3.0 vs 3.2 block, different or same?

[Project77]

Does anyone know if a 3.0 and 3.2 block is from the same casting? I bought a 3.0 that sat outside for 6 years and am going to stuff it into a 77 Celica. But, two of the holes had rust, a hone did not clean it up. So, it needs to be bored or replaced.

If the casting is identical, then it should be able to be bored out to the 3.2 bore diameter then. If so, I can just pickup a set of rods and pistons from a 3.2, bore the 3.0 block, and I'd be good to go.

Any info appreciated.

 

[lowc]

i belive they are the same i could be wrong though. u should run a search i belive ive seen post reguarding similar topics

 

[zblackbeast]

yes, you can bore the 3.0 block and stuff 3.2 internals in it!

 

[sperold]

Look into sleeving it. That way your balanced assembly stays intact.
I have a vague recollection that there is no guarantee that you can bore it to the 3.2 size piston, there is not enought meat left to guarantee long life.

 

[Project77]

yes, you can bore the 3.0 block and stuff 3.2 internals in it!

So, boring from 89 to 92mm leaves enough wall thickness? Enough thickness left for boost? Do these blocks have a casting number on them anywhere? Mine is at the machine shop or I'd go take a look.

Maybe that's my solution if I can find a cheap set of 3.2 rods and pistons.

 

[Project77]

Look into sleeving it. That way your balanced assembly stays intact.
I have a vague recollection that there is no guarantee that you can bore it to the 3.2 size piston, there is not enought meat left to guarantee long life.

My other option is to just pickup another engine from another yard. If I do, I'll probably pick up a 3.2 since I already have the 3.0 cams from this engine. I only paid $250 for the 3.0 and the yard will take it back for a refund if I want to return. Not sure yet what route I'm going to take.

 

[firebat45]

According to some, the 3.0 blocks from the 3.2 era (93-95) are thicker walled than the 3.0 blocks from 89-92. So essentially, the 3.2 block is the same as an 3.0 block from the same time period.

However, I think any 3.0 block can be bored to 3.2. Its when you want to go to 3.3 or higher that you want the thicker-walled later blocks. Can never be too safe though, if you're boosting, so I'd want the thicker block.

 

[zblackbeast]

Yeah.. you will be perfectly fine boring a 3.0 to a 3.2 no matter the year..

 

[fdogg96]

Get a 3.2 and bored it out to 3.3.

 

[AREA 91]

3.0 ='s 92mm bore or 3.5 In
3.2 ='s 93mm bore or 3.622 In

Any 3.0 can be bored to a 3.2 due to the .200 thick cylinder walls.

The only problem that you need to be aware of is when boring to a 3.3 or 93mm bore.

This is when it's preferable to have the 93-95 block.

A quick check of the wall thickness by a machine shop will answer if your perticular block can be bored to 3.3 or 93mm.

The 93-95 blocks do have extra webbing on the outer sides of the blocks.

:angelnot:

 

[Project77]

3.0 ='s 92mm bore or 3.5 In
3.2 ='s 93mm bore or 3.622 In

Any 3.0 can be bored to a 3.2 due to the .200 thick cylinder walls.

The only problem that you need to be aware of is when boring to a 3.3 or 93mm bore.

This is when it's preferable to have the 93-95 block.

A quick check of the wall thickness by a machine shop will answer if your perticular block can be bored to 3.3 or 93mm.

The 93-95 blocks do have extra webbing on the outer sides of the blocks.

:angelnot:

I've got an '89 FSM that states the 3.0 bore is 89mm not 92mm. Wikipedia also has that spec. Wikipedia, if correct, also states the 3.2 is a 92mm bore not a 93mm bore.

So, if 89mm for a 3.0 and 92mm for a 3.2 is correct, that is why I am checking on whether the blocks are cast the same or not. 3mm seems like a lot to bore. (That's almost .120 over)

 

[firebat45]

Keep in mind that really it's only 1.5mm on each side. I'll go measure my 3.0 block and tell you what the bore is, but I suspect that it's 89mm. 3.5 inches is 89mm, not 92mm, and the Vulcan that the SHO engine was designed around also lists an 89mm bore

 

[zblackbeast]

I've got an '89 FSM that states the 3.0 bore is 89mm not 92mm. Wikipedia also has that spec. Wikipedia, if correct, also states the 3.2 is a 92mm bore not a 93mm bore.

So, if 89mm for a 3.0 and 92mm for a 3.2 is correct, that is why I am checking on whether the blocks are cast the same or not. 3mm seems like a lot to bore. (That's almost .120 over)

Yes, it is 89, and the 3.2 is 92.. i checked my ford manual to reference.. You will be perfectly fine boring your 3.0 to 3.2...