Need some feedback. . . 2.2 with carbs

[Winter]

OK, so my car has a 2.2 with Weber carbs.

Someone looked at my engine and said "oh, you need a vacuum line from your distributor to the carb." They had restored an older 911 so I took their advice at face value and decided to try it (hell, vacuum lines are cheap).

But I'm looking for some more feedback.

There were two plugged vacuum lines from the carbs, per this image (old plug at top, new rubber line to distributor at bottom replacing other identical plug):



The new line now goes to the distributor, here:



And here, where you can also see the other identical plug to the one I replaced and where it the new line goes into the carb:



When the engine had the plugged lines, it ran fine. In fact, I'd been driving it for a couple of years with no issues (tho it does run a bit rich).

If I remove the line and leave the carb unplugged or unattached to the distributor, the engine will slowly stumble and die.

With the new vacuum line attached to the distributor, I get a "tick, tick, tick" like an exhaust leak, but which is coming from the distributor (and which speeds up when I get on the gas, ticktickticktick until the engine is revving so quickly that you can't hear it even though I'm sure it is still there).

From driving around, the new line as attached makes the car feel slightly smoother, but there's hardly any difference from when both lines were plugged.

Should I leave it? Detach it? Or do a few more things?

Insights appreciated.

Cheers!

[Winter]

No one?

I'm assuming that there must be some reason for the plugged vacuum lines on the carbs, and what about where the vacuum line goes into the distributor? It was left "open" when I bought the car for whatever reason. But I'm not seeing much of a change in running operation now that I've attached a vacuum line from the distributor to the carb (other than the tickticktick mechanical sound).

I'd love some feedback on this.

Cheers!

[gamin]

I don't think the someone who looked at your 2.2 knew what they were looking at. As far as I know 2.2 carb engines did not have vacuum advance distributors therefore no hose from dist to carb and no pot on the dist. I don't think you have the correct distributor. Leave the plugs on the carbs if that is the way it runs right. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[mskala]

Yeah there are a few inconsistencies here. Your tag line says '75,
and there were no 2.2L 911's made in '75. If you really have a
2.2L, then it's from an earlier car, and the distributor is wrong, there
was only mechanical advance on those engines. The carbs, at
least on the 914-6, sent the vacuum signal (actually tapped in the
manifolds) to a dashpot connected to throttle.

Also if the distributor is wrong then the advance curve is probably
the wrong one, unless whoever put it there paid to have it
re-curved.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by mskala

Yeah there are a few inconsistencies here. Your tag line says '75, and there were no 2.2L 911's made in '75. If you really have a
2.2L, then it's from an earlier car, and the distributor is wrong, there
was only mechanical advance on those engines. The carbs, at
least on the 914-6, sent the vacuum signal (actually tapped in the
manifolds) to a dashpot connected to throttle.

Also if the distributor is wrong then the advance curve is probably
the wrong one, unless whoever put it there paid to have it
re-curved.

Oh, this car is all about inconsistencies (thanks to the PO ).

Yup, it's a 75 targa with an earlier 2.2 engine in there. I'm slooowly sorting through the junkshow that I've acquired (fortunately for cheap money), and the car is actually running pretty well right now (just don't talk about the paint).

No way the PO paid to have the distributor re-curved. I think I'll re-plug the carbs and follow Gamin's advice. And I'm guessing that I should replace the distributor with the correct one, without the vacuum pot on it.

If anyone else wants to chime in on my junkshow targa, feel free to do so.

Thanks, guys!

[mskala]

If you have a way of finding out whether it's a T, E, or S, the distributors and timing specs are different. Actually E and S are the same, so there are only 2 choices.

[BK911]

Put it back the way it was.
Plot your advance curve at every 1000 rpm.
That will tell you which dizzy you have.

[mskala]

Put it back the way it was.
Plot your advance curve at every 1000 rpm.
That will tell you which dizzy you have.

That seems to be a total waste of time. No matter which one he has, it
is guaranteed to be the wrong one. Also, once removed, the part number
will identify it.

