2.0 vs 1.8, really now, is there a true difference? Options

[lostmybaby]

I posted on this board about 4 days ago after being saddend by the loss of my 1976 914. The car was crunched by an escort and considered a loss by the insurance company. My mechanic can not find anything wrong with the suspension, however the rear back wheel appears to be 'hyperextended' pushing out from the bottom away from the car.
Plus, some brake calipers need replacing, the clutch -after driving for a while- the clutch cable makes a grinding noise when you push on the pedal (may just be a bushing?). Well you add all of that to the ugly dent in the side and I've been shopping for another car.
HERE IS THE QUESTION: I HAD a 2.0 liter engine that was strong and way too reliable to be simply mechanical. The oil return tubes needed to be replaced as they leaked oil, but I actually liked knowing where I parked by my spot!!!
So, I'm looking at 1.8 liter cars and want to know, other than the numbers (1.8 -2.0) will I really notice a difference when driving. Is the 1.8 that much more sluggish??? etc.,
My options are to drop the 2.0 engine into the 914 I purchase and sell the 1.8L engine.
Now, I'm just casting this question to the lords of the 914 to determine which route 'they' would choose.

THANKS EVERYONE FOR HELPING ME DETERMINE THE PRICE OF MY CAR. IT REALLY HELPED ME DEAL WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY!!!!
GREATEST 914 BOARD ON THE NET>

[tahoward]

IMO, the 1.8 is good only for the body. I own 2 2.0's, one FI, the other dual 40 webers. I've driven 3 1.8s and I felt I could be passed by kids on bikes! Night and day difference. Good luck with your car.

[lostmybaby]

YIKES, passed by KIDS on BIKES. OHhhh nooooo. no nOO.
OK, so swaping the engine out is something I should do if I enjoyed feeling like I owned a sports car.

[Bleyseng]

I have driven 3 1.8L 914's and they were sluggish more like a bug than a 914. Two liter is the way to go!
Why? Only 76hp in a heavy later 914 especially a 75 is not very fast. The early lighter cars (70-72) with the 80hp have more power.
The only 1.8 I want to drive is Rich Bontempi's.......
Geoff

[vortrex]

I've never really understood how people think stock 2.0's are fast, or even remotely fast. you see it all the time in ads, "this car is fast!". 0-60 is about 10 sec, which is slower than most cars on the road, let alone any kind of sports car. I once raced my GF with the 914 2.0 vs an '88 range rover and it was neck 'n' neck! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[lostmybaby]

"Only 76hp in a heavy later 914 especially a 75 is not very fast."
But the car I am looking at is a 73, which is earlier and lighter, correct. Also, I'm trying to find out how many 73s were made with the 1.8 liter. It seems the 73 cars were either 2.0 or 1.7, correct?? IS the 1.8 a car that was made by porsche or has the owner dropped a 1.8L in the '73???

[lostmybaby]

agreed, re: think the 2.0 is fast. However, it was a pretty good car, speed wise, once you got above 55-60mph with the RPMs cranking. Yeah it only got to about 120mph, but the car does get there with a little umph. Nothing compared to cars that are out there today, but with a bad driver behind a 2002 BMW, a little 2.0 could make the newer car feel pretty stupid for about a mile -then the power of the newer car simply wins out.
However, I guess the question is. If I find a good conditioned 1.8L car, should I keep it and seel the 2.0L engine, or just watch AAA take the car away and learn that the 1.8 is pretty much the same little fun 914.
The plan was to always wait and put in a bigger 6 cylinder engine so I'm really just questioning the immediate feel. So far the whole Bike comment has me concerned. I've driven my 2.0 along side other 914s and seemed amazed at the lack of pep. If thats the case with the smaller engine then gee whiz, yikes.

[echocanyons]

Really no quewstion in my book they are both dogleg slow by todays standards.

But the 2.0 may be a lil bit faster (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Gint]

That last comment is about as accurate as it will get IMHO.

Given a choice, use the 2.0. Take all you can get. Otherwise, big deal.

[lostmybaby]

mechanically they are both the same engine for the most part,right? its not like the 1.8 has more problems, correct?
Anyone out there want a 2.0L 914 engine??? Give me a price, you can have the entire car for the price of the engine. There is new clutch (from May of this year) as well.
Basically I have to see if what the public is willing to pay for the car is anything near what AAA wants to give me.

[Gint]

Location?

[Bleyseng]

Depends on how many miles are on the motor. Price for a 76 2.0 w/FI $750 to 1000 engine.
I am not saying 2.0l cars are FAST, just faster than a 1.8. 73's didn't come with a 1.8, some came with the 72hp 1.7. Could be that they rebuild the engine with 93mm pistons and cylinders and rebuilt heads. Now I wonder what pistons they used.
On the 70 914 I just junked the PO had rebuilt the motor, OK I thought I could sell it. I took it apart and they used 93mm bus pistons and 2.0l bus heads making a 80hp have a whopping 67hp. I recycled it.....
One way to make a 914 is to use smaller diameter tires. Get rid of those 185x65's and get some 195x50's to get a gearing change. Helps alot.
The other thing I have noticed driving other guy's cars is they rarely have them tuned. Just parts slapped on, and not making sure the fuel mixture (carbs or FI ) is set right. Makes a difference, or is this just a Seattle cheapsonobitch thing.
Geoff

[lostmybaby]

by the way, I'm in San Diego and near as I can tell the car has been in California its entire life. I believe I am the third owner, how can I determine for sure.
By tomorrow night I will post if I plan on selling the 2.0L engine, because I only assume there is no one out there interested in the 1.8L I will pull from the new purchase.