A great find at a local boneyard! And some questions ofcourse...

[tim at unrealexpectations.ath.cx (stetson)]

Marc,

Thank you for your glowing estimation of my literary abilities although
I've seen evidence that they are in feirce competition, if not
overshadowed, by other notable list contributers!

Thank you for a detailed point by point breakdown of the benefits and
demerits of 3A/JH headedness. Quite thorough and well explained but I
STILL am able to have questions about it.

Let me order my 5 remaining brain cells in a row so that I may have some
ability to comprehend better .... ;)

> The JH is a mechanical head, while the 3A is a hydraulic head. +1 for the 3A
> head. This is for a street motor, that will not rev above 6500, so the low
> maintenance factor of the hydraulic head is a plus. Not that big of a plus,
> but a definite plus.

This may be common knowledge but I am clueless (big surprise, I know) as
to solid vs. hydraulic valve performance at high RPM. Solid performs
better? This is a point that is making the me lean towards the JH. The
other is that I have a solid lifter performance cam that has
been languishing on waiting on me to get a dyno done for before/after
comparison.

> The 3A intake manifold is not a direct fit. You have to plug the 5th
> injector hole, which is in the middle of the back of the intake manifold,
> and make three holes on the end of the manifold for the correct location of
> the 5th injector. +1 for the JH.

Maybe I should have said what this is going into. It's a MKII (as are all
of mine). The Fox intake I have has not been modified in ANY way and
doesn't seem to suffer for the cold start being in it's original position
except for some very minor bogging issues when cold (w/i the 1st 5 min. of
starting). No rain tray denting issues have reared their ugly head (to my
GREAT satisfaction!) and so unless the the runners are appreciably longer
I doubt I will have such with the 3A one.
BUT if relocation can fix my very minor bogging issues it will be a task I
undertake with the 3A intake since it seems to win the intake portion of
the contest for injector access alone!

Many thanks to ALL that have replied with helpful tips!!

Tim

Blessed is he who has reached the point of no return and knows it,
for he shall enjoy living.
		-- W.C. Bennett

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, [Windows-1252] Marc_Scirocco_Qu?bec wrote:

> It is always a pleasure to read a post from our most literate member ;-)
>
> I am almost done in building a 9A bottom/3A Audi head combo, and I had the
> same questions as you do regarding the Audi 3A head.
>
> So here are my observations regarding both JH/3A heads, and why I am going
> to use the 3A head.
>
> Actually, both heads are very similar. They both have the same ports, the
> valves are the same size.
>
<snip>

> You can use your CIS mechanical setup with this head. It is a direct fit.
>
> Now lets talk about the intake manifold. This is where the main difference
> comes to play.
>
> I read the same thing as you did regarding the injectors. Being mounted on
> the intake manifold instead of the head would allow them to run cooler. +1?
> No data to prove this, so I'd say no, but it will not hurt.
>
> One plus for the 3A intake manifold, is the ease to get the injectors out to
> replace the seals as regular maintenance compared to the JH head. For those
> in the dark, they are held by a plastic clamp (they are cheap at the
> dealership) held by two 10mm bolts. You wrench two bolts on the 3A head to
> get the injectors out instead of cursing and prying the JH head injectors
> out. +1 for the 3A
>
> I measured both the JH and the 3A intake manifolds runners. The 3A intake
> manifold runners are bigger. Not that much, but bigger. The throttle body
> opening is already big enough as is for a neuspeed TB without the adaptor
> plate. +1 for the 3A.
>
<snip>