|
|
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: La Habra Hts, CA
Posts: 837
|
Need Cam Timing Specs
Okay, I searched but it's the proverbial needle in a haystack. So, here's my plea for help...
I have a 69 911T. The engine was rebuilt with 2.2 "S" pistons, 2.7 "S" crank and rods, and "E" cams. I don't know what year the cams came from but I have never heard of a different range of specs for the "E" cam. Does anybody out there know what the ideal cam timing for this engine should be? Thanks! |
||
06-21-2004, 09:08 PM
|
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Wilmington, NC USA
Posts: 635
|
I would use the cam timing for an E engine 3-3.3mm overlap. Essentially you have a 2.4 L engine. 84 mm bore , 70.4 mm stoke but probably with more compression than the stock 2.4 l engine.. The 69 had a 80 mm bore and 66 mm stroke. the 2.2 had 84 mm bore and 66 mm stroke. Your S pistons have more valve cutout than an E piston would so you may want to experiment with more overlap and see if it gets you anything in the way of hp or torque. The S spec overlap with S cams was 5mm so i would think thatyou have some room to play with if you want. Have fun.
__________________
69 911 2.3Ez 85 928S |
||
|
06-22-2004, 11:02 AM
|
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: La Habra Hts, CA
Posts: 837
|
This info is great and makes perfect sense. I knew I could count on someone from the board.
Thanks for the help! |
||
|
06-22-2004, 11:12 AM
|
|
|
I would rather be driving
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,108
|
I bet that is a screamer of an engine. Those 2.2S pistons were 9.8:1 with the 66mm crank. you are well above 10.5:1 with that 70.4mm crank. I just hope they opened the heads on that 2.0T motor for you to take advantage of it.
__________________
Jamie - I can explain it to you. But I can not understand it for you. 71 911T SWT - Sun and Fun Mobile 72 911T project car. "Minne" - A tangy version of tangerine #projectminne classicautowerks.com - EFI conversion parts and suspension setups. IG Classicautowerks |
||
|
06-22-2004, 12:01 PM
|
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: La Habra Hts, CA
Posts: 837
|
Yeah, it runs pretty good for a 2.4...
0-60 about six seconds flat and 14.5 in the 1/4 mile (car is only 2150 pounds which definitely helps!). Thanks again for the help! David |
||
|
06-23-2004, 11:55 AM
|
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: TX USA
Posts: 9,804
|
Well ... there were different timing specs used over the years for the 'E' engines, unlike the early 'S' cams!
Here are the '72 - '73 2.4E specs ... 
__________________
Warren Hall, Jr. 1973 911S Targa ... 'Annie' 1968 340S Barracuda ... 'Rolling Thunder' |
||
|
06-23-2004, 12:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: La Habra Hts, CA
Posts: 837
|
I have this book for 1970-71 but I didn't have the data you gave me. I think they are the same but it's good to confirm. Thanks!
|
||
|
06-23-2004, 12:27 PM
|
|
|
Registered
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Peoples Republic of Long Beach, NY
Posts: 21,140
|
Quote:
I timed to 3.1.. the differences may have been due to smog.
__________________
Ronin LB '77 911s 2.7 PMO E 8.5 SSI Monty MSD JPI w x6 |
||
|
06-23-2004, 02:20 PM
|
|
