It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:09 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:19 am 
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 6985
Location: 30MI WEST OF PHILA
Craig, I agree completely. I don't care if some of the 75,000 356s are chopped up to please their owners but I don't get it myself. A Polo/Emory engine has no more to do with a 356 than does a VW engine. What next, a Chevy V8? I guarantee it works better than a Polo. Why not buy a plastic Speedster and put a proper race car chassis under it with totally modern Porsche mechanicals? Wouldn't that be better than an old rust bucket with an ancient 911 engine that has been castrated?

911 rear suspension? Explain why so many 356s finish ahead of so many 911s at the vintage races. The stock 356 stuff isn't bad. How much extra weight is added with the conversion? All at the rear of the car. Not smart. Porsche had to move the rear wheels back on 911 to make it acceptable and I suspect that there is a bigger imbalance when the 911 suspension is added to the 356.

Porsche equals balance. Lesser cars emphasize one feature, like an engine, resulting in an unbalanced mess. No thank you.

PS-Does anybody have a dyno print out on a Polo engine? Please post.

_________________
'57 Speedster - very real
'59 Sunroof - mostly real
'60 Devin D Race Car-in process - fake chassis - real body
'63 GS 2133 coupe - very real
'67 S Original Owner - ultra real


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:54 pm 
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3328
Location: National City Ca
CJ
Chevy V8???
OK lets face it the 356/912 engine has been developed beyond it's inherent capabilities. Except for airplanes aircooled engine are a thing of the past. Even the Type IV was not a great success. If we are going to come up with a donner engine for limited development we may have to investigate the Suburu/911/boxster.
j

_________________
 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:57 pm 
356 Fan

Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:43 am
Posts: 29
I can see the arguments for stock and for outlaw. I like them both.

But this is the outlaw section...

If I was going to replace the stock engine, I absolutely would go with the Polo engine, which is almost all Porsche, if not in parts then in spirit. I wouldn't go with a 911 due to the weight over the rear while the Polo is basically the sane as stock.

Yes lots of horsepower can be made from the 356 engine. But it's power band is high and narrow, not suitable for street. I vintage raced my speedster with a very hot engine, but I would never want to drive it on the street. It developed lots of horsepower but it was a very narrow power band. And it was a 12 hour engine meaning that's how many hours I could race it before needing to be rebuilt. Want to make a more durable engine - you won't be as competitive. And yes prepared like this they are competitive cars.

For street, you want torque and it's hard to get it without increasing displacement.


Last edited by Richard Emerson on Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:20 pm 
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3328
Location: National City Ca
Richard
The 911 was never meant for a 356 just because it is made by Porsche the same rationale would be to use a 944/928. the VWs have a better lineage than the 911 if you want an alternative replacement sn outlaw 4-cam would be a truer choice tha the Polo.
j

_________________
 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 pm 
356 Fan

Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:43 am
Posts: 29
My choice is already in the engine bay.
And sits parked next to my numbers matching one.

Both are great. Ones better for long trips.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:05 pm 
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:10 pm
Posts: 1734
Location: Houston, TX
Richard Emerson wrote:
My choice is already in the engine bay.
And sits parked next to my numbers matching one.


Richard,
I went through all the posts in this thread but I don't see any mention of what your choice is.
Are you saying you installed a Polo in one of your cars?

_________________
Dave Wildrick
Houston, TX
#10230
64C coupe
65C coupe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:26 pm 
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:52 pm
Posts: 774
Location: San Clemente, CA
C J Murray wrote:
PS-Does anybody have a dyno print out on a Polo engine? Please post.
Sure, follow this link to Justin's great site:
http://www.abcgt.com/forum/8-1965-73-SWB--Long-Hood-911-912-Forum/4393-The-1st-912-POLO.html


Attachments:
File comment: 2.4 Polo engine in a 912.
dynorun005.JPG
dynorun005.JPG [ 106.79 KiB | Viewed 2485 times ]

_________________
Engine # P66909... are you out there :-)
Fun 356 events in SoCal = http://356club.org/
https://www.instagram.com/trevorcgates/
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:54 pm 
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:01 pm
Posts: 806
Location: Laguna Beach/Traunkirchen
Richard, Please don't keep us in suspense. One is Polo powered, yes? And which one's better on the long trips? Why? You are in the enviable position to make some interesting comparisons for the rest of us...

_________________
 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:46 pm 
356 Fan

Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:43 am
Posts: 29
I am not too keen on posting much given the lack of being anonymous.

I have a 2.4 polo engine. I felt I should either stay stock (built up if desired), or I felt looking at the alternatives to go polo. The 2.4 (and even now their 2.6) is a huge difference and very drive able.

