2.7 CIS inj. on a 3.2?

[safe]

I have been looking for a "new" engine for a while and yesterday I bought a 3.2 -85 long block.

I don't have the money for an induction system yet, but couldn't I use the CIS from my -77 2.7?
It wouldn't be optimal but better than nothing.

From what I read the 2.7 CIS have slightly bigger intake runners and throttle body than the 204 hp 80-83 3 liter, so it shouldn't be that bad, right?
I'm guessing that the CIS system will compensate for the displacement increasement, up to a point. Should I do something to help it?

I'm also planing to use the distributor from my 2.7 as the 3.2 doesn't have any mechanical advance.

Does this sound crazy you guys?

[Henry Schmidt]

The intake runner on the 2.7 are the same size as the US version of the 80-83 3.0 SC.
The large runners were only on the 78-79 US version and all the euro 3.0 systems.
You will also need to make some sort of adapter plate to mate a CIS intake runner to a 3.2 head.
The 2.7 distributor has the wrong gear to make the 2.7 a direct replacement for a 3.2.
If you have a Euro 3.2 or late 3.2 the advance curve in the 2.7 distributor is also totally inappropriate.

[safe]

Originally Posted by Henry Schmidt

The intake runner on the 2.7 are the same size as the US version of the 80-83 3.0 SC.
The large runners were only on the 78-79 US version and all the euro 3.0 systems.
You will also need to make some sort of adapter plate to mate a CIS intake runner to a 3.2 head.
The 2.7 distributor has the wrong gear to make the 2.7 a direct replacement for a 3.2.
If you have a Euro 3.2 or late 3.2 the advance curve in the 2.7 distributor is also totally inappropriate.

Adapter plate, that was news to me, why?

I have the 3.2 distributor so I can swap the gear, right?

Yes, its a euro 3.2, so I guess the distributor needs recurving then or are there any better option?

[safe]

Originally Posted by safe

Adapter plate, that was news to me, why?

A search didn't help much, but:

Is it because the intake on the 3.2 head is shorter than on my 2.7 and because I need to make a smooth transition from the smaller runners to the bigger ports, right?
Basically a spacer with a tapered ID?

[Henry Schmidt]

You need an adapter because the port shapes are different enough to cause a leak when attempting to join them.
You might in theory find that a step transition (small to large) is beneficial to low end performance so a "[i][b]smooth transition from the smaller runners to the bigger ports" really is not an issue.

PMO makes a plastic manifold insulator that might work for you application.

[safe]

OK, I'll look into the PMO insulators.

You say that the 2.7 advance curve are inappropriate, do you have a suggestion for an appropriate curve if I have it re curved?

Thanks for your input Henry!