1969 Vs 1978 Engine

Capt. Crunch · 08:18 AM

Good day all-

I'm about to begin engine work on my 1969 LWB car (X-912). I recently bought a "rebuilt" 1969 engine with everything but carbs and the muffler. It has the 5 blade fan and a black shroud which makes me wonder about the rebuild.

I just placed the engine on a stand this weekend and next weekend I plan to start with a leak down test. The plan was to tear it down if the leak down showed some high numbers.

Does anyone have specs to this: 901.105.11. OR

Here's my dilemma, I very recently found a 1978 SC with 249,000 miles. All the gears work, but the engine sounds like something is knocking inside. It does leak some oil in the rear. The interior is shot, but the rest on the car is intact. What could that be? This ugly little guy might run me 3K.

Should I rebuild the 3.0 or rebuild the '69 engine if it requires a rebuild?

Cheers,

Capt. Crunch

kenikh · 06-19-2006, 09:45 AM

Tell us about the '69 motor. It must be a 2.0 and sounds like it has carbs not MFI (since you didn't mention it). Which cams does it run? Which P/Cs are in it? A non 'S' 2.0 isn't a quick motor.

Since rebuild costs are typically similar regardless of motor displacement, I'd do the 3.0 unless you are married to the original motor. I like hot small bore motors, but I would bet you'd be happier with the 3.0 in the long run. To get a 2.0 to sporting condition will be more expensive than rebuilding the 3.0. To get a 2.0 near the 200 HP of the 3.0 costs cubic dollars. Ask me how I know...

911pcars · 06-19-2006, 10:45 AM

An 11-blade fan was standard in '69. Sounds like a 5-blade fan was substituted. Got any pics?

Rebuilding each engine will require about the same amount of funding depending on what must be replaced/rebuilt. That said, I'd go with bigger cubic inches.

Sherwood

jluetjen · jluetjen's Garage

BTW - the number that you listed is NOT the engine type. To find that, follow the right side of the fan shroud down to the crank-case. There will be a flat surface with a few numbers listed. Specifically there will be the engine type (in the case of a '69, it will be 901/??) and a 7-digit serial number. Starting with the 2.2's the engine type number will be 911/??. That should tell us how the engine started life. The 5-blade fan already calls into question what was done to it since it was originally built.

Do you know who did the "rebuild"?

Capt. Crunch · 06-19-2006, 09:09 PM

Hey Fellas-

I don't know much about the rebuild. The gaskets look like they are new, but I have no idea if it was done right. I am going to give it a leak down test this saturday. I think i might get the SC and take the suspension and rebuild that engine. It does seem silly to rebuild a 2.0L. I am not married to anything with mechanical parts!

The number near the crank case is 6190745. What the heck is this engine?

What will the rebuild run on the 3.0L engine?

Cheers,

Capt. Crunch

Wayne 962 · Wayne 962's Garage

1969 was generally not a good year for 911 engines. It's one of the first years for the weaker magnesium cases, and the intermediate shaft rides without bearings, which causes wear problems in the case. I would recommend avoiding the '69 engines, unless you want 100% originality.

-Wayne

CliffBrown · 06-20-2006, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Capt. Crunch

The number near the crank case is 6190745. What the heck is this engine?

Cheers,

Capt. Crunch

The numbers say it's a '69T motor.

If you pass on the SC let me know, I'm interested.

kenikh · 06-20-2006, 08:11 AM

Like I said, a '69T is an economy motor in my opinion. Great gas mileage, terrible performance. If you want performance, rebuild the SC motor. Price will depend on whether you do it your self or not and how many high performance parts you add to it.