1911, Any opinions or experiances? Options

[914werke]

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/confused24.gif) Type4 for any knuckle heads prepairing wise cracks (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif) 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?

[jd74914]

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 (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/unsure.gif) 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 (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/smile.gif)

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.