[GeeTV]

I love the look of the 1750 front grill and the front seats of the series 1 - but how can I go past the 2lt power plant?... or can I?
I've never actually driven either so I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the driving characteristics of both these little gems.

Discuss.

 

[harryf]

People say the 1750 engine, although less powerful and torquey, is 'sweeter'. Personally I have never bought a car based on its taste. So I prefer the torque, power and spares availability of the 2 litre.

The aesthetics of the 1750 front grill are undoubtedly better but nowadays there is nothing to stop you putting 1750 grill on a 2000 car. Or putting a 2000 engine in a 1750.

 

[Bill S]

Yep, what HarryF said - you can have your grill and engine too!

 

[Garland]

Depends on how you want to drive the car. Many feel that the 1750 is the best incarnation of the DOHC engine Alfa ever made. It revs more willingly and mates the gearbox better for power band delivery. The 2L has more torque and would be easier on the driver for around town driving. Personally I would go for the 1750 as when I drive it's for pleasure and not for commuting.

 

[Subtle]

It is usually dangerous to examine "true beliefs" and the notion that 1750s rev better than 2 Liters seems to be an example.

Both have the same stroke at 88.5 mm. Bores are 80 mm and 84 mm, and I don't understand how this makes the 1750 "sweeter".

Especially if both engines are "built".

Nice to have the extra 250 cc of torque working for you.

 

[rloewy]

I never sampled a 2.0L that revs as happily as a good 1750 - even if the science disagrees. At the end of the day - these are just shades of gray - both are great. Drive both - see which one you like better.

I would love a 2.0L for daily driving duties - but a 1750 for a toy car.

 

[r-mm]

Don't forget the interior / dash! I own a 2L and have to say, the more I see 1750's the more I wish I got one. Actually to be perfectly honest, I'm now wishing I went all the way and got a step-nose (interiors are sublime, exterior is just plain better...).

But as everyone's said, I see no shame in swapping grills/motors to suit your needs.

 

[jb205]

I'd say that to compare two 40-year old engines these days is a bit tricky. Main thing is to find an example that is in top form - either rebuilt or really well looked after. A tired engine of either size will be a bit flat. I've driven both 1750s and 2000s that are pretty uninspiring, and i've driven both that are absolutely fantastic. Also worth bearing in mind that these engines are so responsive to being set up properly, and i suspect there's lots of cars out there that could go so much better with some tweeking (not necessarily big money extras). In general terms, a relatively standard 2litre will probably feel a bit 'gutsier' and a 1750 more urgent / lively?? just my experience.
By the way, the big speedo and rev counter on a 1750 are just fabulous, and really add something to the experience!

 

[S.Lang]

By the way, the big speedo and rev counter on a 1750 are just fabulous, and really add something to the experience!

Agreed. I have a 2000 and MUCH prefer the dash of the 1750. Just classic. The 2000 dash design has not "aged" well.

 

[Subtle]

I never sampled a 2.0L that revs as happily as a good 1750 - even if the science disagrees. At the end of the day - these are just shades of gray - both are great. Drive both - see which one you like better.

I'll intrude with another observation.

The 2 L in my 101 Spider includes RJR cams that are profiled for torque over a broad range.

This pulls from 1500 right up to 7000 with no flat spots--prolly 150 torque.

Soft rev limiter comes on at 6500 because the bottom end has about 55,000 miles on it.

However, it ain't revs that accelerates the car --it is torque.

 

[Alleggerita]

The 1750, especially a series 1, is a much prettier car in many details - interior and exterior - not just the grille. There is the best steering wheel, the most beautiful dash, prettier early Carello headlights, nice small taillights, standing pedals (In Aus they all had them), prettiest seats, etc. The engine is sweet and powerful enough. However the car definitely lacks an LSD, though that was a special option.

The 2000 is definitely quicker and has the LSD. It will cover ground more quickly than a 1750 because of additional torque and the LSD but the 1750 puts a bigger smile on your face. A lot more plastic ... a beautiful car on its own, especially Euro spec but clearly not in the same league with regards to looks as a 1750GTV.

