Home  |  Forums  |  914 Info  |  Blogs
 
914World.com - The fastest growing online 914 community!
 
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG. This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way.
Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
 Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What's the story with the 1.8?, I've read they are less desirable. Why?
rick 918-S
post Oct 25 2008, 07:39 PM
Post #1


Hey nice rack! -Celette
***************

Group: Members
Posts: 20,470
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Now in Superior WI
Member No.: 43
Region Association: Northstar Region
Something I've been thinking about for a while. As the title states. Are there issues with 1.8's that there isn't with 1.7's and 2.0's? Enlighten me.
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Todd Enlund
post Oct 25 2008, 07:43 PM
Post #2


Resident Photoshop Guru
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3,251
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Laurelhurst (Portland), Oregon
Member No.: 8,032
Region Association: Pacific Northwest
QUOTE(rick 918-S @ Oct 25 2008, 05:39 PM) *

Something I've been thinking about for a while. As the title states. Are there issues with 1.8's that there isn't with 1.7's and 2.0's? Enlighten me.

I think mostly it's the L-Jet.

Otherwise, mechanically, I think the 1.8 is better than the 1.7... better heads, anyhow.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
VaccaRabite
post Oct 25 2008, 07:48 PM
Post #3


En Garde!
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,450
Joined: 15-December 03
From: Dallastown, PA
Member No.: 1,435
Region Association: MidAtlantic Region
They are rated at less power then the 1.7 (due to emissions) and have a funky fuel injection system.

Zach
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
southernmost914
post Oct 25 2008, 07:54 PM
Post #4


KEY WEST/HAVANA Tunnel Authority
**

Group: Members
Posts: 338
Joined: 16-October 07
From: Key West/ St. Augie, Fl USA
Member No.: 8,234
Region Association: South East States
I don't know but from what I read 1.8 cases tend over heat and loose oil pressure (warp) the metal is differant. 1.8 head or good to modify. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Steve
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
type11969
post Oct 25 2008, 08:01 PM
Post #5


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,231
Joined: 2-December 03
From: Collingswood, NJ
Member No.: 1,410
Region Association: North East States
I dig the l-jet in my bus, seems pretty reliable. I think djet is a more archaic design and future bosch systems were developed from ljet but I'm not 100% sure.

Vacuum leaks cause bigger problems with ljet I believe.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
southernmost914
post Oct 25 2008, 08:12 PM
Post #6


KEY WEST/HAVANA Tunnel Authority
**

Group: Members
Posts: 338
Joined: 16-October 07
From: Key West/ St. Augie, Fl USA
Member No.: 8,234
Region Association: South East States
QUOTE(type11969 @ Oct 25 2008, 10:01 PM) *

I dig the l-jet in my bus, seems pretty reliable. I think djet is a more archaic design and future bosch systems were developed from ljet but I'm not 100% sure.

Vacuum leaks cause bigger problems with ljet I believe.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)
YES , If there is a vacume leaks in a L-jet it will run lean and hotter . Over heat,(warp) I think Jake has covered this many times in past threads.

Steve
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dw914er
post Oct 25 2008, 08:41 PM
Post #7


Planning Cities
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,364
Joined: 1-March 08
From: Yucaipa, CA
Member No.: 8,763
Region Association: Southern California
QUOTE(Vacca Rabite @ Oct 25 2008, 06:48 PM) *

They are rated at less power then the 1.7 (due to emissions) and have a funky fuel injection system.

Zach


yea that. Thats typically why a stock 1.7 is better to have than the 74+ 1.8's. it probably is better overall motor, but the FI and emissions stuff hindered its true potential.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jim912928
post Oct 25 2008, 09:08 PM
Post #8


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,485
Joined: 8-January 04
From: Granger, IN
Member No.: 1,536
Region Association: Upper MidWest
Nothing wrong with ljet..just not a lot of experience in the 914 community. drove my 75 for 2 years with the ljet before I yanked it for the 3.2l that is going in it. Ran like a dream. Only thing to watch for is vacuum leaks as the ljet system likes things air-tight!

