2.2 T Engine upgrade help
 

Hey looking for some ideas on best upgrade possible for this engine. Looking for ideas ... share your thoughts and stories. Budget reflects how much this will make me smile when done.

Buy a 3.0-3.2. Sell your 2.2

How many miles are on it now, how long have you owned it, etc. Do you want to keep it (original engine) or start with something else?

Budget: Start with some idea. $20,000? $30,000+? "Best possible" can be $40,000+.

Starting with a 3.0 or 3.2 engine will improve the dollars to smiles ratio.

For a budget : Make an E , E cams , pistons and cylinders and distributor . A 3.0 or 3.2 Will not work well with a '71 transmission . If you want a 3.0 , sell the car and buy a 911 SC .

Or put a 915 tranny in it.

I've faced this same dilemma twice with my own cars, in the last few years. Once with a 69T and the other a 71T.
The decision was easy. Maintaining matching numbers being important, I chose what I call the 2450. 70.4 x 86mm.
The choice is easy because you get rid of the non-counter weighted crank and the 86mm cylinder slips into the case without machine work.
The formula I chose was 36mm intake port, 9.5:1 compression and a Mod "S" cam.
All told this formula creates a 180 RWHP rocket.
Easy to drive with the Mod "S" cam making hp as low as 2800 and 180hp@ 6400.
Super wide power band and incredibly fun to drive.
Cost, 2.4/2.7 crank, (relatively inexpensive), AA 86 MM (9.5:1 forged pistons) relatively inexpensive, porting is easy on these heads, and the expensive part is the billet cams.
The other option is the Mod Solex cams which can be ground on a set of stock "E: cams.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1765122490.JPG
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1765122647.JPG

A recent build was 2.2 T, 2.4/2.7 crank and rods, trimmed pistons to clear counterbalances on the crank, giving about 9.3 cr, E cam grind on the T cams. Can’t be any more budget than that.
Bruce

That does sound like a budget build but two issue seem evident:
Putting the "E" profile on a "T" cam leaves a base circle that is ridiculously small and challenges the rocker geometry as well as adjuster loading/angle.
What pistons did you use to make 9.3:1. All early factory pistons were optimistic on their advertised compression. 2.2 pistons advertise 8.6:1 but they spec out closer to 8.1:1
Putting a 2.2T piston on a 70.4mm crank will yield something closer to 8.5:1 actual 8.47:1
All of that will work but those compromises won't yield what most drivers want.
One saving grace is that you could probably run "regular" gas.

Hi Henry. Did you stick with Zeniths or some other induction?

Over the years we have tried to make Zenith carburetors work on higher performance applications with very little success. Both of the engines in my cars ran Weber, 40IDAs.
The challenge with the Zeniths is jetting. Some jetting from the early 40P11 Solexs are interchangeable but you end up trying to make verturis, reaming out jets and blocking off idle air bypass circuits.

For maximum smiles per gallon, forced induction is the way to go.

Do you have a specific horsepower goal in mind for your engine, so we can determine the most cost-effective build path?

There's a great idea (sarcasm implied) .....install a turbo on a 2.2 T engine. Cast iron cylinders (horrible heat transfer), small oil pump (oil cooled engine), low quality crank, carburetors and no auxiliary cooler.
What part of that screams "TURBO"?

Look at the earlier posted and you'll see the most cost effective ways to proceed.

...and magnesium case. When Porsche decided to do a turbo, they designed a whole new aluminum case, cylinders, pistons, crank, rods, oil pump, squirters, etc. The magnesium case alloy will not take that additional heat and pounding.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1765494302.png


A single post, and the name "ALEXA"...

surely not?

"Aleksa"
and yet, look at all the fun we're having. Some of the advice might fall on serious ears.

Actually, the 3.0 Turbo (75-77), used the same crank, rods and oil pump as the 2.4/2.7 na engines
The 934 (steel street rods) and early 935 (titanium rods) used a race version of the 6 bolt, 70.4 crank.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1765569078.jpg

Jim, thanks for the correction and additional detail. I will note that they changed those parts fairly quickly, as the engines increased in power. They probably also wanted to use up the parts already in inventory.