Engines: a 2000 can be made to be quite sweet but the combination of heavier fully counterweighted crank and offset combustion chambers probably will not allow it to be quite as sweet and quick revving ... though the nitrated crank is definitely a bonus.

 

[fgsavoia]

2000? No, thanks....

 

[alfavirusnz]

Regarding the external an internal design it is highly subjective-I like both equally as they represent a different time frame. To me and I`m obviously flowing against the tide here the grille treatment of the 2000 is cleverly done and the equal of the 1750. I prefer the tail treatment of the later car (Euro form) but personally prefer over both the more vintage looking stepfront which is why I possibly have the best of both-a`69 2nd series stepfront with 1750 style dash.
As jb205 has said both engines are fantastic but as a former Italian garage proprietor I have driven awful examples of each. It does depend on how they are setup regarding the basics of good compression , right ignition timing and fuel system set up correctly beit carbs or Spica. The 2litre however is not as smooth no matter how well the standard engine is set up and neither is as smooth as a 1600 nor as smooth and clockwork like as a Lancia Fulvia engine for example but make most other contempory 4 cyl engines appear crude and gutless both in torque and power.
As several have said before grab the best bodied car available-it doesn`t really matter which vesion you end up with, they are all great.

 

[Subtle]

In the day, I had a one-year old 105 Sprint GT.

As I recall-- the 1600 was one sweet-spinning engine.

 

[fangio8c]

Few other thoughts:

You can always add LSD to a 1750 GTV.

If you plan on (or need) A/C... you'll be better off with the 2L.

I've heard that the 1600 is just as sweet as the 1750, but I haven't experienced it myself.

 

[Clayton105]

Quite frankly, apart from the offset combustion chambers, Alfa did a half arsed job of the upgrade to 2 litres. They did not increase the valve lift and duration with the increase in valve size and capacity (as they had with previous capacity increases (I will place a caveat on this that they did a two stage upgrade to the 1750... the series 1 ran the same cams as the 1600 GTV)), nor did they increase the choke size. No wonder the 2 litre engine is a bit maligned.

Choose the right 11mm lift cams, and 34mm chokes in the original carbs and you will have an instant 145 odd bhp that revs as willingly as the 1750.

 

[PSk]

Sorry IMO the 2ltr engine is an embarrassment of bad engineering by Alfa.

Even if I was going to race a 105 series I would start with an Alfetta 1800 engine (same as the 1750, except for sump and crank pilot hole) and bore out like Autodelta did to 1985cc. This is the engine Alfa should have productionised not the terrible compromised 1962cc thing with different combustion chambers.
Pete

 

[vsharp]

Sorry IMO the 2ltr engine is an embarrassment of bad engineering by Alfa.

Even if I was going to race a 105 series I would start with an Alfetta 1800 engine (same as the 1750, except for sump and crank pilot hole) and bore out like Autodelta did to 1985cc. This is the engine Alfa should have productionised not the terrible compromised 1962cc thing with different combustion chambers.
Pete

I too do prefer the 1750/1800 as generally a 'smoother' engine in driving, however I don't see how the 2000 is a "terrible compromise". Just because the valves are slightly offset in 2 cylinders is no problem. They do flow test equally in all chambers, and the plug position is no different, the rod offset is also no different. As far as I have ever tested in all sorts of applications, the slight variation in the valve centres has no ill effect whatsoever.
The productionisation of the 1750/1800 with a monosleeve was never a viable solution just from a machining economics point of view. Not that turning a profit on these cars ever seemed possible anyway.......
Cheers,
Vince.

 

[Subtle]

1750s have such a "sweet" sound when you are accelerating past them.

 

[Redmerlin]

1750 every time

I have owned 1750 and 2000 . As built by Alfa the 1750 was always the better car . I had a 1971 MkII for 2 years cost me $600 and was a hoot to drive , quick , easy to steer . Left an MGB in a hedge once during a back lane race. Overtook another car on a long hill while it thought it was overtaking. Add a LSD and you lose the feel of the car. Good woody interior and light feel. All ruined on the 2 litre a big sluggy box ( I owned one too).

If you are going to modify the car/engine there is no debate cos you'll be building a different car . I have a kit car (morgan copy) with a 2 litre that does 16s standing quarters