Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: rdauenhauer Dec 17 2005, 10:46 AM

Type4 for any knuckle heads prepairing wise cracks Based on the 1.7 1.8 bottom end, 96 P&C's and appropriate wrist pin height.

Any one running one? What are you impressions compared to a Stock 1.7, 1.8, 2.0?

Posted by: J P Stein Dec 17 2005, 10:50 AM

Maybe

Posted by: thesey914 Dec 17 2005, 11:15 AM

I've got one on Dell 45's with some high-lift cam. It kicks bottom. Easily as quick as a 2.0 six.

Posted by: rdauenhauer Dec 17 2005, 11:20 AM

I didnt mean experiance having lived during that time JP.

Posted by: Gint Dec 17 2005, 11:31 AM

Had one with hydraulic lifters Weber 40's on it. Loved it. Fantastic bottom end.

Posted by: jimtab Dec 17 2005, 12:07 PM

QUOTE (rdauenhauer @ Dec 17 2005, 09:20 AM)

I didnt mean experiance having lived during that time JP.

Hell ya. That was ww1....the really big one.....

Posted by: Gary Dec 17 2005, 01:53 PM

I ran one for several years in a bug. Nice motor for the money. Don't overcam - I ran a webcam 86a, which may have been a little much. 86 would have been better. I'll bet the type4store has a split duration cam just for this app too...

Posted by: McMark Dec 17 2005, 02:12 PM

A 1911 is a torquey mofo. According to the dyno graphs for my engines, the 1911 (with carbs) is nearly identical to a stock 2.0, but has better low end torque and better top end. Good stuff.

Posted by: Brando Dec 17 2005, 09:33 PM

QUOTE (McMark @ Dec 17 2005, 12:12 PM)

A 1911 is a torquey mofo.  According to the dyno graphs for my engines, the 1911 (with carbs) is nearly identical to a stock 2.0, but has better low end torque and better top end.  Good stuff.

That makes me wonder if a stock 2.0 isn't running as efficient as it should be

Posted by: jd74914 Dec 17 2005, 09:40 PM

QUOTE (Brando @ Dec 17 2005, 10:33 PM)

QUOTE (McMark @ Dec 17 2005, 12:12 PM) A 1911 is a torquey mofo.  According to the dyno graphs for my engines, the 1911 (with carbs) is nearly identical to a stock 2.0, but has better low end torque and better top end.  Good stuff. That makes me wonder if a stock 2.0 isn't running as efficient as it should be

Probably.

Theoretically the stock 2.0 should have a better bottom end as it has a longer stroke and the 1911 a better top end because of the larger bore.

Posted by: Aaron Cox Dec 17 2005, 09:43 PM

QUOTE (jd74914 @ Dec 17 2005, 08:40 PM)

QUOTE (Brando @ Dec 17 2005, 10:33 PM) QUOTE (McMark @ Dec 17 2005, 12:12 PM) A 1911 is a torquey mofo.  According to the dyno graphs for my engines, the 1911 (with carbs) is nearly identical to a stock 2.0, but has better low end torque and better top end.  Good stuff. That makes me wonder if a stock 2.0 isn't running as efficient as it should be Probably. Theoretically the stock 2.0 should have a better bottom end as it has a longer stroke and the 1911 a better top end because of the larger bore.

a 1911 shouldnt have more torque, it should spin faster and free-er do to the small stroke....

like a 2.0 six vs a 2.7.

shortstroke screamers....

they jam with 2L heads

Posted by: jd74914 Dec 17 2005, 10:05 PM

QUOTE (Aaron Cox @ Dec 17 2005, 10:43 PM)

QUOTE (jd74914 @ Dec 17 2005, 08:40 PM) QUOTE (Brando @ Dec 17 2005, 10:33 PM) QUOTE (McMark @ Dec 17 2005, 12:12 PM) A 1911 is a torquey mofo.  According to the dyno graphs for my engines, the 1911 (with carbs) is nearly identical to a stock 2.0, but has better low end torque and better top end.  Good stuff. That makes me wonder if a stock 2.0 isn't running as efficient as it should be Probably. Theoretically the stock 2.0 should have a better bottom end as it has a longer stroke and the 1911 a better top end because of the larger bore. a 1911 shouldnt have more torque, it should spin faster and free-er do to the small stroke.... like a 2.0 six vs a 2.7. shortstroke screamers.... they jam with 2L heads

Thats what i meant, should explained it better. I figured the 1911 would have better top end HP (especially with carbs and 2.0heads) sorta like you said.

