Re: 1.8 with 96mm compared to stock 2.0? Options

[Badass43]

Hey Guys,

Since I cant find a reasonably priced 2.0 to replace my 1.8 in my 1974, how would a dual carb 1.8 with 96mm PC, stock 1.8 heads and stock cam compare H.P. wise to a stock 2.0?

If I changed the cam from stock to a carb cam would it increase H.P. worth the work and money involved? if so what would the H.P. be? Approx.

I have some leads on 1.8 engines that are a lot cheaper than the 2.0 that has been offered and would leave me money for the PC upgrade plus leave me an extra $1,800.00 that I don't have right now anyway.

Randy

[Cupomeat]

1.8 and 1.7 bottom ends are pretty much the same. (Same crank, rods, case, cam) The Heads are very different between a 1.7 and 1.8 heads with the 1.8 heads being much better flow in stock form.

As for the earlier question of L-Jet HP on a 1911, I have this combination and after some adjustment, it runs quite well but I have no dyno specs to back it.
The problem with L-jet is that is determines fuel flow based on a timing cycle and the percent of the cycle that the injectors are open. Once the injectors are open the entire period, no more fuel flow can take place unless you go to bigger injectors or higher fuel pressures.

Also note that the AFC (airbox) only controls mixture up until 3500-4k rpm and after that it is based on an analog computer map. So, if you get your bottom end correct by the mixture, the top end might not be correct. It is better to get your top end perfect then adjust the bottom end via the AFC flapper bypass valve.

I'll keep you up to date after my next round of tuning. I like the L-jet as a system (theoretically) but it does give me fits.

eric