Upgrading a 3.0 CS to a 3.0 CSi

[sirnosed]

Hello E9 enthusiasts,

In my search for a E9 CSi I have come in contact wih a guy who has rebuilt and repaired E9's for over 30 years.
He has a beautiful 1974 3.0 CS for sale and is willing to upgrade the engine to fuel injection, thus making it a CSi.

- Would the upgrade make this car a 'true' CSi or are there more differences between the two?

- Would there be a reason not to do this upgrade?

I'm looking forward to reading your opinions!

Greetings from the Netherlands!

 

[MMercury]

Hello E9 enthusiasts,

In my search for a E9 CSi I have come in contact wih a guy who has rebuilt and repaired E9's for over 30 years.
He has a beautiful 1974 3.0 CS for sale and is willing to upgrade the engine to fuel injection, thus making it a CSi.
- Would the upgrade make this car a 'true' CSi or are there more differences between the two?
- Would there be a reason not to do this upgrade?
I'm looking forward to reading your opinions!
Greetings from the Netherlands!

Hello!

Engine upgrades are as common as E9 owners’ opinions on exterior colors. As with most changes, originality and condition can affect monetary value. Of course, you must decide for yourself whether any upgrade is worth the expense and effort.

To purists, numbers affixed to the chassis and engine block demarcate each "true " model, that is, fuel injected or carbureted. In some eyes, replicating a csi is not exactly the same thing as starting off with one - even though the same specimen is physically identical.

True Csi’s were originally fitted with Djetronic fuel injection. You did not specify that system as part of your contemplated upgrade, as opposed to later Ljetronic or Motronic alternatives. As evidenced by many posts in this forum, all of these systems can be adapted to the E9. Each has different electronic components and, sometimes, intake manifolds. Each system has its advantages. The earlier more primitive version being period correct. The later systems are infinitely more efficient and plentiful.

While the “i” has a definite performance advantage, the twin carburetor engine is no slouch. The different models typically had different rear axle ratios that, under “normal” Dutch driving conditions, provided each version with fairly similar and acceptable mid-range performance. Each driver’s needs or aspirations may differ. Idling in Rotterdam traffic may not require the same muscularity as leading the pack at Zandvoort.

Since you are evidently not too familiar with either version of the car, why not drive the beautiful version as-is? You may be satisfied. If your thirst for power remains unquenched, couldn't you still make the same modifications?

Sorry if this does not directly answer your question.






And, speaking of "noses":

 

[sreams]

I believe the CSi also has higher compression (depending on market). 9.5:1 as opposed to 9.0:1 for the CS.

 

[sirnosed]

Since you are evidently not too familiar with either version of the car, why not drive the beautiful version as-is? You may be satisfied. If your thirst for power remains unquenched, couldn't you still make the same modifications?

Thank you for your elaborate reply! You make a good point here which I will certainly take into consideration.

And whichever E9 it will be, it will see more Rotterdam traffic than Zandvoort action...