95mm 3.0 SC Pistons & cylinders in 2.2T?

[RobFrost]

Hi, I'm new.

Is there any reason why I can't take 1983 US Spec 3.0SC Alusil 95mm pistons and cylinders and swap them into a 2.2T engine?

Looking for a bit more low-down torque.

[Flat6pac]

Stud spacing is too small.
2.7/2.8 is your limit but you need 2.4/2.7 crank and rods to get there
Way better off with a 3.0 to make power
Bruce

[RobFrost]

Originally Posted by Flat6pac

Stud spacing is too small.
2.7/2.8 is your limit but you need 2.4/2.7 crank and rods to get there
Way better off with a 3.0 to make power
Bruce

Thanks for the advice. I want to stay with the matching numbers engine case, even if the insides might be beefed up a bit. The 95mm pistons came up cheap so I thought it worth asking.

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally Posted by RobFrost

Hi, I'm new.

Is there any reason why I can't take 1983 US Spec 3.0SC Alusil 95mm pistons and cylinders and swap them into a 2.2T engine?

Looking for a bit more low-down torque.

If you had a 2.7 (7R) vs 2.2 93R) case your could make them fit. Although it is kind of ugly, stud spacing and spigot size on the cylinder can be modified....

[RobFrost]

Originally Posted by Henry Schmidt

If you had a 2.7 (7R) vs 2.2 93R) case your could make them fit. Although it is kind of ugly, stud spacing and spigot size on the cylinder can be modified....

Thanks Henry.

Sorry for being slow, but what does "2.7 (7R) vs 2.2 93R) case" mean exactly?

I was hoping with my current block I would just need the 70.4 rods and bigger (6 bolt) crank to make the 2.7 pistons & cylinders work. I can see the new stud holes in your pic. Would that work or would it also need head work / compression ratio problems / change of block?

I'm on Webers so I assume those can be re-jetted to suit.

Thanks. Rob

[SBell]

Originally Posted by RobFrost

Thanks Henry.



Sorry for being slow, but what does "2.7 (7R) vs 2.2 93R) case" mean exactly?



I was hoping with my current block I would just need the 70.4 rods and bigger (6 bolt) crank to make the 2.7 pistons & cylinders work. I can see the new stud holes in your pic. Would that work or would it also need head work / compression ratio problems / change of block?



I'm on Webers so I assume those can be re-jetted to suit.



Thanks. Rob

The 2.7(7R) case has extra ribbing and reinforcement to make it stronger than the previous 2.2 or 2.4 cases. As for the head work, CR, etc., I'll leave that to Henry.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[djpateman]

If you look at your case halves in the area of the oil return tube holes you will see the casting numbers 901 101 10x yR. x is 1 or 2 depending on the case half, and y is the revision #. As each revision increased there were improvements to that case half. The revision # for each case half do not always match. 7R was the last iteration of the revisions for the 901 series. While the first engines (1965 to 1968) were aluminum and very strong, subsequent engines were magnesium; lighter but not as strong and often need a lot of machining to bring back to spec for a proper rebuild. After the 7R cases they returned to aluminum to get cases strong enough for the 3.0 engines with the higher output potential.
Even within the 2.2 engines there were case differences with the piston squirters added in 1971.
A lot of guys find that just installing a complete 3.0 engine is better than trying to get the same performance from a modified 2.2 case. But then you will have to consider the additional cost of clutch and perhaps transmission if you go over 2.5 L. The entire transmission was redesigned for the 2.4 engines to handle the torque. The 911 transmission from 70 &71 was essentially the same as the 914 transmission, and I have a couple of broken mainshafts from the 914 with 1.7 engine where first gear has broken off completely. Modifying the chassis to fit a later transmission would be required. Do you see the slippery slope that you are staring at?

[RobFrost]

Originally Posted by djpateman

Do you see the slippery slope that you are staring at?

I assume adding modern tyres and wider than original only increases that risk... so no wheel spins for me then.

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally Posted by RobFrost

Thanks Henry.

Sorry for being slow, but what does "2.7 (7R) vs 2.2 93R) case" mean exactly?

93R) is (3R). I just missed the shift button.

Originally Posted by RobFrost

I was hoping with my current block I would just need the 70.4 rods and bigger (6 bolt) crank to make the 2.7 pistons & cylinders work. I can see the new stud holes in your pic. Would that work or would it also need head work / compression ratio problems / change of block?

Your original question was about 1983 US Spec 3.0SC Alusil 95mm pistons and cylinders s on your 2.2 case.
2.7 cylinders are 90mm and have the same stud spacing.
I'm not really sure what you are asking? Can you use 2.2 heads on a 90 cylinder? yes
It's very hard for me to follow your question. You can install 90mm cylinders on a 2.2 case but I caution against it. Once the spigots are bored the cylinder mounting surface becomes very thin. Case, cylinder and head stability is important for engine life.

Originally Posted by RobFrost

I'm on Webers so I assume those can be re-jetted to suit.

Thanks. Rob

Yes