Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Performance and Technical Chat

Post Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-11-2013, 02:58 PM   #1
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by BYprodriver View Post
If you put 3.4 heads on a 2.7 you lost compression ratio & undoubtedly low rpm torque due to the bigger valves.
Hmmn, what head gasket was used? With the difference in bore size at a whopping 10.5mm of bore size difference I'd expect issues. What cams were used with this?

I think he is stating that he had a 2.7 and did a 3.4 engine conversion...
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 03:13 PM   #2
Registered User
 
BYprodriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: O.C. CA
Posts: 3,709
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Raby View Post
Hmmn, what head gasket was used? With the difference in bore size at a whopping 10.5mm of bore size difference I'd expect issues. What cams were used with this?

I think he is stating that he had a 2.7 and did a 3.4 engine conversion...
I bet you are right Jake, he did say he had 2 engines side by side in his post. Happy Veterans Day Jake & thank you for your service, both abroad & on Raby hill !
__________________
OE engine rebuilt,3.6 litre LN Engineering billet sleeves,triple row IMSB,LN rods. Deep sump oil pan with DT40 oil.

Last edited by BYprodriver; 11-11-2013 at 03:17 PM. Reason: serious omission
BYprodriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 04:27 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: weehawken nj
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Raby View Post
Hmmn, what head gasket was used? With the difference in bore size at a whopping 10.5mm of bore size difference I'd expect issues. What cams were used with this?

I think he is stating that he had a 2.7 and did a 3.4 engine conversion...
Yes, that is correct. I did a full 3.4l conversion, but drilled the mounting bosses in the 3.4 head to attach a 2.7 intake manifold to it. This allowed me to avoid lowering the drivetrain. I drive my car to work every day and the roads here in the Northern NJ/NYC area are atrocious, so lowering the engine 1.5" to accommodate the 3.4 manifold was a risky proposition. One raised manhole cover and bye bye engine!

I want to install the 3.4 manifold with a 987 raised engine cover, do all of them work or is it only the "S"model that has the raised portion for the intake manifold?
Bigsmoothlee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2013, 08:54 AM   #4
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsmoothlee View Post
Yes, that is correct. I did a full 3.4l conversion, but drilled the mounting bosses in the 3.4 head to attach a 2.7 intake manifold to it. This allowed me to avoid lowering the drivetrain. I drive my car to work every day and the roads here in the Northern NJ/NYC area are atrocious, so lowering the engine 1.5" to accommodate the 3.4 manifold was a risky proposition. One raised manhole cover and bye bye engine!

I want to install the 3.4 manifold with a 987 raised engine cover, do all of them work or is it only the "S"model that has the raised portion for the intake manifold?
That 2.7 intake is killing the potential of that engine. The 2.7 intake is inadequate even for a 2.7 engine.
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2013, 06:49 PM   #5
Registered User
 
jaykay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: toronto
Posts: 2,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Raby View Post
That 2.7 intake is killing the potential of that engine. The 2.7 intake is inadequate even for a 2.7 engine.
The 3.2 plenums look to be the same size as the 2.7s. They look to be an even smaller volume than the 2.5s....squashed down. The 3.4 plenums look voluminous by comparison...going by pictures. The entrance into the 3.4 plenums are larger too

One has to wonder what the 3.4s would do atop a 3.2
__________________
986 00S
jaykay is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page