Hello All!
I'm new to this forum as I have recently bought a 1970, 1.7L, 914. The engine needs quite a bit of work and I'm considering to replace it by a 2.0, from a vintage VW.
Would you say that such engine would work/fit in the 914? Are they visually alike? Would there be the need of a great adaption in the car?
Thank you in advance!
Full Version: 914 1.7 to a 2.0 (VW)
What vintage VW? A type 1? (Beetle) or a type 2 (Transporter)? I'd say no to a type 1 engine as it has the upright fan setup which does work well and there isn't a way to use the 914 flywheel/clutch set up on a type 1 so the starter won't engage. A type 2 engine will work and you just swap all the 914 tin over to the engine, all the FI stuff and the 914 flywheel will fit too! All 70hp will be a disappointment in the 914 but it will run.
Gotta respectfully disagree.
1.7L is only a disappointment in a 914 to those that want to go fast in a straight line.
If you want to go fast in a straight line, I'd argue there are much better vehicles for that job than any 914 regardless of what powertrain you put in it and how many thousands of dollars are spent "upgrading".
As a community, we do a disservice to 914's to suggest that the 1.7L was some sort of under powered dog. Sure, it wasn't even fast by 1970's standards but the handling is unlike anything that was available at the time in it's price class.
Sure a 2.0L is nicer. Sure a 2.7L six is even better. And let's agree that a 4.0L Singer built six would the AWESOME.
But you can have a GREAT time in a stock 1.7L. Just learn to drive it in the corners!
1.7L is only a disappointment in a 914 to those that want to go fast in a straight line.
If you want to go fast in a straight line, I'd argue there are much better vehicles for that job than any 914 regardless of what powertrain you put in it and how many thousands of dollars are spent "upgrading".
As a community, we do a disservice to 914's to suggest that the 1.7L was some sort of under powered dog. Sure, it wasn't even fast by 1970's standards but the handling is unlike anything that was available at the time in it's price class.
Sure a 2.0L is nicer. Sure a 2.7L six is even better. And let's agree that a 4.0L Singer built six would the AWESOME.
But you can have a GREAT time in a stock 1.7L. Just learn to drive it in the corners!
QUOTE(Bleyseng @ May 19 2019, 03:09 PM) 
What vintage VW? A type 1? (Beetle) or a type 2 (Transporter)? I'd say no to a type 1 engine as it has the upright fan setup which does work well and there isn't a way to use the 914 flywheel/clutch set up on a type 1 so the starter won't engage. A type 2 engine will work and you just swap all the 914 tin over to the engine, all the FI stuff and the 914 flywheel will fit too! All 70hp will be a disappointment in the 914 but it will run.
Thank you very much for your reply. I need to check exactly where the engine is coming from, but I think it's a T4...
As far as I know, the only stock 2-liter aircooled VW motors were used in late Buses. They ran very low compression and aren't much fun in a 914. They also had heads with small valve sizes, suitable for low-RPM torque but not for power.
The Bus used a different oil filler and dipstick than the 914. You have to relocate, likely to the stock 914 location, and block off the hole where the funnel for the Bus parts go. Some of the later Bus cases need to have the top of the breather chimney opened up so that the 914-type oil filler can be fitted. The exhaust ports on some of the late Bus heads were a different shape ("square port"), so you would need to fabricate adaptors for the heat exchangers to fit at all.
That said, a Bus crankcase, together with the crankshaft and rods, can be a good basis for a 2-liter 914 engine. Probably easier to use the 2-liter crank and rods in the 914 case, though, if you have both.
--DD
The Bus used a different oil filler and dipstick than the 914. You have to relocate, likely to the stock 914 location, and block off the hole where the funnel for the Bus parts go. Some of the later Bus cases need to have the top of the breather chimney opened up so that the 914-type oil filler can be fitted. The exhaust ports on some of the late Bus heads were a different shape ("square port"), so you would need to fabricate adaptors for the heat exchangers to fit at all.
That said, a Bus crankcase, together with the crankshaft and rods, can be a good basis for a 2-liter 914 engine. Probably easier to use the 2-liter crank and rods in the 914 case, though, if you have both.
--DD
QUOTE(PTP @ May 19 2019, 01:41 PM)
Thank you very much for your reply. I need to check exactly where the engine is coming from, but I think it's a T4...
Ha!
I just noticed you are from Portugal. Sweet! You guys have some corners.
Guys like me . . . I'm trapped in the midwest with nothing but straight roads.
Thanks, Superhawk! The only reason why I'm thinking of putting in a new engine is because the one there needs work... not because of speed or torque... otherwise, I prefer it original!
I'm guessing I will eventually sell the car as I struggle with time for it
Gotta respectfully disagree.
1.7L is only a disappointment in a 914 to those that want to go fast in a straight line.
If you want to go fast in a straight line, I'd argue there are much better vehicles for that job than any 914 regardless of what powertrain you put in it and how many thousands of dollars are spent "upgrading".
As a community, we do a disservice to 914's to suggest that the 1.7L was some sort of under powered dog. Sure, it wasn't even fast by 1970's standards but the handling is unlike anything that was available at the time in it's price class.
Sure a 2.0L is nicer. Sure a 2.7L six is even better. And let's agree that a 4.0L Singer built six would the AWESOME.
But you can have a GREAT time in a stock 1.7L. Just learn to drive it in the corners!
I'm guessing I will eventually sell the car as I struggle with time for it
QUOTE(Superhawk996 @ May 19 2019, 04:15 PM)
Gotta respectfully disagree.
1.7L is only a disappointment in a 914 to those that want to go fast in a straight line.
