911SC motor into early 911
07-22-2002, 12:36 AM
#16
Advanced
Thread Starter
[quote]Originally posted by A Quiet Boom:
<strong>Well I started my conversion yesterday. I ran into a problem right of the bat, the ear on the trans bellhousing that hold the end of the clutch cable interferes with the crossover pipe on the exhaust. Due to the location of the interference I don't think it's possible to modify the croos over so I'm switch to my early exhaust. I'll keep you informed as I progress, I should have the motor in the car today.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, sounds like a fair quick conversion.
I have the early exhaust so that shouldn't be a problem. Plus the early exhaust gives somewhat better flow.
<strong>Well I started my conversion yesterday. I ran into a problem right of the bat, the ear on the trans bellhousing that hold the end of the clutch cable interferes with the crossover pipe on the exhaust. Due to the location of the interference I don't think it's possible to modify the croos over so I'm switch to my early exhaust. I'll keep you informed as I progress, I should have the motor in the car today.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, sounds like a fair quick conversion.
I have the early exhaust so that shouldn't be a problem. Plus the early exhaust gives somewhat better flow.
07-22-2002, 03:06 AM
#17
The biggest roadblocks to my progress at this point are the SC wiring harness and the fact that I don't have fuel injection fuel lines so I need to install them. I can also confirm that the oil tanks are different. The return line to the tank from the engine in not a threaded connection like the early cars but instead a clamp on hose. I haven't yet decided whether to switch tanks or make up my own hose. It looks like the hole for the filter and filler neck is different but my car is a 912 conversion so it might not of had a hole to start with. I think my easiest route will be to make my own hose. I test fit the engine tonight and it fits fine, but I 've removed it to simplify hooking up the wiring and fuel. Also my trans to engine throttle linkage rod needed to be lengthened 1.25" which I did by cutting and welding. Wish me luck I'm down to ten more wires that need sorted out.
07-23-2002, 03:28 AM
#19
[quote]Originally posted by Roland Kunz:
<strong>Hello
Didn´t we say use the oilines and heat exchangers from the old engine ?
Grüsse</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope nobody said that, but don't think I haven't thought about it. However I'm selling my 2.0E so removing it's heat exchanger is out of the question I could however weld an aluminum fitting to the SC's heat exchanger since I do have a tig welder at my diposal. Other than the durability of a threaded connection is their any other advantage to running the early lines and tank? As an aside, just got a set of Zeniths from a 2.4 for cheap and I have a source for jets and venturis I'm thinking about going this route for now just to get the car running while I sort out my EFI plans. I know webers would be better but I can't justify the expense when they'd be coming of this winter anyway. I also picked up a 3.2 intak manifold so I've already got a start on the EFI. Besides I just don't feel like screwing with the CIS anymore.
<strong>Hello
Didn´t we say use the oilines and heat exchangers from the old engine ?
Grüsse</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope nobody said that, but don't think I haven't thought about it. However I'm selling my 2.0E so removing it's heat exchanger is out of the question I could however weld an aluminum fitting to the SC's heat exchanger since I do have a tig welder at my diposal. Other than the durability of a threaded connection is their any other advantage to running the early lines and tank? As an aside, just got a set of Zeniths from a 2.4 for cheap and I have a source for jets and venturis I'm thinking about going this route for now just to get the car running while I sort out my EFI plans. I know webers would be better but I can't justify the expense when they'd be coming of this winter anyway. I also picked up a 3.2 intak manifold so I've already got a start on the EFI. Besides I just don't feel like screwing with the CIS anymore.
07-23-2002, 04:42 AM
#20
Big oops!
Sorry Roland, I just went back to my earlier thread and found your post about the oil lines. you're right, I'm wrong, sorry for doubting you. Anyway, I have an SC oil tank and complete front spoiler mounted oil cooler setup that I got from my brother (he's cleaning out the garage so to speak) I could install this tank in place of the one currently in the car however I have to wonder, is the early tank with it's threaded return fitting better than the newer style? My gut says yes but my mind say Porsche wouldn't have "de-engineered" the tank to be of lesser quality or performance than the old one.
Sorry Roland, I just went back to my earlier thread and found your post about the oil lines. you're right, I'm wrong, sorry for doubting you. Anyway, I have an SC oil tank and complete front spoiler mounted oil cooler setup that I got from my brother (he's cleaning out the garage so to speak) I could install this tank in place of the one currently in the car however I have to wonder, is the early tank with it's threaded return fitting better than the newer style? My gut says yes but my mind say Porsche wouldn't have "de-engineered" the tank to be of lesser quality or performance than the old one.
07-23-2002, 06:33 AM
#21
Race Car
Chuck, I don't think you'll need to cut out your battery boxes to cool a 3-liter motor. The 3.6 lacks an engine mounted cooler, so capacity needs to be increased. Also, solid motor mounts are a great idea for the rear mounting points. But put sport mounts on the tranny. You get 90% of the benefit from the rear solid mounts, but 90% of the added noise from putting them in front.