The 1.8l engines were rated the lowest in HP though..but the heads are desireable!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Elliot Cannon
post Oct 25 2008, 09:14 PM
Post #9


914 Guru
*****

Group: Retired Members
Posts: 8,487
Joined: 29-December 06
From: Paso Robles Ca. (Central coast)
Member No.: 7,407
Region Association: None
I've heard they're more reliable than 928 engines.

(Sorry, I couldn't help it.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
type47
post Oct 25 2008, 10:10 PM
Post #10


Viermeister
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,254
Joined: 7-August 03
From: Vienna, VA
Member No.: 994
Region Association: MidAtlantic Region
Porsche even stated that the L-jet is the more modern EFI system. i think it gets a bad rap because of the 76 hp rating and "everybody" wants more hp. I like my L-jet and it runs very good (knock...). 'course, my D-jet also is running very good too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zonedoubt
post Oct 25 2008, 10:11 PM
Post #11


Canadian Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 668
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Vancouver, BC
Member No.: 696
Region Association: Canada
The November issue of Excellence actually gives comparable $ values for the 1.8's as for the 1.7's.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jd74914
post Oct 26 2008, 12:24 AM
Post #12


Its alive
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,780
Joined: 16-February 04
From: CT
Member No.: 1,659
Region Association: North East States
My daily driver is a 1.8L with L-Jet. I have 2 D-jet cars and the one L-Jet. I like the L-Jet better. IMHO its a simpler system with less expensive parts that can seriously break (read: MPS). Yes it is less tolerant to vacuum leaks, but this isn't too big a problem. If your car is tuned well there shouldn't be any no matter what system you have.

In driving both, the 2L is faster by far, but the 1.8 makes a great daily driver. Not that D-jet can't do it, but I get around 40mpg driving back and forth to work (highway). Its great.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
7275914911
post Oct 26 2008, 09:57 AM
Post #13


Hummmm!!!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 756
Joined: 7-May 08
From: Mid-South
Member No.: 9,028
Region Association: South East States
Hey All,

Maybe I'm biased because all I got is a 75 1.8 running L-Jet(all smog stuff is gone). I can hang with the stock 2.0's that I have been on runs with as long as there are not to many drag strips. I do feel like I have to drive the hell out of it to keep up. But it does keep up!!

On the torgue side the 2.0's don't start to pull away till late 3rd gear(around 65 mph). My top end is around 95 on a down hill slope (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ....

The FI system is very simple. I am a simple man and I have been able to learn the system with ease. I am thinking of modifing it to go on my 2056 later this winter. Somebody talk me out of it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) and tell me what carbs I should be running!

Oh, I got about 30 mpg from Thur to Sun at the RCR. All types of driving over all kinds of gradients. 16x7 rims with 205/55 and 911 front end so I would assume I am a little heavier than stock?

JKP
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
type47
post Oct 26 2008, 10:10 AM
Post #14


Viermeister
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,254
Joined: 7-August 03
From: Vienna, VA
Member No.: 994
Region Association: MidAtlantic Region
QUOTE(7275914911 @ Oct 26 2008, 08:57 AM) *

Somebody talk me out of it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) and tell me what carbs I should be running!



I'll try to talk you out of carbs. if not L-jet, then consider SDS, Megasquirt or Microsquirt or some modern fuel injection system.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bleyseng
post Oct 26 2008, 10:20 AM
Post #15


Aircooled Baby!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,035
Joined: 27-December 02
From: Seattle, Washington (for now)
Member No.: 24
Region Association: Pacific Northwest
The knock is that the 1.8's are pretty gutless compared to a 2.0l. Now a 1.8 vs 1.7 is about the same...I like Ljet as its pretty simple and there's hardly any maintanence..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gint
post Oct 26 2008, 12:11 PM
Post #16


Mike Ginter
***************

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,076
Joined: 26-December 02
From: Denver CO.
Member No.: 20
Region Association: Rocky Mountains
QUOTE(rick 918-S @ Oct 25 2008, 07:39 PM) *
Something I've been thinking about for a while. As the title states. Are there issues with 1.8's that there isn't with 1.7's and 2.0's? Enlighten me.

