914werke
Dec 17 2005, 10:46 AM
Type4 for any knuckle heads prepairing wise cracks
Based on the 1.7 1.8 bottom end, 96 P&C's and appropriate wrist pin height.
Any one running one? What are you impressions compared to a Stock 1.7, 1.8, 2.0?
J P Stein
Dec 17 2005, 10:50 AM
Maybe
thesey914
Dec 17 2005, 11:15 AM
I've got one on Dell 45's with some high-lift cam. It kicks bottom. Easily as quick as a 2.0 six.
914werke
Dec 17 2005, 11:20 AM
I didnt mean experiance having lived during that time JP.
Gint
Dec 17 2005, 11:31 AM
Had one with hydraulic lifters Weber 40's on it. Loved it. Fantastic bottom end.
jimtab
Dec 17 2005, 12:07 PM
QUOTE (rdauenhauer @ Dec 17 2005, 09:20 AM) |
I didnt mean experiance having lived during that time JP. |
Hell ya. That was ww1....the really big one.....
Gary
Dec 17 2005, 01:53 PM
I ran one for several years in a bug. Nice motor for the money. Don't overcam - I ran a webcam 86a, which may have been a little much. 86 would have been better. I'll bet the type4store has a split duration cam just for this app too...
McMark
Dec 17 2005, 02:12 PM
A 1911 is a torquey mofo. According to the dyno graphs for my engines, the 1911 (with carbs) is nearly identical to a stock 2.0, but has better low end torque and better top end. Good stuff.
Brando
Dec 17 2005, 09:33 PM
QUOTE (McMark @ Dec 17 2005, 12:12 PM) |
A 1911 is a torquey mofo. According to the dyno graphs for my engines, the 1911 (with carbs) is nearly identical to a stock 2.0, but has better low end torque and better top end. Good stuff. |
That makes me wonder if a stock 2.0 isn't running as efficient as it should be
jd74914
Dec 17 2005, 09:40 PM
QUOTE (Brando @ Dec 17 2005, 10:33 PM) |
QUOTE (McMark @ Dec 17 2005, 12:12 PM) | A 1911 is a torquey mofo. According to the dyno graphs for my engines, the 1911 (with carbs) is nearly identical to a stock 2.0, but has better low end torque and better top end. Good stuff. |
That makes me wonder if a stock 2.0 isn't running as efficient as it should be |
Probably.
Theoretically the stock 2.0 should have a better bottom end as it has a longer stroke and the 1911 a better top end because of the larger bore.
Aaron Cox
Dec 17 2005, 09:43 PM
QUOTE (jd74914 @ Dec 17 2005, 08:40 PM) |
QUOTE (Brando @ Dec 17 2005, 10:33 PM) | QUOTE (McMark @ Dec 17 2005, 12:12 PM) | A 1911 is a torquey mofo. According to the dyno graphs for my engines, the 1911 (with carbs) is nearly identical to a stock 2.0, but has better low end torque and better top end. Good stuff. |
That makes me wonder if a stock 2.0 isn't running as efficient as it should be |
Probably.
Theoretically the stock 2.0 should have a better bottom end as it has a longer stroke and the 1911 a better top end because of the larger bore. |
a 1911 shouldnt have more torque, it should spin faster and free-er do to the small stroke....
like a 2.0 six vs a 2.7.
shortstroke screamers....
they jam with 2L heads
jd74914
Dec 17 2005, 10:05 PM
QUOTE (Aaron Cox @ Dec 17 2005, 10:43 PM) |
QUOTE (jd74914 @ Dec 17 2005, 08:40 PM) | QUOTE (Brando @ Dec 17 2005, 10:33 PM) | QUOTE (McMark @ Dec 17 2005, 12:12 PM) | A 1911 is a torquey mofo. According to the dyno graphs for my engines, the 1911 (with carbs) is nearly identical to a stock 2.0, but has better low end torque and better top end. Good stuff. |
That makes me wonder if a stock 2.0 isn't running as efficient as it should be |
Probably.
Theoretically the stock 2.0 should have a better bottom end as it has a longer stroke and the 1911 a better top end because of the larger bore. |
a 1911 shouldnt have more torque, it should spin faster and free-er do to the small stroke....
like a 2.0 six vs a 2.7.
shortstroke screamers....
they jam with 2L heads |
Thats what i meant, should explained it better. I figured the 1911 would have better top end HP (especially with carbs and 2.0heads) sorta like you said.