07-24-2002, 03:54 PM
#22
Advanced
Thread Starter
[quote]Originally posted by JackOlsen:
<strong>Chuck, I don't think you'll need to cut out your battery boxes to cool a 3-liter motor. The 3.6 lacks an engine mounted cooler, so capacity needs to be increased. Also, solid motor mounts are a great idea for the rear mounting points. But put sport mounts on the tranny. You get 90% of the benefit from the rear solid mounts, but 90% of the added noise from putting them in front.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jack,
Thanks for the post. Looking into it further I'll have to order a hybird setup. By that I mean I'll need the lines/cooler/thermostat to add an oil cooler to an early car, yet I'll need connections to a newer (74-77 911S or 911SC) oil tank.
Also, what's the difference between sport and solid mounts? Who is a good source for these. It seems like everyone has a set for sale (but at different prices). I've seen many advertisements in Pano/Excellence/parts catalogues. Are they all the same?
Chuck
<strong>Chuck, I don't think you'll need to cut out your battery boxes to cool a 3-liter motor. The 3.6 lacks an engine mounted cooler, so capacity needs to be increased. Also, solid motor mounts are a great idea for the rear mounting points. But put sport mounts on the tranny. You get 90% of the benefit from the rear solid mounts, but 90% of the added noise from putting them in front.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jack,
Thanks for the post. Looking into it further I'll have to order a hybird setup. By that I mean I'll need the lines/cooler/thermostat to add an oil cooler to an early car, yet I'll need connections to a newer (74-77 911S or 911SC) oil tank.
Also, what's the difference between sport and solid mounts? Who is a good source for these. It seems like everyone has a set for sale (but at different prices). I've seen many advertisements in Pano/Excellence/parts catalogues. Are they all the same?
Chuck
07-24-2002, 09:25 PM
#23
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Hello
@aqb:
You are right it was on a previous thread.
I do to much work and loose oversight from time to time
Early oil tank and SC oil tank have other hole patterns in the body. The later units also moved slightly ahead.
As the rubber S hose is on the suction side.
The early versions using high pressure fittings didn´t made real sense.
The new version saved wight and money ( Those aluminium fitings are expensive and today a replacment hose has steel fitings and still costs over 200 $ )
The problem is that you have to use the oiline and the tank depending on your engine oilcooler.
I worked a lot with tig welding and I´m very good on welding aluminium and stainless steel but I never managed to weld aluminium with steel togehter.
Its always nice when people can do unimpossible as this is they way progress works.
The solution to work out that problem is to dent in the pipe, just heat it up red hot and use a big hammer for finetunnig.
And yes you will loose some power but the 3,0 still will have more then the previous engine.
The Zenits are not the best choice to run a 3,0 but it will run somehow.
I don´t think you will make big money saleing a 2,0E without any proof of datas.
Maybe not enough money to compensate the costs to buy the parts you can use from that engine ( Exchangers, Oilcooler, Oillines ) in a similar condition.
Whoever buys a 2,0 E is anyway not thinking about returning it to a 911. It will maybe be used in a bus or a 914 or a dunebuggy. But man if you look at youerself even the 912driver isn´t statisfied with a 2,0 and needs a 3,0 to feel better, how can you think anyone is interestet in a 2,0 anymore ?
On the other side a good made 2,0 will dust most poor swaped 3,0.
Grüsse
@aqb:
You are right it was on a previous thread.
I do to much work and loose oversight from time to time
Early oil tank and SC oil tank have other hole patterns in the body. The later units also moved slightly ahead.
As the rubber S hose is on the suction side.
The early versions using high pressure fittings didn´t made real sense.
The new version saved wight and money ( Those aluminium fitings are expensive and today a replacment hose has steel fitings and still costs over 200 $ )
The problem is that you have to use the oiline and the tank depending on your engine oilcooler.
I worked a lot with tig welding and I´m very good on welding aluminium and stainless steel but I never managed to weld aluminium with steel togehter.
Its always nice when people can do unimpossible as this is they way progress works.
The solution to work out that problem is to dent in the pipe, just heat it up red hot and use a big hammer for finetunnig.
And yes you will loose some power but the 3,0 still will have more then the previous engine.
The Zenits are not the best choice to run a 3,0 but it will run somehow.
I don´t think you will make big money saleing a 2,0E without any proof of datas.
Maybe not enough money to compensate the costs to buy the parts you can use from that engine ( Exchangers, Oilcooler, Oillines ) in a similar condition.
Whoever buys a 2,0 E is anyway not thinking about returning it to a 911. It will maybe be used in a bus or a 914 or a dunebuggy. But man if you look at youerself even the 912driver isn´t statisfied with a 2,0 and needs a 3,0 to feel better, how can you think anyone is interestet in a 2,0 anymore ?
On the other side a good made 2,0 will dust most poor swaped 3,0.
Grüsse
07-24-2002, 09:57 PM
#24
Race Car
Sport mounts still have a rubber bushing. Solid mounts are very simple. They're solid. I didn't source my sport mounts, but I got my solid mounts from this guy: He also fabricates oil line wrenches, pully removal tools, and pieced to allow a jack to hold a 911 engine.
paul_wilding@msn.com
paul_wilding@msn.com
07-25-2002, 12:24 AM
#25
@Roland, all very good points. To your point about welding aluminum to steel I wasn't suggesting that. I was thinking to use a -AN to Metric aluminum adapter fitting, cut off the -AN part and TIG weld it to the oil cooler fitting. However my SC Oil tank is in better shape than the old one so I'll make the necessary mods to the body in order to fit it. Despite what you may think about the 2.0 I have had some interested parties and I do have documentation from the previous owner.
