E S & T engines

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:45 am

I was out in my 2.2E yesterday, and I had forgotten how torquey and
nice the E cams are for everyday driving. The give the engine plenty of mid range torque where you need it and are not as cammy as the S.

Is the E cam the best compromise ?

Rds

alfacat · Post by **alfacat** » Fri May 20, 2011 9:06 am

Hi Jasper
On my hunt for a new "old" car I've recently driven a few standard engined cars. Of the 2.0T, 2.2E & 2.4T I've driven (within a few hours of each other) the 2.2 was by far the most vocal and exciting to drive.
However its the humble 2.4T gets my vote as the best compromise as a daily driver, big fat torque curve and not peaky in its power delivery.
My old T was used as a daily and I loved every minute of may ownership, my next hopefully will be used mainly as an adrenaline boost at the weekends so I think the 2.2E best fits the bill.

So my nomination for best 911 engine up to 1973 model year gose to the 2.4T on carbs

All the best
Ian F

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Fri May 20, 2011 9:21 am

Have a look at my special 2.4T !

I put this post up on members cars :-
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:57 pm Post subject: R Gruppe 2.4T/ST on Weber 40's solex cams,S spec, SSI, Dansk

alfacat · Post by **alfacat** » Fri May 20, 2011 10:07 am

Now Jasper'
Loving that engine but (in a fake teachers voice) you weren't paying attention, the idea was was best compromise, not 'fire breathing' peaky screamer of a modified engine (that I really want

)
Whats it like like around town, I bet its a blast on a back roads blast?

All the best
Ian F.

Gary71 · Post by **Gary71** » Fri May 20, 2011 10:34 am

Ian is correct!

(obviously I'm completely unbiased)

I still can't understand why you can buy three 2.4T for the price of one 2.4S

...but coming to work this morning on bone dry roads a little more power would be nice.

My engine will happily pull 1800rpm in it's long 25mph/1000rpm fifth gear, but I would trade some of that for another 30bhp.

So... 2.4E is probably the compromise!

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Fri May 20, 2011 10:55 am

I luv Alfa's/fiats too, had 5, 128 coupe SL, 164, 156 2.0, 156 sport, 156 Sport Wagen. None at the moment, might go after a Wedge shaped GTV, or Modern Duetto.

The tractability and torque of this special 2.4T engine is nothing short of amazing, I think the lightened flywheel has much to do with it. Its OK in traffic, I used it for 5 months last year as my daily driver.

I may sell it to make room for a GT3, I caned one recently at Mondello, I was very impressed ! 5 Flying laps, its ability to stop was the most amazing part 160 to 100 in less than 5 sec's.

As you can see I can resist everything except sports cars.

Rds

hamishf · Post by **hamishf** » Fri May 20, 2011 11:00 am

Jasper - in my view the E (well in a 2.4 anyway) is the best compromise - for day to day driving you're never off the boil.

The comparisons between E's and T's arent really all the realistic, because of the difference between MFI and Carbs.

The MFI engines at that capacity at least have a snappier throttle response.

Have had E's and T's (2.4s at least) in the past and would drive an E all day long if I had to opportunity.

hot66 · Post by **hot66** » Fri May 20, 2011 11:12 am

always an interesting discussion point

All the different 'tune' levels of early 911 engines have their strong points. I love the torquey nature of a T, it makes for a great relaxing drive.

An S on the other hand, does have torque down at low revs, but it's that 'unleashing a beast' kind of nature once you hit 5000 rpm that gives it such a different charactor & makes it feel as if it wants to be thrashed everywhere .... for me , where nearly all my driving is on twisty country roads I wouldn't want anything else . ( I will admit, an S isn't ideal for touring, as mine starts to become grumpy if it's sat on the motorway for a 100 miles just off cam )

Of course, when it comes to the perfect all rounder early engine, IMHO it is a 2.7RS spec ... screams at the top end but also torquey & relaxed for touring

alfacat · Post by **alfacat** » Fri May 20, 2011 11:13 am

Hi Jasper
I'm currently running around in an OK 1999 GTV Twinspark (red with tan leather, very Italian) and looking to buy an early 911, coincidence or what, Please feel free to post/pm me details of your 2.2T and/or your 2.4 'hot rod'.

All the best
Ian F.

silver911 · Post by **silver911** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:44 pm

Gary71 wrote:Ian is correct! (obviously I'm completely unbiased)

I still can't understand why you can buy three 2.4T for the price of one 2.4S

...but coming to work this morning on bone dry roads a little more power would be nice.

My engine will happily pull 1800rpm in it's long 25mph/1000rpm fifth gear, but I would trade some of that for another 30bhp.

So... 2.4E is probably the compromise!

I thought so too.....until I discovered the joys of a 2.7E

Gary71 · Post by **Gary71** » Fri May 20, 2011 8:03 pm

silver911 wrote:
I thought so too.....until I discovered the joys of a 2.7E

The natural conclusion of this is of course a GT3 RS engine in an early car

Certainly when my engine finally has had it's day I will be searching for more power

210bhp · Post by **210bhp** » Fri May 20, 2011 8:16 pm

hamishf wrote:The comparisons between E's and T's arent really all the realistic, because of the difference between MFI and Carbs.

The MFI engines at that capacity at least have a snappier throttle response.

I think Rich might have something to add here with his lovely MFI 2.4 T which were available in 1973 as well as a carbed version.

I thought that engine was a really nice all round engine. Nice throttle response, torque when needed and a relaxing cruiser on a trip. A good mpg too.

Regards
Mike

silver911 · Post by **silver911** » Sat May 21, 2011 8:56 am

Gary71 wrote:
silver911 wrote:
I thought so too.....until I discovered the joys of a 2.7E
The natural conclusion of this is of course a GT3 RS engine in an early car

Certainly when my engine finally has had it's day I will be searching for more power

Could be but not for me....
I like the narrow rear arches and even with c220hp there the car has enough power to overcome my skills behind the wheel...let alone my courage.

I'd want a better rear end (!) to take more power

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:39 am

There is a great article in Excellence June 2011 titled " Mild Mod " , which is Welles Hackett take on his ultimate 911.

He took his 1970 911E and built a special R cased 2.7 engine using E cams and 40 PMO's, for mid range torque 3 to 5000 Rev's, this is the
useable, real world rev range. I rarely take my 27 RS engined cars up to 7,000 RPM, not that I am sparing the engine, but the opportunities are limited except for a trackday, when it turns into an animal.
Wayne Dempsey's book " rebuilding and modifing a 911 engine", goes into this in detail.

If anyone wants a copy of the article contact me.

Rds

hot66 · Post by **hot66** » Sat May 21, 2011 12:23 pm

Jasper wrote:I rarely take my 27 RS engined cars up to 7,000 RPM,

interesting this bit , with my S, in 2nd & 3rd I'm nearly always changing up at 7000 rpm. Only when I have the wife with me does the passenger seat rev limiter kick in