Aaron Cox
Dec 17 2005, 10:06 PM
big stroke = torque
small stroke = rev happy
right?
McMark
Dec 17 2005, 10:26 PM
The 1911 I'm looking at makes more torque down low because of the cam. I'm comparing a 1911 with a carb cam to a stock cammed 2.0. In this case the 1911 makes better low end and better top end.
Looking at a non-stock cam 1911 vs a non-stock cam 2056 you will get a torque advantage on the 2056 and a top end advantage on the 1911. But even that depends on the cam you choose.
Basically, I say, expect a 1911 to be nearly identical to a stock 2.0. Especially if you use stock D-Jet.
elocke
Dec 17 2005, 11:21 PM
Since I have a 1.8 left over from a conversion I'm interested in this thread, but I'm confused. Are you saying one can get 95-100hp from a properly cammed & carb'd 1911 w/2l heads?
elocke
Dec 17 2005, 11:24 PM
...meant to end with "and still have decent bottom end torque?"
Ed
McMark
Dec 18 2005, 12:44 AM
This is Jake's dyno graph of a carbed 1911. See for yourself.
GWN7
Dec 18 2005, 12:55 AM
I thought you ment this 1911
http://www.m1911.org/
Brando
Dec 18 2005, 03:41 AM
Wow... 104.5 torque on a 191... nice.
elocke
Dec 18 2005, 12:12 PM
Ditto!
m_davidson
Dec 18 2005, 01:03 PM
My '72 came with a 1911 built 10K miles ago for autocrossing with a lightened flywheel, 2.0 headers (now with a Bursch muffler) and the 1700-2000cc FI. I'm a 914 Newbie, but it seemed much quicker than the 1.8 I later test drove. The 1.8 had good leak-down numbers and was in good tune according to the VW/Porsche guru that has worked on both cars.
Mel
Mueller
Dec 18 2005, 01:15 PM
my 1st 914 had a fresh 1911...ran great....
I did a 2 day auto-x/drivers training with it and 2 of my instructors had 2.0 914 and both couldn't believe that my 1911 ran and pulled just as well as thier 2.0s
MikeInMunich
Apr 11 2020, 12:30 PM
QUOTE(Brando @ Dec 18 2005, 01:41 AM)
Wow... 104.5 torque on a 191... nice.
That’s HP, not torque.
MikeInMunich
Apr 11 2020, 12:34 PM
QUOTE(McMark @ Dec 17 2005, 10:44 PM)
This is Jake's dyno graph of a carbed 1911. See for yourself. <!-- emo&;) -->
<!-- endemo -->
Anyone know which heads this 1911 had?
We’re they ported?
And the cam?
I have a 1911 with 1.7 heads with stock valves and 2.0 D-Jet. I think it has a webcam. Don’t know which one. So what do y’all reckon my HP is? 95?
M.i.M.
TheCabinetmaker
Apr 11 2020, 01:49 PM
73 1.7. l missed a downshift and went from 5th to 2nd at 60 plus. Was only 3 months old. Had the npr kit installed. Very torquey. Easily topped 115mph, and got 44 mpg back in the 55mph era. Put 349,000 miles on that engine before rebuilding. It was much faster than my stock 75 2.0.
Cairo94507
Apr 11 2020, 02:41 PM
Wow I saw this thread and my first thought had Colt in front of it......
Maltese Falcon
Apr 11 2020, 02:41 PM
Oops...thought we were talking side-arm 1911 here, NVM carry on
oldschool
Apr 11 2020, 03:46 PM
QUOTE(GWN7 @ Dec 17 2005, 11:55 PM)
I thought you ment this 1911
http://www.m1911.org/ <!-- emo&;) -->
<!-- endemo -->
ME 2 lol
euro911
Apr 11 2020, 05:22 PM
'HOWARD' is getting a 1911, with D-Jet F.I., 2.0L injectors, SS valves, chromoly push rods, 911 swivel foot adjusters, 2.0L SSI HEs and a banana muffler ... and ATS Classics , of course
Click to view attachment
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.