My stock one is a real joy too but I take the polo for long trips.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B1dvWa49uvg

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rfA7OZcBxb8


Last edited by Richard Emerson on Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:59 pm 
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:36 am
Posts: 956
Location: Alberta
That is a hot little machine now Richard! I'm hoping an upgraded 1720 912 engine will be a noticeable step up from my '56 Super engine and it won't be cost much more than a stock rebuild. Perhaps I'll do EFI next winter which will really cross the line. Hopefully the car will still be fun to drive at close to legal speeds. I can't say that about my '95 Carrera. As I mentioned earlier the next step up (staying Porsche) is a big one to the tune of $10-25k+ more than a stock build depending on what you go for. Perhaps that makes more sense on a more expensive 356. I love the idea of an EFI Polo motor but if I was going to spend that $$$ I would upgrade my 993 motor which already has the chassis, gearbox and brakes to handle it. It would probably be a better track car then :)

_________________
Matthew Devereux
'08 Cayman S
'58 356A coupe
'70 911E project
1995 993 Polar Silver/Chestnut - sold


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:24 pm 
356 Fan

Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:43 am
Posts: 29
I had Emory build the polo as I needed my speedster to take much longer trips on the interstate and just wanted more usable power. Plus I was intrigued with the technology. The base was a non numbers matching speedster that needed a full restoration. I thought about all the upgrades engine options but concluded the only not that really provided me the low end torque was this one. It will take any early 911. and despite comments on here, it really feels like a 356.

(I was traumatized by a convertible D I had that someone put too hot if a cam in it chasing HP that made the engine very user unfriendly for streets)

My stock is a super aquamarine/red all numbers matching. It drives extremely well, much better than its predecessors. If I had it first I would have been less tempted to build an outlaw. But I am glad I have both.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:34 pm 
356 Fan

Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:43 am
Posts: 29
Matthew Devereux wrote:
That is a hot little machine now Richard! I'm hoping an upgraded 1720 912 engine will be a noticeable step up from my '56 Super engine and it won't be cost much more than a stock rebuild. Perhaps I'll do EFI next winter which will really cross the line. Hopefully the car will still be fun to drive at close to legal speeds. I can't say that about my '95 Carrera. As I mentioned earlier the next step up (staying Porsche) is a big one to the tune of $10-25k+ more than a stock build depending on what you go for. Perhaps that makes more sense on a more expensive 356. I love the idea of an EFI Polo motor but if I was going to spend that $$$ I would upgrade my 993 motor which already has the chassis, gearbox and brakes to handle it. It would probably be a better track car then :)



Yes that should be nice. That's my point: you do that or go all the way to something like a 2.4.
Your car should perform well and be true to the spirit. Going beyond that starts getting very expensive and among the expensive alternatives I prefer the polo. (Wilhoits rebuild was close in price for example). I edited this as I can see there are other alternatives to a polo. I agree. I looked at all those but chose the polo due to: 1. I loved the idea of it; 2. It was unique; 3. Rod had built a few if them and everyone was really happy with them; 4. I liked the Porsche heritage even though as others point out it may not be direct of course; and 5. The specs were great and I wanted the displacement. Plus they sound awesome and familiar. Frankly they weren't much more expensive than many other alternatives. And I wanted a low stressed engine. I had it built with low end torque for street-ability in mind.

I really like 993's; the upgrade there is to the turbo! (Though personally I would leave the 993 pretty stock as it's a great car. I had a turbo)

Personally I chose not to do EFI as I wanted the look and sound and smell of carbs!


Last edited by Richard Emerson on Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:58 pm 
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 6985
Location: 30MI WEST OF PHILA
That 2400cc Polo makes very good power. Reading the other site it also says that it weighs 40 pounds more than a 616. It would be better if the dyno graph were not compressed top to bottom and not "smoothed" to level 5. I have done a lot of testing on the DynoJet dynos and this is not normally done. Those 2 actions make the graph lines much harder to read correctly as it hides dips and spikes. Regardless, 180 at the rear wheels is very good. The Polo does need lots of rpm to get there and makes considerably less torque than horsepower. Attached is crankshaft data from my 2133cc 616 which I built to a very mild state of tune. Note that it makes a lot of torque everywhere and horsepower peaks over 6000rpm. Maybe the 616 produces more power than people realize although 2133cc is as big as you can go with a 616. I would rather have the lighter engine that looks like it belongs in the car but there is nothing wrong with other people feeling differently.
Attachment:
dyno 1205.jpg
dyno 1205.jpg [ 363.32 KiB | Viewed 2462 times ]

_________________
'57 Speedster - very real
'59 Sunroof - mostly real
'60 Devin D Race Car-in process - fake chassis - real body
'63 GS 2133 coupe - very real
'67 S Original Owner - ultra real


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:16 pm 
356 Fan

Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:43 am
Posts: 29
That's nice too re your engine. Looks like a lot of fun.

Polos can now go to 2.6's, and with Rod's improvements much more power.
Mine was set up for low end (not sure how the dynoed one was)

Maybe I am just too proud of the engine so I shouldn't judge others. I had my choice and this is the direction I went. It looks really cool too.

Clearly you made a great choice too.

It is as light or close to what it replaced. The transmission does weigh more but handles more torque.


Last edited by Richard Emerson on Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:29 pm 
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 6985
Location: 30MI WEST OF PHILA
I don't know what a Polo weighs, I was just quoting the owner. Did you weigh the Polo against the 616? 900 rear suspension vs 356? Trans vs trans? It would be interesting to know the total weight increase.

_________________
'57 Speedster - very real
'59 Sunroof - mostly real
'60 Devin D Race Car-in process - fake chassis - real body
'63 GS 2133 coupe - very real
'67 S Original Owner - ultra real


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group