New Motor for my 69E

[domtoni]

Now my car is running well, I want more power.

I was thinking of a 3.0 SC motor with a modern fuel system.

Is this an easy installation with the 901 gearbox? To go with a low pressure fuel system, I presumably will need a new fuel pump, and an oil cooler.

Any words of wisdom?

Thanks
Dom

[Hoffmanmotors]

Im pretty sure the elders and die hards of the long hoods will chime in with "it will devalue the car"...

[domtoni]

I am aware that the car will be devalued, however, the job can be undone and the old engine etc re-installed in it.

Best
Dom

[GrantG]

Aside from devaluing the car, I'll chime in with the fact that the 2.0 E motor with MFI has alot of character. I'd consider keeping the MFI and increasing displacement a bit and perhaps going to a higher state of tune (ala "S"). A high-strung high-revving motor suits that car (and gearbox) very well, imho...

[domtoni]

Thanks Grant.

I don't want to chop up the 2.0. I want to keep it original.

Plenty of 2.4Ts exist, but uping one of these is expensive.

I thought a 3.0 engine (comes with an S cam) with a modern fuel system and perhaps a distributorless ignition would be ideal. Plenty of torque and RPM.

I wonder if any 2.4 S motors with good history are for sale?

Best
Dom

[RWebb]

build a 2.2 into a 2.5L
put in a 3 or better a 3.2L - they will need a conversion flywheel Kennedy sells these - think they may be made by Patrick - or is it the other way around

[Tom C.]

You will also need to replace that 901 trans with a 915 if you go to a 3 liter. Which means pounding out the trans tunnel to get the larger 915 to fit. Something you obviously can't undo later.

[Porsche_monkey]

I would bypass the 3.0 (and CIS) and go to a 3.2 w/ a 915.

[DW SD]

do it right. do it once. put a 3.6L in it. convert with an eye towards reversability. This is absolutely possible. Put your current engine in mothballs so it will work in another twenty years if your car is worth seven figures. In today's $, I personally don't think it will be worth even six figures, but you never know.

My 71 needed little to no massaging to clear the 915. This goes against conventional wisdom.

Doug

[BlueSideUp]

I agree with Doug. The 2.2 in my '70 is still going strong but it definitely smokes on decel and other indications of wear. I've started a fund to install a 3.2 or a 3.6 eventually (not sure on carbs vs. injection). As you mentioned it is more cost effective to install these later motors than rebuilding your original mag case engine for more performance.

I have a '74 915 in my 1970 911 and you can see where the tunnel had to be massaged. It doesn't look like anything severe but it's definitely there. I'll keep my 2.2 around and rebuild it eventually.

[domtoni]

Thanks guys.

My car is worth more here in the UK than it is in the states. I don't want to put a 915 box into the car if it means massaging the tunnel.

Might be best to look for a small motor, and I want to find something used.

But I would prefer to have EFI and a breakerless ignition system (no distributor).

Thanks
Dom

[jtf914]

Originally Posted by Tom C.

You will also need to replace that 901 trans with a 915 if you go to a 3 liter. Which means pounding out the trans tunnel to get the larger 915 to fit. Something you obviously can't undo later.

Why would he need to replace the 901? The 914 community here has dozens of 3.0's and 3.2's running with the 901 gearbox, that's what the Kennedy conversion flywheel is for...

-Justin

[shbop]

Doesn't the 71' 901 trans have a 225mm flywheel? Bingo

[jtf914]

Dom,

The search function show's quite a few 3.0's running a 901. Here's one example:

Opinion on 901 trans

I don't think you have a compatibility problem, but some question the strength of the 901 for running a 3.0.

Good Luck.

-Justin

[joetiii]

I have an upgraded 69 with stock 3.0SC , 911 trans & Electromotive ignition. I did not do the swap, but you can read about it here.

http://http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?t=367997

The car moves out much better than a 2.4T I drove. The 901s first gear is the weak link. If you plan on doing hole shots, then you should consider the 915. Otherwise, the 901 should be good for around 225 ft/lbs of torque.

[silverc4s]

Dom,
Some years ago, I was driving a 1969 T Targa, my first 911. After a year or so of getting used to it, I felt the need for MORE. You know the feeling, more revs, more low end, more mid range, more power, etc...

I was fortunate to find a freshly rebuilt 2,4L 911E engine and was able to swap out all my ancillaries, Webers, Heat exchangers, Fan, Alternator, flywheel, etc, and bolt it up to my old venerable 901 box.

What a transformation! I absolutely loved to drive the car again, and the power through the gears was dramatically changed. It also ran on regular fuel, with the 2.4's lowered compression.

This is a change you could do with a minimum of disruption to your car, and it would be just as easy (tho not as fun) to change back later...

Good luck, enjoy the trip, whatever you decide...

[domtoni]

Bill,

Started to look around for a 2.4E, but they are few and far between. 3.0s are cheap, and it sounds like they only need a flywheel to be adapted to the 901 box.

More on this later.

Best
Dom

[dezzmo]

Dom, I did a 3.2 swap in my 73T and it's well worth the time spent. There are no mods to the transmission tunnel if you wish to use a 915 gearbox. A G50, I believe so, but not a 915.

But you will have to drill a hole in the rear seat footwell area for the wiring harness. Very simple mod to do. C'mon, Dom, 3.2 swap, You can do it!

[Grady Clay]

Dom,

I generally support the philosophy of doing sensible modifications but retain the ability to return the car to exactly original.

While I’m all in favor of larger displacement and more modern technology (DME not CIS), I’m not in favor of the additional weight hung out back on a nice light early 911. If anything, I would choose to reduce engine (and trans) weight.

The issue with using a 901 (or 911) transmission is they have limited strength. I would not encourage using a 3.0 and larger. Will it work? Sure but there is great risk. If you have the later ’69 magnesium pressure cast 901/13, I would swap for an earlier 901 or the latest 911.

A 915 will fit in a LWB ’69-’71 with only a little massaging with P-1 (BFH). A 915 in a SWB needs the rear seat metal replaced.


Taking a late 2.4 engine (7R case) and building a 2.7 or 2.8 MFI, S-cam, twin plug has the most appeal to me. It is both lightweight and powerful. A 901/911 can handle the power and torque if you are careful.

You could take a 2.4T, convert to 2.7RS pistons and use your 2.0E MFI and cams. This would keep your MFI in service as MFI typically doesn’t like very long term storage. With a little work, the 8.5:1 RS pistons can be set at 9.1:1 CR – same as the 2.0E. You can convert the 2.4T MFI to 2.7RS configuration.

While heavier, the 3.0 and 3.2 have some serious advantages. Once rebuilt and the head stud issue dealt with they are almost ‘last forever’ engines. CIS isn’t in the same “fun” league with MFI.

I have a 2.8S MFI in my 914-6 and have had both a 2.8E and 2.8S MFI in my ’68. I can tell you first hand how much fun it is.

Best,
Grady

[curtisaa]

your 69E, is "what " it's suppose to be. If you want a 3 Liter car, buy an SC. More power is not the essence of what you've already purchased. It's your car, and obviously you will decide. You can have lots of fun with your car by giving it a great tune-up, give it great shocks, do a few suspension upgrades and go have a blast !!! Have fun !!!