[vespam5]

I need the opinions of the board because I am completely stuck on a decision I need to make asap about whether to go 1750 or 2000 on my car. I have both engines sitting in my garage now. The 2L is out of a early 70's Spider and is mostly complete (flywheel, starter, etc)

I purchased my car with a 1750 conversion, weber 40's, euro 10548 cams, and a Centerline distributor with several selectable advance curves a few months ago as some may have seen on the Sedan forums. I recently pulled the engine out of the car to stop some leaks and I discovered the the engine will be needing more than just a mild refresh and I want to invest the money on the right engine, I'm inclined to go with the 2L.

I really want to build a performance engine for it that will work for my needs. My car will be driven on the street 60% of the time, back roads and canyons 30% and track/autocross 10%-if that. With the 1750 in it around town and traffic it was fine, but when I was driving aggressively the lil 1750 left me wanting more. There are some quick little Datsun 510s and Toyota Corollas in my neighborhood that I'd like to be able to chase down!

So here is my question, I understand the cool factor of the slightly higher revving 1750, and I know it is desirable by the racers, but the 2000 seems to have a lot more ease when it comes to piston choices, etc

I have both a 1750 and 2000 in my garage at the moment....which shall I proceed to build???

My short list with either 1750 or 2000:
-I want to raise the compression maybe a forged piston set?
-I want some more aggressive cams (euro cams didn't quite do it for me)
-I want to run my 40dcoes at least for now
-I will do at least some porting to the head, (I have some experience)
-I will probably run the Alfaholics full SS sports exhaust system
-I have a Pipercross air filter setup with air horns and that I bought from Alfaholics as well

Can someone recommend a good combo of pistons/liners, cams, etc that will give me power but still be streetable and run on 91 octane California gas?

Thanks!

 

[gprocket]

Overall I think you will find it is easier (ie, cheaper) to upgrade the 2 liter. I would suggest contacting Richard Jameson and looking into RJR cams. He can suggest a nice profile based on what you are trying to do.

 

[Subtle]

The 2 L in my Spider has RJ cams and they put out lots of torque over a broad curve.

The extra 250 cc really works for you and with a built bottom end the 2 L revs right up.

Had to put a soft rev limiter on for track time. Don't want to over-rev.

 

[vespam5]

Subtle, what RJ cam combo did you go with?

 

[180OUT]

The received wisdom of Alfa lore holds that the 1750 is a nicer engine to drive because it revs as well as a 1600 but has a bit more torque. Some people feel it is the best engine of the 105 series. 2 liters have more torque---a lot more torque---but they have a reputation for being slow responding and lacking some of the essential Alfa spirit.

Having driven many miles in a 1750 GTV, I can agree that the engines are quite nice.

However, while I love the high rpms of my 1300 Super, I've decided that I want the power and torque of a modified 2 liter. A fully modified 2 liter (compression, cams, head porting, headers, carbs, etc.) makes for a very flexable, high reving engine that will do things that even a built 1750 just won't do. For example: In the '08 Carrera Panamericana (in which he won his class) Alleggerita timed his 2 liter powered TI at 149mph. Even accepting some instrument innaccuracy, that's still fast.

If I only had a 1750, I think I'd probably build it. But, like you, I have the option of building a 2 liter.

 

[vespam5]

The received wisdom of Alfa lore holds that the 1750 is a nicer engine to drive because it revs as well as a 1600 but has a bit more torque. Some people feel it is the best engine of the 105 series. 2 liters have more torque---a lot more torque---but they have a reputation for being slow responding and lacking some of the essential Alfa spirit.

Having driven many miles in a 1750 GTV, I can agree that the engines are quite nice.

However, while I love the high rpms of my 1300 Super, I've decided that I want the power and torque of a modified 2 liter. A fully modified 2 liter (compression, cams, head porting, headers, carbs, etc.) makes for a very flexable, high reving engine that will do things that even a built 1750 just won't do. For example: In the '08 Carrera Panamericana (in which he won his class) Alleggerita timed his 2 liter powered TI at 149mph. Even accepting some instrument innaccuracy, that's still fast.

If I only had a 1750, I think I'd probably build it. But, like you, I have the option of building a 2 liter.

Yeah I decided to go with a 2L as well for the reasons you stated. Parts are more readily available and they are more plentiful. The 1750 will be put away for a rainy day.

 

[Alfajay]

The received wisdom of Alfa lore holds that the 1750 is a nicer engine to drive because it revs as well as a 1600 but has a bit more torque.

I suspect people form that opinion when they bolt a 1600 flywheel to their 1750 engine. The smaller diameter flywheel & clutch has far less rotational moment of intertia, so sure, the engine is going to spin up quicker.

Lighten you 2L flywheel, or go with an aluminum version, and you can experience a similarly "revvy" feeling with the larger displacement engine.

 

[vespam5]

Hey Jay, Who's Aluminum Alfa flywheels do you use?