Thread: 1969 GTV 1750 restoration
View Single Post
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 07-02-2007, 10:27 PM
BlpltGTV's Avatar
BlpltGTV BlpltGTV is offline
Registered User
  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Napa Ca
Posts: 918
Send a message via AIM to BlpltGTV
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMD159 View Post
I am restoring with a primary objective in mind: I want it drive it as an every day and not have to rev the crap out of it...take passengers etc and I feel that the 2000 would be better option in this case.
Here is a thought. Run the 1750 engine, and replace the 4.56 rear end with a 4.11 that will lower the RPM on the freeway, give you better mileage, and look correct. The 1750 is a good engine, it has a higher redline than the 2L is less prone to oil issues due to things falling out of the crankshaft, a better set of cams will likely wake this engine up. The 1750 has more power and torque (according to the factory literature, and I still don't see how this is true, but it could be the cams used in the 2L are crap) than a 2L anyway. You could also run a 1300 twin spark head (I think) on the 1750 for a little more go as well. If one went that route, it would look much like a real GTAM engine.

I am faced with the same issue, I would love to hot rod the heck out of my car to make it almost keep up with my other car, however, in the long run it would be the dumbest thing I could do. Honestly for what I want I'd be better off with a later 2L car, however the rare factor keeps my car in the garage for the long run. Infact I'm trying to keep mine as unrestored as possible.

Its all worth it when a hot chick driving a brand new Ferrari F430 spider rolls up next to you on the freeway and gives you the thumbs up. No joke, happened about an hour ago.

Will
__________________
1969 1750 105.51 GTV AR1530324
1969 Datsun 2000 roadster (the track car)
Last edited by BlpltGTV; 07-02-2007 at 10:31 PM.
Reply With Quote