1.7 vs 2.0

VW based Porsche. In a league of its own.

Moderator: Piledriver

morphmenow
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by morphmenow » Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:31 pm

I'm pulling my 1.7L engine from my '73 and I was going to have it rebuilt with bigger heads and valves, lightened flywheel and a more aggressive cam. I was told the engine would produce above 130hp easy. Looking at an earlier post, it looks like these changes would be the right ones to make to gain some easy hp. While surfing the net, I came upon a 2.0L with stock piston and heads, web cam, sebring exhaust. I guess pretty stock except for the 40mm Weber carbs (the 1.7 also has these). It was also just rebuilt. My question is, which way to go? The rebuild of the 1.7 would be about $1k more than the 2.0L, but the 1.7 should produce more hp and according to some post, should be alot more fun.

Alex

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by Alex » Sat Mar 09, 2002 11:11 pm

If this is a daily driver you will find the the 2.0 more to your liking. The 1.7 you describe typically makes that type of hp in the upper rpm range. If that's where you like to run your engine then go for it. The stock 2.0 won't make 130 hp, but the torque is much better than the stock 1.7. My preference would be the 2.0.

Best regards,
Alex

morphmenow
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by morphmenow » Sat Mar 09, 2002 11:26 pm

The care won't be a daily driver. It will be just for fun. Drive on a Sat. night or through the mountains on a Sunday afternoon, but I don't want a sluggish car either.

CHA914
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2001 3:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by CHA914 » Sun Mar 10, 2002 2:56 am

Not that I don't think that you can make 130+hp with a 1.7l, but to get there you are gonna have one wild engine.

The first engine I had built the guy told me that he could make a 2.0 get 140hp easy...well...after alot of headaches and trouble with the engine, and after alot of research on this and other forums, I realized that guys was blowing smoke up my ***...

My suggestion is do some more research and ask some more questions -might want to do some searching over in the t4um- especially ask some questions of your engine builder.

I have heard that you can get 110hp from a 1.7 with a cam change and a little more compression...but 130+ and you will probably need alot of cam, compression and head work...which will make the motor very peaky and run hot. Spend some time and get it done right the first time...its alot cheeper!

I just recieve my freshly rebuilt 2.0 now 2056 and it dynoed at 130hp/131tq...and it has 2L heads with port work an agressive spilt duration cam a lightened flywheel and webber 44's...cant wait to stuff it in the car!

good luck,

Tony

morphmenow
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by morphmenow » Sun Mar 10, 2002 12:15 pm

I'm really beginning to lean towards the 2.0L. I can pick it up cheaper than the rebuild and it was just rebuilt. Only 3 hours on the engine. The guy is putting a 6 cyl. in his 914. I think in the long run, I will be better off also. He kept the engine pretty stock with stock. I can get the engine, enjoy my car over the spring/summer/fall and then if I want to tweek anything, I can do it next winter.

The ad reads like this: 1973 2.0 liter 4 cylinder motor with approximately 3 hours on fresh rebuild, stock pistons and heads, stainless heat exchangers, 40mm Weber Carburetors set up with AN fittings and lines with PMO linkage, Web Cam Camshaft, New Bosch 009 distributor, MSD plug wires, deep sump oil pan, Sebring exhaust system(3 to 5 years old, max 2,000 miles) with O2 sensor in collector, fresh regrind on flywheel, clutch and pressure plate have less than 2k on them.

Thanks for the sounding board. Just needed to talk it through.

CHA914
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2001 3:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by CHA914 » Sun Mar 10, 2002 12:57 pm

If I where you i would find out what type of webcam he put in it...if they are really 2.0L heads (2L have three intake studs as opposed to the 4of the 1.7/.8 heads)...and I really question the deep sump oil pan, that could be dangerous business on a 914 (one speed bumb too fast and no more engine!)...finally see if you can find out who built it...but if the price it right, it sounds like it could be a great engine.