[BK911]

Originally Posted by mskala

That seems to be a total waste of time. No matter which one he has, it
is guaranteed to be the wrong one. Also, once removed, the part number
will identify it.

Really? Trust a part number instead of verifying the actual (possibly recurved) advance?

[daniel911T]

I'm skeptical about re-curving. This engine does not look like it was worked on by the kind of mechanics that would be that meticulous.

What is the part number on the dizzy? A 2.2T came with a Marelli distributor, and you can see all manner of strange alternatives mounted on them.

Can you please post the engine#, distributor # and numbers on the carburetors?

A 2.2 never came in your configuration. 2.2T had Zeniths (outstanding carbs) and the E and S had MFI.

The part numbers can at least give us a good idea what you're working with.

-Dan

(I survived a disastrous prior owner 2.2T)

[daniel911T]

WOW, that really is a poor old motor! I just noticed your 5 bladed fan.

I'm also noticing the plugs down at the base of your manifolds... are you positive this isn't a 2.7 former CIS car?

Does the poor old motor have thermal reactors also?

(Serious question BTW)

That engine # would be very interesting.

-Dan

[Winter]

Thanks for the info, guys.

Dan - There's no 5 blade fan on this motor. No thermal reactors either. It is a 2.2 not a 2.7.

Engine is from a 2.2 E according to the serial number, 6210705, which should designate the engine as a 1971 powerplant with 165 hp. (2.2 motor serial # question). It's mated to a 901 tranny. I believe that the white plugs seen at the bottom are related to the MFI, and that's why they're plugged, due to the Weber conversion.

This car is definitely funky, though. I think we can assume that the dizzy wasn't recurved, but there's always the chance that it just might have been, but certainly not by the previous owner immediately prior to me. That guy didn't seem to understand even the basics of this car, like that the bolts were metric! But on the good side, he also didn't realize that the factory hard top coulda sold for 1/2 my purchase price alone either!

Carbs are definitely Webers, but it's too dark right now to go pull the serial number off of them, so I'll post that info tomorrow.

Other interesting things: 73 or earlier rear deck lid, bad respray in white (underside of deck lid is blue, one fender was red, original color was a metallic brown).

Car came with an amazingly loud Bursch 2 in 1 out exhaust. When the deaf old lady across the street commented about it , I switched back to stock.

Many other funny things too, like how the PO couldn't get the turn signals to work, maybe he should have plugged the wiring in, as it was dangling under the dash! There was a lot of that kind of stuff, including a severely decayed interior, which I've sorted thanks to the classifieds here.

Anyhow, for the price of entry, this has been a fun car and I'm learning a ton working on it and from the forum here. Now I'm looking to move on from the cosmetic things and other stuff like the brake rebuild, etc. and get closer to my first engine drop.

Keep the insights coming! Lots more for me to learn!

[911s55]

Does your RPM at idle change when you attach or remove the vacuum line when connected to the carbs, and what is your distributor #?

[Walter_Middie]

Tom,

Plot your advance curve at every 1000 rpm.

This is good advice.

I'm guessing that your vacuum canister on the distributor leaks. This will make the idle run poorly, but once you push the accelerator down, the small vacuum leak will make no difference to the way it runs.

I'd plug the vacuum lines again and make sure your mechanical advance is correct for the setup you have (plotting the advance every 1000 RPMs will help).

I would also wonder if the distributor is from the original 2.7 L engine that your 1975 came with. Although some of these need modification to fit the older engines.

[Winter]

Well, thanks for all the info. To answer the last couple of questions, no, there wasn't really any change with the vacuum line on the dizzy vs plugged.

And the car idles fine. In fact, had a nice drive yesterday with no issues with the car converted back to the "original" condition with no line to dizzy and both vacuum ports on the carbs plugged. I'll try to post the part number on the dizzy here tomorrow. There is a small chance that the dizzy was recurved at some point. Certainly not by the PO, though. At least I can't imagine it, as everything he touched was mucked up. Plotting advance curve is also in my future. Might as well plug the vacuum can at the dizzy, too.

Thanks again for all the responses.