[Giulia67]

Hello folks out there,

I have a dilemma...

My 1750 engine has give up due too hard/inspired driving...

I now have 2 options, restore the 1750 engine to its former 165hp variant or take one of my spare 2000 engines and biuld a new performance engine.

Pro 1750, it feels more agile and "come on" give me some throttle
Pro 2000, more tourqe more power and feels mor "solid" if you know what I mean.

My question for you out there is, what to choose?
Pro and cons against the 1750 or the 2000 is apriciated.

Regards,

Fredrik

 

[Andrew]

The 1750 is an easier bolt-in option to a car with hydraulic clutch that the 2000, though if you already have changed the clutch setup that point will be moot.

I like the torque of the 2000 myself, and with 10548 or better cams, it revs pretty well too. I think the broader concensus is that the 1750 is the better engine though.

Andrew

 

[Subtle]

Torque Is Good

Those were my options in January- although I was leaning towards the 2 L.

Then the latter appeared on the BBB, with the appropriate work on the bottom end for hard driving and a good but streetable head.

In a Spider with a curb weight of 1980 lbs the torque is good., and this winter will replace the 4.56 diff with a lsd 4.1.

With the 175/65/15 tires the "cruise" at 4000 rpm is 74 mph(4.56) becomes 82 mph with the 4.1. Or 3500 becomes 72 mph. Also the taller gearing will make third and fourth much more usable. When I'm lazy it has no probs pulling out of turns at 2300 rpm in fifth.

The result is a very pleasing ride, and I'm considering a few tuning tweaks for even more torque.

A few weeks ago we toured through some two-lane mountain roads with 9 other older Alfas, with a two-year-old Honda S2000 as the "sweep" car.

At the end of the first day, the Honda driver came over to ask if I had a 6 cylinder engine.

 

[Andrew]

I typed/thought wrong on the clutch choice; I meant a 1750 was easier with a mechanical clutch.

Well set up and driven old Alfas can really surprise people.

Andrew

 

[Subtle]

The 2 L is hooked to the 1600 bell housing using the mechanical clutch assembly. Did it with the right-sized light weight aluminum fly wheel.

 

[Andrew]

Ah. For what it's worth, nobody in the Alfa club I time-trial with uses a 1750 if they can use a 2000 within their class or points limit. Good 1750s are also harder to find; 2000s are a dime a dozen by comparison, at least in the US.

Andrew

 

[Giulia67]

more info

I have both a 1750 and a 2000 engines as spare, and car has the 1750 engine installed today

I have mechanical clutch, lighten flywheel (alfaholics for "cable" clutch), 4,73 rear axle non LSD, modified and lighten gears in the gearbox

With the 1750 the car is a big supprise to fellow drivers , because it was very fast until I lost compression on 3 cylinders

Fredrik

 

[Subtle]

Andrew

Where do you live and what tracks do you guys use?

Bob

 

[Andrew]

I live in Berkeley, CA, and run with the Alfa Owners of Southern California, an AROC chapter. Mostly Willow Springs and Buttonwillow, but also Laguna Seca and Fontana.

I run timetrial (Group D GTV, relatively mild and street legal), but there are also race groups with a very high level of prep.

Andrew

 

[Damo105]

Probably depends on what you want to use the car for. I was faced with the same dilemma with a 1750 Berlina, and I've opted for a 2lt, mostly because of the extra torque, and the fact that 180HP is quite achievable for an affordable amount of money. My car is to be a very occassional track car, and a fun street car.

 

[Alleggerita]

The way I see it is that a 1750 is more period for most conversions including in most cases the cartridge oil filter. It also is very sweet an engine. At the same time, parts are much harder to get and more expensive, as well as the crank is not nitrided. Also as noted above, a very easy swap on a mechanical clutch car.

The 2000 continued to be developed for the US Spider. Consequently, parts are more plentiful and cheaper including modern pistons (10:1 motronic) that work with modern gasoline. A 2000 will make more torque and hp for a lot less money than a 1750. Given the nitrided crank it is also a more bullet proof motor for hard use. Special flywheel, ringgear, starter, etc. and matching it all can be a pain.

The downside for both engines is that you lose the ability to rev with impunity... and they do not improve the balance of the overall chassis, as they are much heavier than the 1300/1600 motors