Rebuild a 2.4 or install a 3.0?

[DCOP]

My 2.2 is starting to get tired and it's time to start planning my T's future. I definitely want to increase the power. A well known shop in Maine suggested I find a 2.4 long block and do a rebuild to E specs. They assured me that it would be a worth while investment and less hassel than installing a 3.0, if I could find a good one? My desire is to go with a 3.0 conversion however engines are hard to come by out here on the east coast and I'm concerned that I won't be able to locate a good used one. Are there any good contacts in the Boston or New England area that you know of that may lead me to a 3.0? All comments appreciated.

[RickM]

Why not a 3.2? I'll bet the price difference is minimal and you'll get a newer engine and benefit of the Motronic setup.

NOTE(As I know someone will jump on me here)

Get the engine in best condition for the money.

[Jack Olsen]

It's generally in a shop's self-interest to suggest a rebuild. There's more labor billed that way, which means more money going toward the shop and its overhead, where a swap means thousands going to the engine seller, and not them.

At the same time, a shop can more reliably stand behind the quality of its own work, in the case of a rebuild -- where a swapped motor might fail, leaving a customer mad over a factor the shop couldn't control.

[Rot 911]

I would skip the 3.0 conversion and either do some type of rebuild or go with the 3.2 conversion. The first couple of things I would like to know is what do you mean by "tired" and what is your budget for a rebuild/conversion?

[Bill Verburg]

I would buy a right priced 3.2, rebuild it to your specs, then swap it in.

[dd74]

I wouldn't be so quick to "skip" the 3.0 conversion based solely on the condition of your transaxle. There is a difference in torque between the 3.0 and 3.2, and though most will say your 901 can handle a 3.2's torque, it also depends on how hard you drive the car as a whole.

3.0s do not have the associated rod problems of the 3.2s, and Motronic, while nice, has complexities that aren't in CIS.

On the plus side of a 3.2, it does have more power, and the prices have been falling on them as the 3.6 conversion grows more popular. But falling 3.2 prices mean 3.0s have probably grown cheaper as well.

[hbf]

Call Rob at dcAutomotive in Bridgeport CT.

Every time that I go there - which is way too often - he has one or two motors in stock. I am sure he will be glad to look out for one for you.

He is available on the phone so call him and talk.

He has a website too. Get his number there:

http://www.dcautomotive.com/

[tkrefeld]

I could be wrong, but I believe with the gearing of your car a 3.0 would be an absolute rocket. I know in the early 911(pre74) 915 it can be as fast as a factory 3.6 993.

[RickM]

Quote: "3.0s do not have the associated rod problems of the 3.2s, and Motronic, while nice, has complexities that aren't in CIS."

Please stop the "3.2 is inferior to the 3.0" because of the "Rod" bolt problems, valve guides and complex Motronic.

CIS may be less complicated but that opens up a whole host of other issues and parts that can fail. My experience has been less that stellar with CIS systems.

For the record I'd like to know how many people have Rod bolt problems with their 3.2s.

I also dont see any mention to the well documented updates that the 3.0 will require.

I'm not trying to start a war but I'm tired of seeing the 3.2 knocked for what seem to be over-advertised urban legends.

[Silveresrty911S]

Right on Rick!

No rod bolt problems or valve guide wear here at 120,000 with 1/2 quart oil every 3,000 mile and no smoke. Just simple maintenance and a Steve Wong chip make me smile every time I'm in her

[dd74]

Don't get defensive 3.2 boys. After all, I did state they have more power and torque, right?

Yes, rod bolts and valve guides all lie within parameters of how hard the engine is driven and its maintenance. Urban legend? Probably so. It's the same way I feel about the need for oil-fed tensioners - could be urban legend...

[chuckw951]

Originally posted by DCOP
My 2.2 is starting to get tired and it's time to start planning my T's future. I definitely want to increase the power. A well known shop in Maine suggested I find a 2.4 long block and do a rebuild to E specs. They assured me that it would be a worth while investment and less hassel than installing a 3.0, if I could find a good one? My desire is to go with a 3.0 conversion however engines are hard to come by out here on the east coast and I'm concerned that I won't be able to locate a good used one. Are there any good contacts in the Boston or New England area that you know of that may lead me to a 3.0? All comments appreciated.

What would you be using for induction on the rebuilt motor? The 70 911T had carbs right? Webers? So those would be fine with 2.4 with E specs or would they need to be modified/tuned? Would rebuilding a 2.4 long block to E specs require new P&Cs...those can be expensive. When it's all said and done a rebuilt motor could cost just as much as a transplant...depends on the definition of "rebuild." Heck if you your on your way to a rebuilt 2.4 with E specs why not a 2.7 RS spec motor with carbs? Couldn't cost that much more right?

