Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: 3.0 MFI Port Size Advice Needed

  1. #21

    BROKEN KEYBOARD

    MY KEYBOARD IS BUSTED, HAVEN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO GETTING A NEW ONE. YOU KNOW CHRISTMAS AND ALL.

    ROGER

  2. #22
    I just have to hop in here. I've got to much in common with this thread.

    First off:
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Bobby
    71' Olive 2.2E Targa / Early S #491

    I've always considered the glass to be half full...that is until I reached middle age and realized that it is actually half empty.

  3. #23
    I've seen Kurt's Starnes' setup. It sure is purdy. What a great guy too.

    We were having this discussion on the PP board. I remember one poster saying that the ports on the head were 39mm on the intake same size as the Carrera 3.0CIS motor. He read that in a book by Paul Frere I think. But I think Schmit is right, it makes more sense. For a street car the 36mm intake will give you more low-end punch.

    That the MFI is identicle to the 2.7RS makes sense as well since the car was built just for homologation purposes. The cost for redesigning the intake for so few cars just doesn't add up. After all most of the 3.0RS cars were going to be converted to RSR spec anyway.

    What are your plans for the car? Track or street. Both?

    On your 300TE have you had problems with the tranny? I find I have to change the fluid every six months because it's spent. Inevitably there are little bits of clutch in the fluid. It's driving me nuts. I think MB may have underdesigned the cooling on the tranny so I'm adding a cooler.
    Bobby
    71' Olive 2.2E Targa / Early S #491

    I've always considered the glass to be half full...that is until I reached middle age and realized that it is actually half empty.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Neunelfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    1,511

    Ports and Wagons

    I have a friend who has a set of Max moritz 3.2's with the early 39mm SC heads that are ported like no tomorrow. They're gorgeous and tempting but I still think that 36mm will be the way to go with S-Cams. I scoured BA's spec list and it looks as though the factory "never" went over 36mm with S-Cams. Just trying to fond out if the Max Moritz 3.2 will accept pocketing now.

    With my wagon I've had the standard tranny pump leak even though I constantly use the emergency brake before leaving it in park. I've had to replace the modulator on the side of the tranny but that wasn't that big of a task. Just a little tight up against the frame member. So I'd have to say no huge tranny problems. I replaced the plastic necked radiator and went through a ton of components trying to find what was a computer problem. Mercedes ended up paying for 1/2 on (at that time) a 10 year old car! Local rep was a great guy.

    I saw on the pelican board that you're moving towards the same type engine... yes?
    Eric - Sandy, Utah
    71 911
    914-6/GT
    914-6/ORV
    87 944 Spec 1
    Porsche Truck
    62 Beetle
    80 VW “Caddy” Pickup
    72 R75/5 Toaster Tank
    PMB Performance
    We'll Make Your Calipers New Again
    Love Us On Facebook

  5. #25
    I've contemplated a 3.0RS for years. It's still on my list. Right now I have a 2.4T MFI that I have to put back together for my 72' Coupe so I can sell it. The case, rods and crank should be coming back from the machine shop soon.

    Next I have all the parts minus the pistons for a 2.7 or 2.9RS motor. I've got a straight and solid 74' 7R case rebuilt heads ported to 36mm in and 35mm out. S magnesium MFI setup. I just haven't decided on which P+C's.
    I was going to bore a set of 90mm cylinders I have to 92mm and plate them in Nikasil to make a 2.8 RS motor but then I found out U.S. Chrome wants $1260 to do the job. Add $1000 for the JE pistons. That's $2260. Hell, I can get 2.9 Mahle P+C's for $2500.

    The alternative is 2.7RS Mahle P+C's for $1650. Which I may do anyway if I can't find a 2.2S motor for my Targa. That way I'll put the 2.7RS motor in the 71' Targa. I think the 2.9RS may be a bit much for the 901 tranny.

    That means I'll have to build a 3.0RS for my Project Car
    Bobby
    71' Olive 2.2E Targa / Early S #491

    I've always considered the glass to be half full...that is until I reached middle age and realized that it is actually half empty.

Similar Threads

  1. Bendix rubber pump mounts size needed
    By merbesfield in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 05:46 PM
  2. Exhaust Port Advice?
    By MrJTP2001 in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-11-2012, 10:46 AM
  3. What is the intake port size 2.5 ST?
    By preS in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-27-2010, 11:05 AM
  4. 906 valve and port size
    By v-8 in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-27-2009, 04:22 AM
  5. Please - ADVICE NEEDED - Please!
    By M491 in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2008, 03:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Message Board Disclaimer and Terms of Use
This is a public forum. Messages posted here can be viewed by the public. The Early 911S Registry is not responsible for messages posted in its online forums, and any message will express the views of the author and not the Early 911S Registry. Use of online forums shall constitute the agreement of the user not to post anything of religious or political content, false and defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise to violate the law and the further agreement of the user to be solely responsible for and hold the Early 911S Registry harmless in the event of any claim based on their message. Any viewer who finds a message objectionable should contact us immediately by email. The Early 911S Registry has the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.