Difference between a 2.0L out of a bus or 914 Options

[Dr Evil]

"Do you guys just sit around making this shit up?"

No.

The 914 2.0 is made of a hypereutectic, higher midi-chlorian alloy which gives it better stability, lightness, and strength (IMG:style_emoticons/default/poke.gif)

[underthetire]

"Do you guys just sit around making this shit up?"

No.

The 914 2.0 is made of a hypereutectic, higher midi-chlorian alloy which gives it better stability, lightness, and strength (IMG:style_emoticons/default/poke.gif)

Huh? You mean rust? Naw, they both rust equally. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)

[underthetire]

Another difference, the bus cases for the carb'd engines have a bronze sleeve that goes 'through' one of the oil galley holes by the flywheel end, for the mechanical fuel pump pushrod. When you plug those holes in the case, you have to leave that one alone as going through it will screw up your oil pressure.

Besides blocking up the pulley end flange for the oil fill, you have to block the flange for the fuel pump also.

The finish on a bus case isn't as nice, also, like more casting marks, burrs, not as shiny.

Some bus cases don't have the slots to put in a windage tray, even, but some do.

The hardest part I would think would be making the hole for the tube to check the oil level, as bus cases don't have that steel tube coming out the top.

All the 2.0 bus engines I've seen were injected, mine didn't have the fp mount. Capn would know for sure.

[Bleyseng]

I had one come loose and slide into the crank which didn't have the stop pressed in so the pilot shaft flopped around tossing tranny fluid out the seal.
Make it up? Why would I do that as enough weird shit has happened to me over the years....since 1969 on aircooleds.

[nathansnathan]

Another difference, the bus cases for the carb'd engines have a bronze sleeve that goes 'through' one of the oil galley holes by the flywheel end, for the mechanical fuel pump pushrod. When you plug those holes in the case, you have to leave that one alone as going through it will screw up your oil pressure.

Besides blocking up the pulley end flange for the oil fill, you have to block the flange for the fuel pump also.

The finish on a bus case isn't as nice, also, like more casting marks, burrs, not as shiny.

Some bus cases don't have the slots to put in a windage tray, even, but some do.

The hardest part I would think would be making the hole for the tube to check the oil level, as bus cases don't have that steel tube coming out the top.

All the 2.0 bus engines I've seen were injected, mine didn't have the fp mount. Capn would know for sure.

Ah yeah, I was explaining the difference between ALL bus engines. The 2.0 busses were all fuel injected so they would have had electric fuel pumps and that flange not broached.

Something else not mentioned previous, but bus 2.0 cases lost the oil control valve (I think it's called that - the one below #1 cylinder) on account of the hydraulic lifters. I think 914 cases all had it as they all used mechanical lifters.

[Bleyseng]

GC cases don't have it.

[patssle]

I have a 2.0 bus in my 914. Engine code says it produces a whoppin' 67 horsepower. Supposedly it has Porsche heads on it - says the PO. Also has carbs. Has nice torque in 1st/2nd, but beyond that - it's a wheezer.

That's why I'm putting in a /6 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[nathansnathan]

GC cases don't have it.

I never knew that. I wonder why?

Something else, I have never seen discussed in any forum, the differences in specifications listed in the 914 Technical Specifications book and the ones in the Bentley Transporter Manual. If they're right and we're putting the same main seals in, it's no wonder I can't keep my flywheel and clutch from getting oil on it in the 914 case. (my bus case leaks there, too actually). And then main bearings...5mm is a big difference....it seems like one of the books is wrong? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/hissyfit.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Bleyseng]

I have a 2.0 bus in my 914. Engine code says it produces a whoppin' 67 horsepower. Supposedly it has Porsche heads on it - says the PO. Also has carbs. Has nice torque in 1st/2nd, but beyond that - it's a wheezer.

That's why I'm putting in a /6 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

look to see if the heads have 3 intake studs then you'll know if it has Porsche heads (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I think the red colored rear main seal is better than the black seal which leaks...Also check to see if your flywheels have a groove in em where the oil seals rubs which yes, causes leaks.

[914Mike]

In addition to the big dish in the piston ( lower compression) the connecting rods are more robust at the large end and weigh much more than a 914.

That's just not true. They're EXACTLY THE SAME.

The Cap'n

My Triple Beam disagrees. I _had_ a set of 914 2.0 rods that weighed about 770-780 grams, very thin on the small end. The ones I got back from the shop weighed about 810 grams, much thicker at the small end. (Not going to take any re-work back there! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/hissyfit.gif)) Later production perhaps? If you have the good ones, make sure to get the same ones back, is all I'm saying.

Anyways, the top end just seemed diminished, compared to what I remember of the tired 2.0...