You can find 3.0 motors on the east coast...I second calling Rob in CT. I was talking to him not too long ago and he said he had a good SC motor. Keep in mind though that a good used SC motor today could need attention 10K miles from now...you never know when those pesky headstuds are going to snap...the youngest SC motor is 20 years old now. A used 3.2 motor could break too...risk you take on a used motor I suppose.

In my mind the benefit to rebuilding it yourself (or having it rebuilt under your supervision) is that you'll know what you have when you're done. In my case I knew I was essentially getting a core motor that would need some attention on the top end. I thought the CIS would work but in the end carbs were easier (which brings up the issue of fuel management with an SC motor you'll need a different fuel pump and return line to the tank). If you go with the SC motor I recommend a 78/79 motor as they had the bigger intake ports (though I suppose you'll need to consider your carb manifolds) and they don't have the 02 brain box thing which means there's one less thing to deal with in terms of the CIS. If you get a 78/79 be sure to update the oil sump screen. My 78 motor lost oil pressure on the autocross course during an extended sharp turn...apparently the early SC motors did that and if you don't have oil pressure long enough then kaboom (that's what happened to my first motor.)

I'm a big fan of late-motor-into-early-car swaps. I think I would be tempted by a 3.2 install in this case...they don't cost too much more that the 3.0 motors. But make no mistake when you get into the swaps things can get complicated. You may need different sensors for the gauges or a different tach. Does your 70T have an oil cooler? With a bigger motor you'll want one of those too, right?

Hmmm. I'm rambling now. Let us know what you decide.

[skinnerd]

you'll like either a 3.0 or a 3.2
just get the one with the least miles (or closest since being rebuilt)
either engine will seem like a rocket sled compared to what you're currently driving
the added bonus is that you should be able to do it for less than a stock rebuild on the 2.2.... with the bonus of much more hp/torque
go for it... that's my recommendation
you won't be sorry

[Jeff Alton]

I you don't over rev your 3.2 you should not have rod bolt problems.
Simple.

Jeff

[Schuey]

I'd go the 2.4, it's more period correct...those 2.4's can haul as well...otherwise go with a 3.0...they're bullet proof...

[Dan Morton]

I went through this same exercise over a year ago with my tired 2.2T. I decided to have my engine rebuilt using S pistons and E cams and am very satisfied with my decision. I had a shop do everything and it ended up costing around $7k which included new Mahle P's & C's.

You can definitely do an engine swap for a bit less but the way I saw it was I would spend close to $6k with an engine swap (installed and running) and would get a used engine that would most likely not last as long as a new rebuilt 2.2 although not guaranteed of course. I would always be wondering if the used engine was going to last and that would bother me a lot more than running on a rebuilt engine.

I would have loved to do a 3.6 but the cost is way high and then would need to start upgrading suspension and brakes to keep up with the power. More money than I was willing to spend.

Definitely buy Wayne's engine rebuild book too, it has lots of options for upgrading engines.

Good luck!
-Dan

[tobluforu]

I took my 2.4 and raised it to 2.7rs w\e cams. My girlfriends room mate at the time had a 73 w\a 3.0 motor. My car was faster. I would go to a 3.2 or higher or rebuild a 2.4.

[RickM]

If you go the 3.0 or 3.2 transplant route you'd ideally want to see the engine running in the donor car. It's not impossible to find this kind of deal but tough. The more you can verify the better.

[ChrisBennet]

I think the 2.4 route sounds like the wisest choice. If you go with a 3.0 or 3.2 you will be going with a used motor that could have problems in a year and you'd be in the same boat as you are now. I suspect you'll need a different clutch arrangement as well.
I worked on a couple of mag case 915's mated to 3.0's last winter and they both exhibited case problems (loose bearings). If the stronger 915 cases aren't up to the stress of a 3.0 I'd suspect your 911 transmission would be even less happy.
But hey, if you want an '89 3.2+DME I'll might have one for sale next month... (Please, don't anybody else ask about this motor yet.)
-Chris

[chuckw951]

My 3.0 mated to a 70/71 transmission uses the standard 70/71 clutch package. The bad news was that the clutch package was like $600 or something...for some reason they are more expensive than the rest.

Regarding the strength of the 901 (or 911) transmission. My understanding is that they hold up well around 200hp so long as you don't beat up on first gear. The 914 guys use them for 914-6 or [gasp] V8 conversions right? Guess I'll find out how durable they really are shortly.