactors on the exhaust system and the heat was way too much for the USA 2.7 models. They would pull head studs out of the case leaving no threads, thus a timecerts, etc. This is hard to tell with the engine not torn down. The cases were cast magnesium so you just don't weld up the problem....read big bad fire that you can not stop....water only makes it explode..
Also the valve guides up to this point were copper which were not happy with the increased heat either. Many of the 2.7s had to have head work at 30k miles.
So bottom line is this better be a very newly rebuilt 2.7 to even consider. Just remember that a set of 911 P&Cs will cost you the same amount as a total rebuild on that 1.8 T4. And with the HP Mr. Raby is getting these days on the T4s... if this is a street car why bother unless you have a real bad itch for a 6.

Good Luck on your quest....

Regards,

John