Going from 8 cylinders to 4 Rick? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happy11.gif)

Slight (IMG:style_emoticons/default/hijacked.gif)

Would a stock L-Jet setup from a 1.8 work OK on a 1.8 based 2056?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Katmanken
post Oct 26 2008, 12:55 PM
Post #17


You haven't seen me if anybody asks...
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,738
Joined: 14-June 03
From: USA
Member No.: 819
Region Association: Upper MidWest
Think back guys...

1973 was the tipping point for fuel emissions.....

Before 1973, no emissions issues....

After 1973, there were emission requirements...

Since emission control was in it's infancy, most of the fixes involved "detuning" an engine in some way with retarded timing, revised fuel/air maps, air injection, etc.

That being said, I like the L-jet. Simple, reliable, and darned near bulletproof. Yes, it is sensitive to neglect (air leaks) and the barndoor sized air flap has a little less response than some systems, but it is reliable.

I have an updated system in my 1986 Vanagon (2.1 L) called a Digifant and (except for dirty fuel filter issues and a single worn out switch) it's been 100% reliable since 1986. It looks just like an L-jet on the 914 and has a neat feature where when you take your foot off the gas, the injectors stop flowing until the engine is at 800-1000 rpm. Can you say zero emissions when downshifting?

I'm surprised that someone hasn't adapted the Digifant to the 914. Mebbe it's the water cooling thing.

Later versions switched from the air flap to a hot wire airflow for improved throttle response.

Ken
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
r_towle
post Oct 26 2008, 04:26 PM
Post #18


Custom Member
***************

Group: Members
Posts: 24,584
Joined: 9-January 03
From: Taxachusetts
Member No.: 124
Region Association: North East States
no knock here.
We have all of them and the 1.8 is a great motor...

Tune it, change the hoses and drive the hell out of it.

Rich
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sean_v8_914
post Oct 26 2008, 05:19 PM
Post #19


Chingon 601
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,011
Joined: 1-February 05
From: San Diego
Member No.: 3,541
in 1973 Porsche introduced the 2.0 to replace the six. emissions laws were also changing. compression was lowered as a result. with lower compression came lower HP ratings. in 74 Porsche bumped the displacement of the 1.7 from 90mm to 93mm bores. I speculate this was done to maintain power output simi-level as more emissions equipment was added, further bogging down the motor. In 75 the exhaust was changed to make it burn hotter just to keep pace with further changes in federally regulated emission laws. auto makers of the era were all scrambling to meet the new standards and few were able to comply without great sacrifices to power output and engine longevity. Enter Mr. smog pump 1975...

the 1.8 engine responds dramatically to an increase in compression and back-dating the exhaust system. in its stock form, with all the extra smog junk, they run weaker and hotter than a 1.7. the 1.8 heads have different chambers and bigger valves. an early 1.7 with it's small valves and higher compression makes for a snappier motor off the line but a 1.8 with the same 8.4 compression will keep pulling after the 1.7 has peaked

I see far more cracked 1.8 heads than 1.7 heads
L-Jet has superior smoothness in daily driver applications

throw some 96mm jugs on that L-Jet beast, bump her up to 8.6 to 1 and smile for days
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sean_v8_914
post Oct 26 2008, 05:20 PM
Post #20


Chingon 601
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,011
Joined: 1-February 05
From: San Diego
Member No.: 3,541
don't forget to change the 2 o-ring in the L-Jet oil fill cap
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
« Next Oldest · 914World Garage · Next Newest »
 

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum

- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th May 2024 - 05:46 PM
Invision Power Board v9.1.4 © 2024  IPS, Inc.
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community!
We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ...