![]() |
|
|
|
Registered
|
3.0 Rebuild and Upgrade
In the middle of rebuilding my 1982 3.0 engine. Been searching/reading for hours about what upgrades I can do while I'm here, but still have questions. I decided against the 3.2SS because it turns into a several thousand dollar mod by the time you do it right.
Here is what I'm planning on doing. I am also open to suggestions. If someone could answer the questions that would be helpful. 9.8:1 Pistons 964 Cam Port intake to Euro Spec....which is?? 39mm? In regard to the cylinder head, is it simply the intake port that is larger? All other ports are the same as US motor? Euro "Runners" what exactly are the runners? How much do these cost? |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Nash County, NC.
Posts: 8,480
|
Intake port runners are the runners to the intake port, so youll need a full airbox and basically a complete 78/79 injection unit.
On top of this, you lll need a fuel distributor for the 9.8 pistons because the 78/79 injection fuel head is good for 8.5 to 8.7 CR. There are very few of these around. I would build stock with the cams and not worry about the rest because youre already at 9.3 CR. Bruce |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
So I can't run the 9.8:1 without the euro distributor?
|
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Essen, Germany
Posts: 192
|
Fuel
Higher static compressions means less fuel demand - 964 cams balance that out again, anyhow you have to adjust the CIS system anyhow.
I would start with the fuel head you have. Best reg. Dirk https://www.facebook.com/edelweissmotorsport |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
Dirk you saying do the 9.8, get the 964 cams, and my CIS will be fine just some adjustment required?
|
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Essen, Germany
Posts: 192
|
Fuel
Dear Garrett,
I would start this way - for sure you have to be very careful with the lambda values on max. load. They should be close to 0,88. The 964 cams need static compression - they work best with 10,5 : 1 or even more. And hold in mind the more static compression the better the fuel consumption. This is more or less a linear function up to a geometrical middle of 11,5 : 1 and from that point on you see a degression. So under the line nothing against 9,8 : 1 I would even say it is on the conservative side. There is a lot of info about how to modify the CIS system here at the pelican forum. It is not rocket science and good fun to play with. Best reg. Dirk https://www.facebook.com/edelweissmotorsport |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |