My 911 is from 1968. Is it a T-model?

[hasse]

Hi,

My car is from 1968, it is imported from CA USA.

To me it seems to be a 911T, cause there were no front SWB.

But I have read that the T model was not sold in USA this particular year.

The engine is modified with 83,45 bore, and fitted with S-camshafts.

Some papers from previous owners said the type was "Porsche 911 S66", but this gives no meaning to me. Can anyone decrypt the following numbers?

Chassis: 11835104

Engine: 3280692

Thanks!

WBR

Hans/Norway

[Loren]

:welcome:

Perhaps this will help.

A summary of MY1968 models...

[hasse]

Thanks Loren! But I'm not quite sure how to read it.

Well, the chassis number starts with "118", but i thought "3" said something about engine type? 5104 is the serial number, I guess. Or does it mean (by "35") that it originally was a 911L with sportomatic (row 21 from top)? Engine: 3280692 - Possible to see if this matching the chassis?

[JoeReid]

Hans,

Your engine number indicates that it was a 130 HP (911 as opposes to a 911S) which is also known as a Normal engine that became the 911E with the addition of Bosch mechanical fuel injection the following year. The 911T engines, for which I do not have engine numbers in 1968, used cast aluminum pistons and cast iron cylinders as opposed to forged aluminum pistons and biral cylinders in the 130 HP engine, a milder cam profile and smaller venturies with different jetting in their Weber carburetors. The only 2 liter 911T engines that I am familiar with have engine numbers starting with 619 but i believe that the second digit indicates 911T=1, 911=2 and 911S+3. The third digit indicated the model year so if your engine number started with 618 that would denote a 1968 911T. This is only an educated guess backed by many years of experience with 356, 912 and early 911s. I hope this helps.

Some trivia that you might be interested in indicates that the original 901 (911 and 911S and 911T) engine crank cases were made of aluminum. Starting near the end of the 1968 production year they switched to cases made of magnesium because the magnesium was easier to machine and cast although not as strong as the aluminum. In 1978 they went back to aluminum cases because by that time the displacement had increased from 2 liters to 3 liters and the magnesium was not strong enough the handle the increase in torque and horsepower. You can tell the material from which your case is cast by counting the exhaust valve cover studs and nuts. 6 indicates aluminum and 11 were used on the magnesium engines.

Joe Reid

Hi,

My car is from 1968, it is imported from CA USA.

To me it seems to be a 911T, cause there were no front SWB.

But I have read that the T model was not sold in USA this particular year.

The engine is modified with 83,45 bore, and fitted with S-camshafts.

Some papers from previous owners said the type was "Porsche 911 S66", but this gives no meaning to me. Can anyone decrypt the following numbers?

Chassis: 11835104

Engine: 3280692

Thanks!

WBR

Hans/Norway

[hasse]

Thanks Joe,

This was really interesting.

When the previous owner restored the engine in 2002, the piston rings was replaced. The engine is fitted with some strange pistons, type Arias "318SS". As far as I know, this is a US manufacturer of pistons - but I don't think they do Porsche these days.

I have some photos taken during the restoration - by the previous owner. The cylinders did not look rusty at all, so I guess they aren't made of forged iron.

If you mean the head cover nuts, it is 6 of them. But if it is the below cover, I am unable to check it now, cause the car is now stored away for the winter.

Anyway, do you think my engine is well suited for a cylider upgrade? The idea is to replace the original cylinders with 2,2S spec Nickasil cylinders or similar - if possible. Or will the crankshaft be too weak - or need for balancing? I am aware that the cylinder heads must be machined out, and the chain/housing maybe needs to be suited - but my hope is to do this upgrade without splitting the engine block. I hope this will give less blue smoke, and a tighter and more powerful engine. Today, it is quick enough - but smoky...

[M_DAVIDSON]

Assuming I am reading it correctly, "The Porsche Book" by Boschen & Barth (1977) shows the 1968 (listed as starting in 1967) 911 models with 11835xxx numbers as non-US (normal) Karman-built coupes. The 3280692 engine number is shown as a US 901/14 engine.

The only 1968-model T-engines shown have numbers of the form 208xxxx. The T-chassis had serial numbers 11820xxx (Coupes), 11825xxx (K-coupes), and 11870xxx (Targas).

Mel

[70Sixter]

Anyway, do you think my engine is well suited for a cylider upgrade? The idea is to replace the original cylinders with 2,2S spec Nickasil cylinders or similar - if possible.

I replaced my 2.0 T P&C with 2.0 Es in my -6. Very straightforward.

I am almost certain 2.2 would require machining. But why stop there? 90mm P&C also require machining and give you a 2.5L with the existing crank. No more stressful than a 2.0S, I'd say. Maybe a bit more rotating mass, but I don't think it exceeds the crank's ability to handle.

You really want to breath better add the E (or S) heads and E cams. And a E dizzy to put it to better use.

[dial911]

In 1968 there were "911's" and also "911 L's" for import into the USA. They were 2 liter. The 911L was like the 911 'S' but without the 'S' engine (which did not meet USA emission laws). You may well have a 911 without any letter prefix. I don't think the "T" was imported into the USA in 1968. The stock engine had an aluminum case (very strong) and cylinders with cast iron inserts. There is nothing wrong with the cast iron liners and you can actually hone them and just install new rings, unlike the later coated cylinders. The was an air pump installed in 1968 (smog pump) and if it is gone (most likely) you will find the holes plugged up into the heads where the air lines went originally.

A good running 2 liter is a strong performer. The webers had no choke, so you had to pump some gas into them to get them going. The big problem was rust, as the factory merely undercoated these cars and did not even paint the bottoms. The undercoating was a poor product and did not protect well. They also had the short wheelbase.

Bye,

Dave