Cast Iron cylinders - SAMMY G.?, it's Mike D. we talked last weekend... Options

[Mike D.]

Sammy, or anyone else,
We were talking at Don & Glenns Swap last week about my delema of not knowing for sure what size 6 cyl. engine is in my '73 conversion car. The questions was that the privious owner said that the engine was 2.7 but the numbers on the case say 2.2 E, the heads & cam towers are early (6 bolt lowers). Anyway, you told me to check the cylinders to see if they are aluminum or Iron, well, they are Iron. So what does that mean? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

-Mike D.

[J P Stein]

Anyone speakin'...

Those iron cyls are from a "T" motor and came in 2 sizes: 80 & 84 mm bore. The motor could be anything between a 2.0 & 2.4L.

Is the type number on the case? 911/xx or 901/xx?

[Sammy]

911T cylinders, prolly 2.2 liter. Oh, JP already answered fer me. Never mind :-)

Well JP, you gonna tell him to put 2.7 nikasil cylinders on it or what?

[Mike D.]

Can I tell what cam from looking under the upper valve cover?

And, why would someone rebuild an 2.2E with 2.0 p/c's? And isn't the stroke longer on a 2.4?

To build a 2.4 or 2.7 from a 2.2 case/heads/crank/rods etc. would be a huge PITA, especially with 2.7 cases and cranks available.

901.101.101 2R on the case.

The car has really good compression and sounds great at high RPM. I't hard to tell HP wise because it seems to run out gear really fast in 1st-3rd. It has a stock 901 tranny from a 4 cyl. car.

Any more Thoughts?

TIA Mike D.

[J P Stein]

You can't tell by "looking" but with a dial indicator one could check the valve lift and make a good run at figuring it out.

I had a 2.4L short block that had a 2r/3r (AIR) case.
Also had one with a 4r/5r. The latter one had the 11 stud cam towers. The 2r case is not a good foundation for an upgrade to 2.7L, IMO.

Most all these parts from the early 6s are interchangable.

The 2.4L has a longer stroke.

[SirAndy]

Mike,
is this the black car from Brad?
if so, we (brad and i) are pretty positive the engine is bigger than 2.2.
it pulls much stronger than a stock 2.2 ...

unfortunately, i can't help you finding out.
unless you would take the engine apart (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[meursault]

I'm with JP. It's a 2.4, tops. And it's hard to imagine that it's running anything but "T" pistons either with those cast iron barrels. But a 2.4 T built from a 2.2 E with early 2.0 cam towers? This would be some bassackwards frankenstein motor IMHO. Check that type number down there behind the serial #. It would at least give us a start...

If it is a 2.7, it would be advantageous to use an early 2.0 (aluminum) crankcase, but the rest of it just doesn't make any sense (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)