Yours,

Tony

User avatar
bowlsby
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 3:01 am
Contact:

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by bowlsby » Mon Mar 11, 2002 1:29 pm

Have you gotten a satisfactory answer as to why anyone would *properly* rebuild a 2.0L engine ($3-5k) install it and run it for only 3 hrs,and then turn around and sell it for only $2k? Tired core 2.0 enfgines go for 800-1000.

Only then to turn around and spend the really big bucks for 6 cyl install?

Doesnt sound right to me...there is no free lunch...are you getting taken?

PS I see the deal also includes a SS exhaust and muffler...worth yet another $300-400. making the *rebuild* worth only about 800-1000.

[This message has been edited by bowlsby (edited 03-11-2002).]

morphmenow
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by morphmenow » Mon Mar 11, 2002 4:38 pm

That is why I didn't jump at it right away. It didn't seem to add up to me either. There seemed to be to much there for the asking price. I haven't received a answer to the rebuilder question and the cam question yet. I was away on Sunday. If he lets me know who the rebuilder is, I will definitely give him a call.

Denny Anderson
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 3:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by Denny Anderson » Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:13 am

I have a 2ltr. & I'm within driving range of
Hagerstown, I'll sell it cheep, & it needs
rebuilt.If your interested, E-mail me.
Image Image Image

------------------
Grumpyman

morphmenow
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by morphmenow » Wed Mar 13, 2002 8:00 pm

Thanks Ray for the reply. I took some time and read other threads on the board today and you seem to really like the 1.7. When I spoke with the builder, we talked about new heads, cam, balanced, lighted flywheel, magnafluxed, bigger valves, etc, etc,etc. It should be a pretty nice little engine when finished. At least I hope so. I ask him to estimate high on the prices since we weren't talking specifics like which cam or heads and he didn't see the engine yet. I happened to see this 2.0L which was $2K and had just been rebuilt. I called the gentleman to get specifics and as you probably have read, it is pretty much stock. I ask about the rebuilder and as it turns out, he rebuilt it with several PCA members. This was his first rebuild on a 2.0L engine, but he had rebuilt other engines like Triumph, MG, etc. What I'm trying to do is make the best educated decision I can and I think I'm either putting to much thought into it because I sure am confusing myself. I do know the 2.0 is a good engine and has better torque than the 1.7 in stock form. Both engines have weber carbs and when finished, the 1.7 will not be a stock 1.7. I guess what it really comes down to is if I do the 1.7, will I have spent my money wisely and have a better engine in the long run. By the way, the 2.0 is $1k cheaper than the conservative 1.7 rebuild.

ray greenwood
Posts: 1941
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2001 2:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by ray greenwood » Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:08 am

Getting 100-110 HP out of a 1.7L is not that difficult. Except for the valve and plug angle being better on the 2.0, the 1.7L had better combustion chamber and piston shape combination. Add a little more compression, a web cam a little port work, 2.0 size valves and a little tweaking to the injection and it runs as well as the stock 2.0 or better. I got 102 HP out of my stock 1.7 @4200 rpm. More like 93 @ 3800. How much do you want to spend versus how much time can you expend tuning? Both are good engines. Ray

ray greenwood
Posts: 1941
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2001 2:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by ray greenwood » Fri Mar 15, 2002 10:50 pm

Wow...1k cheaper for a 2.0...unless its just a special deal..I can't see how....unless you are really changing a lot on the 1.7. The 2.0 does have a little bit better torque down low than the 1.7. I have found that a properly tuned 1.7, in stock form has a better mid-range...and not much difference in the top end from a stock 2.0. It really depends, I guess upon which engine and how it was fed and tuned. The average 2.0 with about 96 HP stock and the average injected 1.7 at 82 hp stock. I have also found that the 1.7...naturally revs a little quicker. Pair that with good gears...and theres room to play. I actually like the 2.0's alot...but find them to be not worth what people will charge you for them. The benefeits from the plug angle and valve size are negligable to what you can do with decent...but limited port work and the same size valves on a 1.7. I just can't see forking out a couple hundered for two heads that will need the same new valves, seats springs and port work as a pair of $50 1.7's that have a better combustion chamber shape,and are less prone to cracking and hot spots. It really depends upon what you plan to do with your car and engine. It seems a lot of people cannot have a type 4 engine without the absolute utmost HP that they can wring out of the block. I would bet alot of people don't drive them 50k a year either. I do weekend trips in the summer almost every weekend that are 500-700 miles..which is relatively modest for Texas. Average speed is 85 mph all day long. I believe about half of the basic bulders in this forum would probably be happy ...depending upon the shape of what they are driving...with an extra 20 hp or so oversstock. I have worked a lot with 1.7's..because it keeps my cars relatively original....and I can get 20+ more than stock without radically changing things. I also have killer gears in the 412. Ray