If you want to go fast in a straight line, I'd argue there are much better vehicles for that job than any 914 regardless of what powertrain you put in it and how many thousands of dollars are spent "upgrading".
As a community, we do a disservice to 914's to suggest that the 1.7L was some sort of under powered dog. Sure, it wasn't even fast by 1970's standards but the handling is unlike anything that was available at the time in it's price class.
Sure a 2.0L is nicer. Sure a 2.7L six is even better. And let's agree that a 4.0L Singer built six would the AWESOME.
But you can have a GREAT time in a stock 1.7L. Just learn to drive it in the corners!
There you go! Yeah, we have great landscapes to drive through, especially in the north, where I live.
Midwest = nice Sunday drives?!
Thank you very much for your reply. I need to check exactly where the engine is coming from, but I think it's a T4...
Ha!
I just noticed you are from Portugal. Sweet! You guys have some corners.
Guys like me . . . I'm trapped in the midwest with nothing but straight roads.
Midwest = nice Sunday drives?!
QUOTE(Superhawk996 @ May 19 2019, 07:21 PM)
QUOTE(PTP @ May 19 2019, 01:41 PM)
Thank you very much for your reply. I need to check exactly where the engine is coming from, but I think it's a T4...
Ha!
I just noticed you are from Portugal. Sweet! You guys have some corners.
Guys like me . . . I'm trapped in the midwest with nothing but straight roads.
Thanks, Dave! I'm still not exactly sure which engines it's going to be... I'll come with this in a few days, as I would appreciate to know if the engines look alike or not...7
What you mention is a complicated job...
As far as I know, the only stock 2-liter aircooled VW motors were used in late Buses. They ran very low compression and aren't much fun in a 914. They also had heads with small valve sizes, suitable for low-RPM torque but not for power.
The Bus used a different oil filler and dipstick than the 914. You have to relocate, likely to the stock 914 location, and block off the hole where the funnel for the Bus parts go. Some of the later Bus cases need to have the top of the breather chimney opened up so that the 914-type oil filler can be fitted. The exhaust ports on some of the late Bus heads were a different shape ("square port"), so you would need to fabricate adaptors for the heat exchangers to fit at all.
That said, a Bus crankcase, together with the crankshaft and rods, can be a good basis for a 2-liter 914 engine. Probably easier to use the 2-liter crank and rods in the 914 case, though, if you have both.
--DD
What you mention is a complicated job...
QUOTE(Dave_Darling @ May 19 2019, 07:16 PM)
As far as I know, the only stock 2-liter aircooled VW motors were used in late Buses. They ran very low compression and aren't much fun in a 914. They also had heads with small valve sizes, suitable for low-RPM torque but not for power.
The Bus used a different oil filler and dipstick than the 914. You have to relocate, likely to the stock 914 location, and block off the hole where the funnel for the Bus parts go. Some of the later Bus cases need to have the top of the breather chimney opened up so that the 914-type oil filler can be fitted. The exhaust ports on some of the late Bus heads were a different shape ("square port"), so you would need to fabricate adaptors for the heat exchangers to fit at all.
That said, a Bus crankcase, together with the crankshaft and rods, can be a good basis for a 2-liter 914 engine. Probably easier to use the 2-liter crank and rods in the 914 case, though, if you have both.
--DD
My 1971 had a bus 2.0 in it. Two things that I noticed: The first is the oil filler on the fan end of the case. A block off plate and the bolts clear an early engine bar, but are too close for a late engine bar and look like they will hit. The other thing is the bus engine has hydraulic lifters. Good for not having valve adjustments, but bad for high RPM's.
Also, the bus engine tends to be worked harder, and might be more worn out.
My case was a GC code. '76-'77 bus engine.
Also, the bus engine tends to be worked harder, and might be more worn out.
My case was a GC code. '76-'77 bus engine.
QUOTE(PTP @ May 19 2019, 04:01 PM)
Hello All!
I'm new to this forum as I have recently bought a 1970, 1.7L, 914. The engine needs quite a bit of work and I'm considering to replace it by a 2.0, from a vintage VW.
I would recommend to overhaul the 1.7 instead. And while it's out, consider to go to 1911cc by switching to 2.0 cylinders. It's easy, cheap and guaranteed to work. If you want to do it properly, use a 2.0 crankshaft and heads as well. That should give you something in the region of 90-95 HP, I nice boost over the 80 HP of a stock 1.7.
QUOTE(Tbrown4x4 @ May 20 2019, 02:07 AM)
My 1971 had a bus 2.0 in it. Two things that I noticed: The first is the oil filler on the fan end of the case. A block off plate and the bolts clear an early engine bar, but are too close for a late engine bar and look like they will hit. The other thing is the bus engine has hydraulic lifters. Good for not having valve adjustments, but bad for high RPM's.
Also, the bus engine tends to be worked harder, and might be more worn out.
My case was a GC code. '76-'77 bus engine.
A 76-77 bus case code is GD and the GC case code is for a 75-76 914 2.0L.
QUOTE(Jazzy @ May 20 2019, 05:18 AM)
...consider to go to 1911cc by switching to 2.0 cylinders. It's easy, cheap and guaranteed to work. If you want to do it properly, use a 2.0 crankshaft and heads as well.
You have to go to 96mm P&Cs to get 1911cc from a 1.7 or a 1.8. (Note: The 96es that fit into 1.7 heads are mighty thin at the top; it is generally a better idea to cut the heads to fit the 96es meant for 1.8 engines.)
Using a 2.0 crank with its 71mm of stroke will give you 2056cc with the 96es, but you have to specifically use pistons made for the 2.0 crank and rods, or you'll have rather low compression. The stock 2-liter motors were 1971cc; 94mm bore by 71mm stroke.
--DD
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.