I have a question. I've read that the 1.8 liter L-jectronic was available from 1974 on but have seen a lot of ads listing a 1973 914 with a 1.8 liter engine. Did the factory ship the really late 1973 cars with 1.8 engines or is this just a engine swap or oversize pistons installed at a later date? Just wondering.
Thanks,
j.

No 73 model year cars got the 1.8. In fact the 1.8 engine was late, and all the early 1974 models were 2.0 engined. It requires quite a bit of work to install a full 1.8 engine in a 73 or earlier car.

That's what I thought. But then, why are there so many 73 cars listed with 1.8? Is it just a big bore kit?

j.

Not likely, since the popular big bore is a 96mm and that gives a 1911 engine. More likely is just a swap from a later year. The 1.8 is a decent engine, great heads, hates air leaks, and is a great core for a building an engine on. Any 914 with a non-original engine should be looked at carefully for other modifications. Probably very few 914's are still original, 37 years is a long time, and few care what they do with a junker.

Also, some of the cars might actually be 74 model cars sold in 1973 and the license bureau screwed up.

Also when the 1.7 engine were rebuilt mostly the domed 90mm Pistons($$$) were switched to the 93mm ones (for more hp-not).

Most common 1.8 P&C would be the factory ones. This would require either machining the 1.7 heads for the cylinder register, or using 1.8 heads. The latter option gives you a real 1.8 basically. Either way would be expensive probably. There were 2.0 cylinders made to slip in the 1.7 heads, possibly 1.8 cylinders as well. How common these are I don't know. Anyway, check the engine number: WO & EA are 1.7, EC & AN are 1.8.

It was common to install the 93's and have the heads rebuilt and cut for the 93's. The 93's were also a common cheap bus part. I have seen several motors that were done like this. Nice low 67hp 1.8's.
NRP made a slip in 96mm that if it got pretty hot collapsed, nice but it did bump you to a 1911 engine.

i keep seeing this want ad in the back of panorama for a 1973 1.8L. should i forward this thread to him?

If you pull the motor down, put 2.0 euro pistons in the 1.8 engine. It ends up a 1911, and a substantial bump in HP (somewhere close to 90). Not as much torque as a true 2.0, but it will pass PCA muster because it is only 1mm bigger than the stock bore.

I thought that won't work due to the different wrist pin offset in the pistons so it will stick out of the cylinder.

Uh, don't think so, perhaps an 1832. You need a 96 piston with the 66 stroke to get to 1911.

Displacement chart of the type IV:

http://www.tunacan.net/t4/reference/displace.shtml

Funny... if it won't work, then I have a rare car driving around on the streets of Dallas/Fort Worth.

I'll have to mock it up with the spare parts I have laying around to see if the "Myth" is true or not.

With stock parts it doesn't work!

A 1.8L rod with the end won't go into a 2.0L Euro piston. The big end hits the top of the piston so you can't put in the wrist pin.

Now you could grind off the big lump and rebalance the rod....

but I still didn't check how the rod/piston length works with a cylinder. Later maybe.

Uhhh.. OK.. but how did I do it then??? Stock rods and 2.0 euro pistons. It is out in the garage and has been running like that for 4 years now.

How much would that weaken the piston end of the rod if you were to grind it off?

Not much but you have to balance the rod. I am still not sure if it works.

with Rich... Clay's been ing

It would not really weaken the rod ..... the pads are more for balancing .... look at a 2.0 rod .... it doesn't have them, but the beam of a 2.0 rod is more hefty.