morphmenow
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by morphmenow » Fri Mar 15, 2002 11:49 pm

I don't think my last reply took, so I hope I'm not repeating myself. I think I'll stay with the 1.7. From the posts, it seems like it should be a fun engine. Do some minor mods to it like lighter flywheel and bigger valves and heads. Better exhaust and it should sound nice and run nice. The 2.0 was recently rebuilt by the owner himself, but I guess I'm not 100% sure what I'm getting into. Could cost me more in the long run. I should watch using the "$1k cheaper" since the estimate for the rebuild include lots of upgrades and I requested that the rebuilder guess high on the part cost. We didn't sit down and choose any particular parts, we were just talking in generalities. He said he was 100% sure he could get the parts cheaper and I am pretty sure he can also. I've looked at the parts and found the prices to be cheaper. I'm not looking for tons of hp. If I wanted that, I would have bought a American V8, but I do want more power and get up and go than the stock engine. I think I've read in several places that when the 914 was new, it did 0-60 in 13 seconds. I would like something that moved a little faster. I will be using the car alot like you do Ray. Drive it on the weekends for fun. I guess at some point you just have to dive it and go with your gut and what you think is right for you and I guess that is the original 1.7 for me.

User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 21888
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Van Alstyne, Texas

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by Piledriver » Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:14 pm

I still have an original 1.7, with euro pistons, 228 bus flywheel, 009, compufire, and 44 Webers.

Otherwise stock, burns a little oil (worn rings) bazillion miles on the bottom end, (replaced rod bearings when i had the heads redone, didn't need it, but I had them anyway), new/stock valves, guides)

Sounds like a terrible overcarburated mess?

Gets 40-45 MPG on a 80 mile 70++ mph commute, plus heavy traffic.

Absolute hoot to drive.

User avatar
Eddie Brown
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 2:01 am

1.7 vs 2.0

Post by Eddie Brown » Sat May 18, 2002 10:41 pm

Hello. My situation is this. I don't have a 914 yet, but I picked up a 1.7ltr. engine and transmission for $200. The engine turns freely. Water got inside the combution chambers, and the heads need a rebuild.
Here's my plan:

Buy a set of 96mm JE pistons; & bore out a set of 93mm barrels that I have sitting on the shelf (1911cc).
Keep the 66mm crank(it looks real good!).
Use a set of 2 ltr. bus heads(that way I won't have to open up the bore on them; they're in great shape. Use 42x36 valves.)
If the D-Jet is there, and complete, use it. What I'm wondering is if I can use a Web cam that would be COMPATIBLE with both the stock FI and/or carbs. Heck, I may even use a progressive carb(I know it's not popular, but I just want something practical). I believe there would be C/R issues. Maybe someone can give me a heads up on that.
Exhaust doesn't have to be fancy(stock heat exchangers, and muffler).

I'm just looking for something that will run a little stronger than stock without breaking the bank!!

If I could squeeze out approx. 100HP I would be real happy.

BTW, what kind of adjustments do you need to make to the D-Jet to make it run properly, on a 1911cc motor?. Do you need bigger injectors(914 2ltr.)?.

I really like the 1.7 block; It just seems like a good basis for a project/daily driver 914.

Take care,

Eddie.

Post Reply