1977 911S-Restore or sell?
08-11-2003, 12:56 PM
#1
Track Day
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1977 911S-Restore or sell?
Hi all
I'm new to the forum and looking for advice. I have a 1977 911S with less than 90k miles. It has been sitting idle for approx. 10 years. I would like to get the vehicle running again and understand that I will not recoupe what I spend if I resell, given the knock on this year car. However, I do have concerns in the longevity (or lack of) with this particular model/year and was looking for thoughts before I start spending to restore the vehicle to running condition.
Also looking for a good shop who could do the work in the Charlotte, NC area.
Thanks.
I'm new to the forum and looking for advice. I have a 1977 911S with less than 90k miles. It has been sitting idle for approx. 10 years. I would like to get the vehicle running again and understand that I will not recoupe what I spend if I resell, given the knock on this year car. However, I do have concerns in the longevity (or lack of) with this particular model/year and was looking for thoughts before I start spending to restore the vehicle to running condition.
Also looking for a good shop who could do the work in the Charlotte, NC area.
Thanks.
08-11-2003, 01:29 PM
#3
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay, California
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every problem these models have can be easily taken care of if you rebuild the car. The engine in particular is very good when built right. While these cars had short lifespan from the factory, a good rebuild can last several hundred thousand miles!
If you like the car, go for it! And yes, a 3.2 will bolt right in. I think the 3.6 is a bit more complicated.
George
If you like the car, go for it! And yes, a 3.2 will bolt right in. I think the 3.6 is a bit more complicated.
George
08-11-2003, 05:06 PM
#6
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay, California
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 77 was the last year of the magnesium crank case. In a rebuild you have to put inserts for the head studs to make sure they don't pull out. As far as I know the reason for that was the mismatch of thermal expansion coefficients between the case and the heads / studs. This is common knowledge among rebuilders and will be done automatically.
I am unsure if there might be a 5 blade fan on the 77, that you should replace with a later fan (11 blades). That's an easy one to check.
Finally there is a set of 'thermal reactors' that are an emissions item. These increase the heat on the engine and lead to premature failure. Most times these are already removed, but you need to make sure it is the case on your car. Here also, any reputable shop will know the tricks.
I think some of the valve guides weren't the greatest in 77, so make sure you have them replaced in a rebuild with a modern well working material. On non porsche cars I had good luck with silicon bronze, a material that porsche used on some of their cars too.
Finally, cost between a rebuild of your 2.7 vs. the replacement with a 3.2 or 3.6? As I said, I think the 3.2 or 3.0 are the only direct bolt in later replacements. I think I would go with them. I think there is extra power with the 3.2 and a later (better) fuel injection system, but cost wise a 2.7 rebuild will be the wise thing to do.
Cheers, George
I am unsure if there might be a 5 blade fan on the 77, that you should replace with a later fan (11 blades). That's an easy one to check.
Finally there is a set of 'thermal reactors' that are an emissions item. These increase the heat on the engine and lead to premature failure. Most times these are already removed, but you need to make sure it is the case on your car. Here also, any reputable shop will know the tricks.
I think some of the valve guides weren't the greatest in 77, so make sure you have them replaced in a rebuild with a modern well working material. On non porsche cars I had good luck with silicon bronze, a material that porsche used on some of their cars too.
Finally, cost between a rebuild of your 2.7 vs. the replacement with a 3.2 or 3.6? As I said, I think the 3.2 or 3.0 are the only direct bolt in later replacements. I think I would go with them. I think there is extra power with the 3.2 and a later (better) fuel injection system, but cost wise a 2.7 rebuild will be the wise thing to do.
Cheers, George
08-11-2003, 06:55 PM
#7
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay, California
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, cost between a rebuild of your 2.7 vs. the replacement with a 3.2 or 3.6? As I said, I think the 3.2 or 3.0 are the only direct bolt in later replacements. I think I would go with them. I think there is extra power with the 3.2 and a later (better) fuel injection system, but cost wise a 2.7 rebuild will be the wise thing to do.
Anyone ever dealt with this place? It can give you an idea:
www.motormeister.com
Cheers, George
Trending Topics
08-11-2003, 09:36 PM
#11
Drifting
MM - just say no...
I would go with 3.0 or 3.2 if you are going to rebuild. There is a guy on e-bay that has somewhat of a following unclezak - or something similiar. He does quite a few 2.7 rebuilds.
I would go with 3.0 or 3.2 if you are going to rebuild. There is a guy on e-bay that has somewhat of a following unclezak - or something similiar. He does quite a few 2.7 rebuilds.
08-11-2003, 11:35 PM
#12
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay, California
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, thanks for the input about MM! The numbers looked too good to be true. I'd estimate my DIY cost (with machinework) for a rebuild to be what they offer for a turn key rebuild.
Cheers, George
Cheers, George
08-12-2003, 12:15 AM
#13
Rennlist Member
Tim,
A bunch of things go into the decision to spend $$$ to bring a car up. You mention that the car has sat for 10 years, why?
Did the studs pull or were there other problems? How about the body & cosmetics? The engine is one thing but you can spend just as much bringing the whole car up to snuff.
If it is a really clean car it may be worth doing some work on. Also, 2.7's have a bad rap (and resale) primarily due to the stud/case problem, (and as George said the thermoreactors were a disaster) but a clean properly sorted 2.7S is a great car.
If you do decide to freshen the 2.7 (or go buy a used one) don't assume the studs will be done right, I've seen a bunch of these cars that were "fixed" with everything from epoxy to heilicoils. The time-certs and raceware studs are the right way, and then you have to have the cylinder spigots flycut to refit the cylinders, so the case has to be split.
