2.4L to 3.0L Conversion?

Im going to rebuild my 2.4 CIS and was thinking of converting it to a 3.0L. Can this be done by just putting 3.0L P/Cs or do I need to have the heads redone? Will I need to purchase a 2.4 or a 3.0 gasket set? Which cams to use? Any advise and insights on this matter is appreciated. Thanks guys.

IMHO you can't take a 2.4 motor to 3.0 they use a different case,cranks,P/C's they are basicly two differnt motors.

Randy Jones
1971 911
3.0 1983 SC engine

Andial has some 2.9 conversion P/C's for 2.4 engines, but a used 3.0 SC engine is probably a cheaper way to go! Andial prices will make you wonder if the pistons are solid gold!
Your conversion work is probably not worth the trouble to stay with the CIS system ... the best you could hope for is about 180 hp with your early exhaust ... all USA SC's were rated at 172 hp net SAE! With the trouble of all of the machine work associated with a rebuild/conversion, it would seem to be more worthwhile to go to Webers and a hotter set of cams! And, conversion to 2.7 is a lot more realistic and less costly than 2.9, perhaps enough to allow Weber's and cams for essentially the same price, or cost of components!

------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa

my 74 911 s is currently at andial getting the 2.9 upgrade and after riding in another andial built 2.9 74 i would strongly recommend the upgrade. it has gobs of tourque and i believe is worht the expense.

jim

Warrens suggestion is well taken. Do the math. A 2.9 CIS will not get you more power than a 3.0 CIS with comparable exhaust and cams. A 2.7 rebuild of your motor with carbs and more aggressive cams will beat the 2.9 or 3.0 CIS (And to echo Warren one more time. You can get 2.7 P+C's and carbs for what you would pay for the 2.9 P+C's.)
Bobby

[This message has been edited by Bobboloo (edited 10-20-2000).]

Whoa! Guys, check out the profile. This guy has to deal with the smog issue. I'm not aware of the parameters that he can work within, but it is limited. Pretty much has too be something that is stock at least visually or from a newer vehicle and meets the appropriate standards. Or he could move. How about a T.J. reg?

Dan Smith

If 74 or newer, has to both appear "stock" (as if most testing station inspectors know what a stock 25 year old Porsche FI system really looks like) as well as pass the rather stringent dyno based tests we now have here.

Then again, it might be a 73 1/2 T CIS, essentially anything goes as no inspections are required.

[This message has been edited by campbellcj (edited 10-20-2000).]

He stated that it was a 73.5 CIS 'T' engine, and my assumption was that one that old would not be subject to the 'visual' authenticity 'test' ... but the smog cops are changing some of the rules as we 'speak' ... and it will only get worse if Gore gets to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in January!!! Which is something I would strongly not like to see!

------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa

Sorry guys. I guess that I still carry a bit of parenoia regarding the Smog goons and the EPA. So, Californians, is it correct that 73 model year and back is exempt from all smog stuff? Is that ALREADY owned or including TITLE transfer? That is one reason I have my little place in northern Michigan. Cars older than 1984 are registered by weight and the old 911s are $29 per year. Anyhow, on the with mods!

73' and earlier is smog exempt in California. I think smog laws are a good thing though. They helped clean the air. (I live in LA and I appreciate that.) They also pushed the car makers into designing more efficient motors ie. EFI and quattro valve designs. A good thing for all. The cut off date allows us to keep are classic not so efficient cars though. Hey Warren I hope dogging Gore doesn't mean your pro Bush. As I have always held your opinions in high esteem. I know you live in Texas but geez that guy gives me the creeps.

Careful, boys! Intelligent, thoughtful people can disagree vigorously on matters of religion and politics. Obviously.

I will go so far as to say this: Political candidates are generally disappointing compared to the many capable people we can name in our personal and professional lives. (understatement or what?) And wouldn't it be nice if the skills needed to be a successful politician were the same skills required for making sound public policy decisions and changes? They seem mutually exclusive to me. I'm going to vote for the least bad presidential candidate. Like usual.

------------------
'83 SC