Posted by: Aaron Cox Dec 17 2005, 10:06 PM

big stroke = torque
small stroke = rev happy

right?

Posted by: McMark Dec 17 2005, 10:26 PM

The 1911 I'm looking at makes more torque down low because of the cam. I'm comparing a 1911 with a carb cam to a stock cammed 2.0. In this case the 1911 makes better low end and better top end.

Looking at a non-stock cam 1911 vs a non-stock cam 2056 you will get a torque advantage on the 2056 and a top end advantage on the 1911. But even that depends on the cam you choose.

Basically, I say, expect a 1911 to be nearly identical to a stock 2.0. Especially if you use stock D-Jet.

Posted by: elocke Dec 17 2005, 11:21 PM

Since I have a 1.8 left over from a conversion I'm interested in this thread, but I'm confused. Are you saying one can get 95-100hp from a properly cammed & carb'd 1911 w/2l heads?

Posted by: elocke Dec 17 2005, 11:24 PM

...meant to end with "and still have decent bottom end torque?"
Ed

Posted by: McMark Dec 18 2005, 12:44 AM

This is Jake's dyno graph of a carbed 1911. See for yourself.


Attached thumbnail(s)

Posted by: GWN7 Dec 18 2005, 12:55 AM

I thought you ment this 1911

http://www.m1911.org/

Posted by: Brando Dec 18 2005, 03:41 AM

Wow... 104.5 torque on a 191... nice.

Posted by: elocke Dec 18 2005, 12:12 PM

Ditto!

Posted by: m_davidson Dec 18 2005, 01:03 PM

My '72 came with a 1911 built 10K miles ago for autocrossing with a lightened flywheel, 2.0 headers (now with a Bursch muffler) and the 1700-2000cc FI. I'm a 914 Newbie, but it seemed much quicker than the 1.8 I later test drove. The 1.8 had good leak-down numbers and was in good tune according to the VW/Porsche guru that has worked on both cars.

Mel

Posted by: Mueller Dec 18 2005, 01:15 PM

my 1st 914 had a fresh 1911...ran great....

I did a 2 day auto-x/drivers training with it and 2 of my instructors had 2.0 914 and both couldn't believe that my 1911 ran and pulled just as well as thier 2.0s

Posted by: MikeInMunich Apr 11 2020, 12:30 PM

That’s HP, not torque.

Posted by: MikeInMunich Apr 11 2020, 12:34 PM

Anyone know which heads this 1911 had?

We’re they ported?

And the cam?

I have a 1911 with 1.7 heads with stock valves and 2.0 D-Jet. I think it has a webcam. Don’t know which one. So what do y’all reckon my HP is? 95?

M.i.M.

Posted by: TheCabinetmaker Apr 11 2020, 01:49 PM

73 1.7. l missed a downshift and went from 5th to 2nd at 60 plus. Was only 3 months old. Had the npr kit installed. Very torquey. Easily topped 115mph, and got 44 mpg back in the 55mph era. Put 349,000 miles on that engine before rebuilding. It was much faster than my stock 75 2.0.

Posted by: Cairo94507 Apr 11 2020, 02:41 PM

Wow I saw this thread and my first thought had Colt in front of it......

Posted by: Maltese Falcon Apr 11 2020, 02:41 PM

Oops...thought we were talking side-arm 1911 here, NVM carry on

Posted by: oldschool Apr 11 2020, 03:46 PM

ME 2 lol

Posted by: euro911 Apr 11 2020, 05:22 PM

'HOWARD' is getting a 1911, with D-Jet F.I., 2.0L injectors, SS valves, chromoly push rods, 911 swivel foot adjusters, 2.0L SSI HEs and a banana muffler ... and ATS Classics , of course