Help with this engines pictures- opinions

[Tarek307]

Hey guys, so i've decided to sell my 77 with 3.0 engine and 964 kit and get a more original car - however somehow i end up finding another 77 with a 3.0 but original paint original body, so this might do and has records of engine just being rebuilt very few miles ago but in 2007

Can the experts here tell me what they think of these engine pics? its also a 3.0SC engine- Also a pic of the rebuild does it sound like a good rebuild? The car has 177k original paint, in pretty good condition- i'm trying to figure out if this engine has tensioners or no but i dont see word tensioners on the rebuild

Engine rebuild says:
14- new main bearings 1-7
1 new Main bearing seal
12 new rod bearings
4 new intermediate bearings
complete valve job / machined etc
oil return tubes/seals
1 new piston ring (stock performance)
6 rebuilt to specs connecting rods
12 new rod bolts / nuts/
2 camshafts
2 new cam locking pins
new cam key ways




Thanks

[nathanbs]

Not enough info. How about some serial numbers and engine type numbers? It's the only easy way to determine what you have. Next stop see what direction the rotor spins when you crank the engine

[Tarek307]

Originally Posted by nathanbs

Not enough info. How about some serial numbers and engine type numbers? It's the only easy way to determine what you have. Next stop see what direction the rotor spins when you crank the engine

what will serial number and engine number do? its a 3.0 engine in a 1977 car and its been rebuilt. no idea about spinning rotor, what does that do? or what will it tell me that i don't know?

[timmy2]

No Hydraulic tensioner upgrade installed.
But if they were good when the engine was gone through, they likely didn't replace or rebuild them.
I installed hydraulic tensioners even though my originals are still good.

[Tarek307]

Originally Posted by timmy2

No Hydraulic tensioner upgrade installed.
But if they were good when the engine was gone through, they likely didn't replace or rebuild them.
I installed hydraulic tensioners even though my originals are still good.

Thanks Tim. otherwise do you see any additions to the engine or does it look "good" i know its a ridiculous question lol

[Rawknees'Turbo]

So why does the pictured engine have a Cabriolet engine support bar (aka - the one with the shock/twist damper), considering the car is not a convertible?

[Tarek307]

Originally Posted by Rawknees'Turbo

So why does the pictured engine have a Cabriolet engine support bar (aka - the one with the shock/twist damper), considering the car is not a convertible?

IF you read the post it says its a 3.0SC engine in a 77 so thats why, it was from a cabriolet obviously

[timmy2]

Originally Posted by Tarek307

Thanks Tim. otherwise do you see any additions to the engine or does it look "good" i know its a ridiculous question lol

Lol, everything listed is internal. Looks like a 3.0 to me.
Compression and leakdown numbers would be helpful.
Or, taking it for a ride....

[Tarek307]

Originally Posted by timmy2

Lol, everything listed is internal. Looks like a 3.0 to me.
Compression and leakdown numbers would be helpful.
Or, taking it for a ride....

The strange thing is the engine while it is a rebuilt 3.0 700 miles ago but 10 years ago, if you look under the car there are some oil leaks..how does an engine with 700 miles on it, yes it was 10 years ago, but why the leaks..should'nt it have 0 leaks

[AndreasK]

My 2,7 was rebuilt 4000 miles and 20 years ago. Mine looks a lot cleaner than that... No driving is not good for these things.

[timmy2]

Seals dry up, gaskets shrink over time.
Stored cars leak worse than daily drivers when taken out of storage.

[Flat6pac]

The air pumps were used on pre 80 3.0. The cab mount is not correct for the motor but does the job. The steel fuel lines are from 81-83 SCs. There is no vacuum retard connection on the distributor pod for 80-83.
Looks mismatched...
Bruce

[proporsche]

Yes it looks like mismatch parts on the engine.I wonder how the "Original" body is?
Also the fuel filter has no clamps, it is just hanging in there ..no good.All the parts listed you cannot see.You took the pictures or the seller?

Ivan

[wayne robson]

The engine may be the least of problems, i am not trying to be rude ,
but spend a little more, invest in a more original example in , and better
condition,----it will pay off for for you in a few years,and you will be happy.

[boyt911sc]

[QUOTE=Tarek307;9649280]



.
This is not how a newly rebuilt motor should look like with 700 or 7000 miles on it. Look very closely on the chain housing cover/s with thick deposit of oil grime. Unless the motor was not cleaned during a rebuild. But who leave all these grimes on the engine being rebuilt?

The receipt or invoice does not guarantee you that it was for this motor unless it is indicated on the invoice or receipt. I will not consider this motor rebuilt 700 or 7000 miles ago. Just imagine how you could get this motor to accumulate such dirt deposit on the chain housing covers unless you were driving this car on dirt roads. The bottom area would be worse.

Unless you bought this car at a bargain price. Well, this is not for everyone, when I buy a used 911 I pay more attention to the paint, body, interior, suspension, and over-all appearance of the car. Drive the car if it driveable. A non-running motor is disireable but not necessary. Factor the price plus the cost of the engine rebuild (needed or not). No PPI and no salvage title for me.

Since you already bought the car, only time will tell you if you had a good buy or not. But I doubt this was rebuilt 700 miles ago. How much was the car purchased if you don't mind sharing this information? Thanks.

Tony

[Daves911L]

Always assume the worst on something like this. Then at least you will never be disappointed. Unless you know and trust the seller, or the shop that did the work, its a crap shoot. And the odds always favor the house.

Something that screams off that invoice is 1 piston ring. Our air cooled engines are hard on top ends. Low mile Nikasil sets can be re-used. But generally if an engine is worn enough to require bottom end bearings, one would expect the top end to be worn even more. P/C sets are expensive, but failing to replace them is almost always false economy. To replace a single ring implies one was broken. If one was broken the likely cause was banging up and down in a worn ring groove. A new ring won't fix that, just accelerate the groove wear. And the other five are likely worn just as much, they just had not broken at the time of the "rebuild".

Tensioners are not a big deal. Non-oil-fed work just fine. In many ways even better. And if you want oil-fed it is an easy upgrade you can do yourself on a saturday.

Hard fuel lines suggest an '83, so I agree with the guy who speculated it came from a cab with the funky engine mount.

DG

[Tarek307]

well maybe i should pass on this one

[douglas bray]

Tarek, you nut. Don't listen to any of this negative crap. You are learning just like all of us are doing. A car that gets you closer to your goal and is to your liking is a good car. Sure we all want a 934.5 but they are simply out of our budget. This car is perfect for you...PERIOD!

Now if you can find someone that knows how to lower it, you are good to go.

[Tarek307]

Originally Posted by douglas bray

Tarek, you nut. Don't listen to any of this negative crap. You are learning just like all of us are doing. A car that gets you closer to your goal and is to your liking is a good car. Sure we all want a 934.5 but they are simply out of our budget. This car is perfect for you...PERIOD!

Now if you can find someone that knows how to lower it, you are good to go.

steaks & wrenches baby lol...

[Mark Salvetti]

I wonder if this is a Euro engine. Didn't the Euro cars retain the air pumps beyond 1979?

The other thing that would put me off is the rebuild invoice doesn't show new head studs. So I think you would have to assume it still has the original Dilivars. They were a known weak point even in 2007, and should have been replaced. What other corners were cut in the rebuild?

Mark