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

[vesnyder]

Randy - I will chime in here. I just took a 1.8 and created a 1911 by adding the 96 mm P&C's with a new cam and dual Webers. Despite the issues I am having with my rebuild I would highly recommend the 1911. I had a tired 1.7 D-Jet and this is a world apart! It is quick and would not expect a 2.0 be much more. It turned my 914 into a sports car again.

Would love to hear from somebody who can quantify any difference!

[r_towle]

Short stroked motors are alot of fun.
Go for it.

Rich

[Dave_Darling]

A good cam would let you get more power out of the motor, assuming you built the rest of the motor to keep up with it.

--DD

[orthobiz]

And if he kept the stock FI, what's the most hp he can expect with a 1911 rebuild? Something that looked bone stock to even a critical observer?

Paul

[r_towle]

well the 2056 can get 120ish HP, I would not expect any more than that.
The 2056 has more torque due to the longer stroke, but the 1911 will rev up faster, so it will have a different feeling.

Rich

[0396]

Good info guys- now if one was to do this combo. Who makes these 96 mm P/Cs and which cam- Jake's for a 'stock' f/i ? One more question- how much would one expect to have in one of these up graded motors- 6-7k?

Thank you

[Brando]

Jake sells both J&E Forged pistons and KB pistons in 96mm. His 9550 cam is what he recommends for stock injection.

[914werke]

well the 2056 can get 120ish HP, I would not expect any more than that.
The 2056 has more torque due to the longer stroke, but the 1911 will rev up faster, so it will have a different feeling.

Rich

Agreed my 1911 is a bit diff. since I applied 2.0 heads induction Djet and exhaust
but its rev happy nature is a bunch of fun and aside from the torque (properly tuned) should match the output of a stock 2.0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif)

[Borderline]

My 1911:
Len Hoffman modified 1.8 heads
Elgin cam
9.5:1 CR
euro-headers
weber 40's

put out just over 100HP at the rear wheels on a chassis dyno. Depending on what you believe the tranny efficiency to be, that is ~120 HP un-corrected @ the flywheel. I like it! The only problem is the head temps are a little high. Go with the Raby cam!

[HAM Inc]

Those are damn good #'s Bill! Glad you got it all together and are happy with it. BTW, what sort of fuel mileage are you getting? And how does that compare to what you were getting?

[0396]

Jake sells both J&E Forged pistons and KB pistons in 96mm. His 9550 cam is what he recommends for stock injection.

Thank you!

[r_towle]

Those are damn good #'s Bill! Glad you got it all together and are happy with it. BTW, what sort of fuel mileage are you getting? And how does that compare to what you were getting?

I am really honestly excited to see you asking this question.

Rich

[HAM Inc]

Rich I've been tuned in to fuel economy for a long time now. When gas hit $1.50/gallon I thought that was expensive, and I saw the writing on the wall.

A coupleof years ago I spent a good deal of time developing a cylinder head configuration that is geared toward fuel economy and torque. It's not a high revver, but when placed on a properly configured engine it makes a great stump puller. It's all done by 5,000rpm's (depending on the displacement).

I would like to spend more time on this sort of development, but there so far just isn't much demand for it. With gas at $4.00+ and climbing, go figure!

[kerensky]

Hmmm, what's the difference then between the 1.8 and 1.7 bottom ends? Would the 96mm P/C combo work just as well on an old 1.7?

[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

[Jake Raby]

Hmmm, what's the difference then between the 1.8 and 1.7 bottom ends? Would the 96mm P/C combo work just as well on an old 1.7?

I suppose you haven't viewed my 1.7/1.8 >>2.0 conversion article???

Yes, Len and I started developing MPG combos 4 years ago.. So far only a hand full of people have taken advantage of the engine and that has kept its price high.

For someone to spend that kind of money on an engine, they have to WANT to drive it like I do, every day..

[kerensky]

Hmmm, what's the difference then between the 1.8 and 1.7 bottom ends? Would the 96mm P/C combo work just as well on an old 1.7?

I suppose you haven't viewed my 1.7/1.8 >>2.0 conversion article???

Yes, Len and I started developing MPG combos 4 years ago.. So far only a hand full of people have taken advantage of the engine and that has kept its price high.

For someone to spend that kind of money on an engine, they have to WANT to drive it like I do, every day..

Nope, 'fraid not. I've got your site bookmarked ... somewhere. But for the past two decades my automotive efforts have been limited to my fleet of beat-up daily drivers, so I haven't been doing any 914-related research.

I'm trying to change that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The 1911 sounds intriguing, and I've got a good 1.7 core to begin with. But if I can do a 2.0 for the same money ...

[justme]

My 1911:
Len Hoffman modified 1.8 heads
Elgin cam
9.5:1 CR
euro-headers
weber 40's

put out just over 100HP at the rear wheels on a chassis dyno. Depending on what you believe the tranny efficiency to be, that is ~120 HP un-corrected @ the flywheel. I like it! The only problem is the head temps are a little high. Go with the Raby cam!

Hi Bill,

Just wondering which Elgin cam you used & grind?

Thanks

[james2]

There are a couple of 914 2.0s on the samba cheap.

I'm not an expert on type 4's, at all. But i do know Jake Raby.( i tell you this so you will like me and think I'm cool) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I built a 2332cc type 1 in 2006 for hot VWs engine show down. It dyno'd at 210 hp on pump gas on Jake's dyno. ( i tell you this so you don't think I'm speaking out my ass) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

IMHO, I would always start with the best heads and longest stroke I could reasonably afford.