I would think a used 3L would be your best bet for bang for the buck, if you can find one that is complete and dosen't have a bunch of miles (or is from MM...) and it's still CIS rather than the 3.2 motronic. Unless you go to carbs.
Good luck
A bunch of things go into the decision to spend $$$ to bring a car up. You mention that the car has sat for 10 years, why?
Did the studs pull or were there other problems? How about the body & cosmetics? The engine is one thing but you can spend just as much bringing the whole car up to snuff.
If it is a really clean car it may be worth doing some work on. Also, 2.7's have a bad rap (and resale) primarily due to the stud/case problem, (and as George said the thermoreactors were a disaster) but a clean properly sorted 2.7S is a great car.
If you do decide to freshen the 2.7 (or go buy a used one) don't assume the studs will be done right, I've seen a bunch of these cars that were "fixed" with everything from epoxy to heilicoils. The time-certs and raceware studs are the right way, and then you have to have the cylinder spigots flycut to refit the cylinders, so the case has to be split.
I would think a used 3L would be your best bet for bang for the buck, if you can find one that is complete and dosen't have a bunch of miles (or is from MM...) and it's still CIS rather than the 3.2 motronic. Unless you go to carbs.
Good luck
08-12-2003, 01:34 AM
#14
AutoX
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Tim:
There’s some really knowledgeable folks on this board and you will get some good counsel. I am no expert, but I do have one qualification for writing this note.
I picked up a 1977 911s earlier this year that had 90k miles and had sat for 14 years (owner died and wife finally decided to donate to charity last Dec). It has been my daily driver for about 3 months now. In brief here is what I had to fix:
a. Any kind of fluid in the car had destroyed/compromised the components it came in contact with. That included the fuel system and the brake system. So new (used) gas tank, fuel lines, CIS. Master cylinder, brake hoses and rear brakes.
b. Even though all of the lines and hoses had been flushed I ended up getting 2 fuel filters installed – just to be sure.
c. The shocks had lost their pressure – so new shocks.
d. The tires had gone square – new tires
e. In addition, I also made sure that the car got its full 90k service…plugs, distributor caps, cables, tuning, timing etc. Also a handful of hoses that seemed to have aged.
Fortunately, the previous owner had done most of the upgrades. I did the carrera oil cooler, so I think I am almost there.
The car runs really well and has about 3k miles since it was revived. I may be imagning this but it seems like it is improving every week – I don’t mistreat it but don’t coddle it either.
I have been driving a new M3 Coupe for a couple of years now but I must say that my 25 year old 911 is way more fun. So enjoy the car.
Suresh
There’s some really knowledgeable folks on this board and you will get some good counsel. I am no expert, but I do have one qualification for writing this note.
I picked up a 1977 911s earlier this year that had 90k miles and had sat for 14 years (owner died and wife finally decided to donate to charity last Dec). It has been my daily driver for about 3 months now. In brief here is what I had to fix:
a. Any kind of fluid in the car had destroyed/compromised the components it came in contact with. That included the fuel system and the brake system. So new (used) gas tank, fuel lines, CIS. Master cylinder, brake hoses and rear brakes.
b. Even though all of the lines and hoses had been flushed I ended up getting 2 fuel filters installed – just to be sure.
c. The shocks had lost their pressure – so new shocks.
d. The tires had gone square – new tires
e. In addition, I also made sure that the car got its full 90k service…plugs, distributor caps, cables, tuning, timing etc. Also a handful of hoses that seemed to have aged.
Fortunately, the previous owner had done most of the upgrades. I did the carrera oil cooler, so I think I am almost there.
The car runs really well and has about 3k miles since it was revived. I may be imagning this but it seems like it is improving every week – I don’t mistreat it but don’t coddle it either.
I have been driving a new M3 Coupe for a couple of years now but I must say that my 25 year old 911 is way more fun. So enjoy the car.
Suresh
08-12-2003, 05:35 PM
#15
Track Day
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the input!
The 3.6 would be great but a little rich for me after factoring all of the other work that may go along with it. Thanks for the suggestion g-50cab. I am thinking though of a 3.0 or 3.2.
George, I am not sure if there has been any work to the engine or any upgrades. The car is in another state waiting to get picked up when I can decide what direction I want to go with the restoration. I would like to look in to the possibility of a swap but I am having trouble locating 3.0's and 3.2's to consider. Any suggestions.
J, Richard the car sat in a relative's garage after a death in the family. I understand that the car ran fine with no problems except that it was slow to start up after cooling off from operating temperature. I have no history on the cars engine, regarding rebuilds, upgrades etc.
Doc, I hope to have your luck in my quest. Thanks for the comments.
Also thanks for the input re MM.
I would welcome any reputable sources for 3.0/3.2 for the project.
The 3.6 would be great but a little rich for me after factoring all of the other work that may go along with it. Thanks for the suggestion g-50cab. I am thinking though of a 3.0 or 3.2.
George, I am not sure if there has been any work to the engine or any upgrades. The car is in another state waiting to get picked up when I can decide what direction I want to go with the restoration. I would like to look in to the possibility of a swap but I am having trouble locating 3.0's and 3.2's to consider. Any suggestions.
J, Richard the car sat in a relative's garage after a death in the family. I understand that the car ran fine with no problems except that it was slow to start up after cooling off from operating temperature. I have no history on the cars engine, regarding rebuilds, upgrades etc.
Doc, I hope to have your luck in my quest. Thanks for the comments.
Also thanks for the input re MM.
I would welcome any reputable sources for 3.0/3.2 for the project.