3.0 Questions

[cruiksdr]

Well, after dorking around with my 2.2 for 3 years and still having some "issues" I've decided to switch to a 3.0. I've got a line on one which I will be getting in Feb. It's a complete engine (including injection, etc.). I plan to convert it to Webers as I like the simplicity and, according to the Performance Handbook, Webers and my early exhaust sytem should bump it up to as much as 210hp

I'm getting an 82 SC engine, and as near as I can tell, I can take my webbers from my 2.2 and bolt them righ on (with some changes to Jets, and possibly venturis). According to the Perfomance Handbook, The Dizzy on the 82 won' t work because it requires vacuum advance for proper curving. So, here are my questions:

1) The PH suggests that the Dizzy can be recurved and used w/o vacuum advance which would be great since that's what I'll have. How difficult is it to recurve these and where does it get curved to?

2) Is it possible to pull vacuum from somewhere on this engine to maintain the vacuume advance on this dizzy, and would that work with the carbs?

3) I have a Bosch Mechanical Advance Dizzy on my 2.2. I know the 3.0 turns counter clockwise, but is there a way of modifying and using this dizzy?

4) Not that I'm inclined to do this, but would the smartest,easiest solution be to just get a pre-1980 SC Dizzy?

Thanks!

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

1--You'll have to find a shop with an old-fashioned distributor machine. They're not very common nowadays... They'll be able to tweak the curve for you. Have them set it at whatever the non-vacuum SC distributor's curve is. No, I don't know what that is--sorry! The 911 guys might know.

2--It might be possible to add "ported vacuum" fittings to the carbs, but I believe you'll be doing it all on your own. I don't think there were any on the triple Webers, so you won't have any convenient boss to drill into. You would likely want to tap more than one carb throat, and T all the lines together to get a good signal without too much pulsing, but that may affect the power/tuning/etc. on the carbs.

3--Not without a whole lot of time and $$.

4--If the pre-80 cars didn't use vacuum advance, yes.

--DD

[914/6]

The euro 3.0 has no vacum advance and good curve for carbs.
Barry Hershon or Herson , distributor guy back east.

[cruiksdr]

Thanks for the answers to my distributor questions. Another question: Will the 3.0 flywheel work with my 901 transmission? For my 2.2 I had to get a smaller flywheel from a 2.0. I was looking at some pix of the 3.0 and it appears the my flywheel will not fit (3.0 has more bolt holes).

Thanks!

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

The 3.0 flywheel has nine bolt holes, the 2.0-2.7 has six holes. I believe all of the 72+ flywheels have a different diameter than the 66-71 flywheels, but I am not as certain of that. The 914-6 flywheel options thread has a lot of info; not sure if you've posted on that one or not.

Best bet IMHO is to get the Kennedy conversion flywheel for 3.0 or 3.2 motors going into a 901-based gearbox.

--DD

[Jim Smolka]

I second DD said. KE conversion flywheels for 3.0 & 3.2 to the 901 gear box is the way to go.

[cruiksdr]

Thanks guys! KE was NOT easy to find, but I did (kennedyeng.com/). I also followed the othread DD mentioned (which I found about five minutes after posting this.

So far, it looks to me like the two biggest issues in getting the 3.0 swapped with my 2.2 will be the flywheel and recurving the dizzy.

Can't wait

[Jim Smolka]

Also, the 914 CVs may not hold up to the extra Torque of a big 6. Early 911 CVs and be made to work on a 914 chasis.

[Porsche Doc]

If you are gona use carbs use 40s NOT 46s!
The 78, 79 and Euros SC's the stock dist. will work without mods.
Your gona love that 3.0 Man!

[Porsche Doc]

Here is a to the wheels dyno sheet on an engine we did.
It is a 79SC with 40 webbers, 964 cams with 110 lobe centers, stock CIS pistons and SSI exhaust.

[J P Stein]

Yike! that really leans out around 2800. The infamous Weber flat spot??

[Porsche Doc]

Originally posted by J P Stein
Yike! that really leans out around 2800. The infamous Weber flat spot??

JP
That's not a flat spot.
That is were I floored the car when I started the dyno run.
There is always is a spike like that when you stomp it with a carb engine. A FI graph has the spike but it is smaller do to the faster electronics.
The butterflys open up the air rushes in and the fuel catches up with a split second later. So it goes lean.
Look at the power and torque, it jumped almost straight up.
If you had a flat spot you would have seen on the graph a stumble.
The car this engine is in runs great and dosen't have a flat spot.

[cruiksdr]

Awsome

It looks like the 3.0 will be a dramatic improvement over my 2.2

[DJsRepS]

Will you be selling your 2.2 motor? my 1.7 could use a boost like that.

[amused]

Why do you say to use the Weber 40's rather than the 46's? In my ignorance, it would seem that you could use the smaller venturi's in the 46's for faster, cooler, more consistant air/fuel flow.

In an aside, has anybody heard that California has changed their emissions regulations so that any car older than 30 years has to pass emissions (rather than anything older than 1974)? What should this to to Weber availability?

Kevin Mott
'76 Primer Project

[Porsche Doc]

Originally posted by amused
Why do you say to use the Weber 40's rather than the 46's? In my ignorance, it would seem that you could use the smaller venturi's in the 46's for faster, cooler, more consistant air/fuel flow.

In an aside, has anybody heard that California has changed their emissions regulations so that any car older than 30 years has to pass emissions (rather than anything older than 1974)? What should this to to Weber availability?

Kevin Mott
'76 Primer Project

Weber Dyno Result

Weber size on 3.0

[cruiksdr]

Originally posted by DJsRepS
Will you be selling your 2.2 motor? my 1.7 could use a boost like that.

Yes, I plan to sell the 2.2. I will be keeping the Webers/manifolds and exhaust system; however, the rest of the engine will be available as a complete engine.

The engine is a 2.2 T built with E piston/cylinders (higher compression). It has a nearly new (+/- 3000 miles) Bosch distributor (w/ mechanical advance and Crane optical ignition) , and new late model alternator w/built in regulator, new 11 blade fan. It's a good engine other than a currently serious oil leak at the rear main seal, which I plan to have repaired before I sell it.
All it would need to go would be exhaust and intake.

I won't be ready to let it go until I get it repaired and then pull the intake for my 3.0 (which I will be getting in Feb). It's a great replacement for a 1.7, so if you're interested, let me know and we can talk

[cruiksdr]

Originally posted by amused
Why do you say to use the Weber 40's rather than the 46's? In my ignorance, it would seem that you could use the smaller venturi's in the 46's for faster, cooler, more consistant air/fuel flow.

In an aside, has anybody heard that California has changed their emissions regulations so that any car older than 30 years has to pass emissions (rather than anything older than 1974)? What should this to to Weber availability?

Kevin Mott
'76 Primer Project

To the best of my knowledge, this legislation is still being debated, but has not been passed. My father, who lives on the central coast, is sweating bullets about this as his '70 XKE with Webers would be bannished from the state.

Of course, that would not be entirely bad for me out here in Ohio where no one gives a rats but about emmissions

[eddie914]

46 IDAs on a 3.0? Cams!

With stock cams, 46s are tough to set up correctly. 40s with 34 venturis work great.

With big cams, 46s are the ticket to horsepower ... big compression doesn't hurt either.

Eddie