Alfa Romeo Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,442 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am rebuilding a '76 spider and have a perfectly good 1976 2L to drop into it. I also bought a '71 parts car for the bumpers and other various parts. Just for grins I pulled the 1750 engine and threw a working SPICA pump on it. To my amazement it fired right up. It runs every bit as good as the 2L.

So my question is this: Which engine would be the better choice? I think the 2L has more hp but I understand that people prefer the 1750 as being more free-reving. Certainly the 1750 is more unique but the 2L lends itself more easily to modification if I was inclined to do so (right now they are both bone stock).

I could essentially build '71 1750 Spider and use all the componentry from the donor car except using the substantially more solid '76 body. But I'm not trying to be a poser and build a fake '71.

I am leaning toward the 1750. What do you think?

- Rich D.


2 Kamms.JPG
Here are the two cars - the '71 is in the foreground.

'71 Rust.JPG
This is why the '71 is a parts car. The only thing holding the front clip on is the weatherseal!

'71 Engine.JPG
The 1750 on the stand

The stand with engine.JPG
And the 2000 on the stand
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,087 Posts
The 2 liter, without a doubt... You may have seen some of the specs published by Alfa, such as the series 2 '73 and '74 Spiders producing 129 hp, while the series 1 '69 Spider had 132 hp. In stock form 132 hp was the most produced by an series 1, 2, 3, or 4 U.S. Spider. (129 hp was second.) Well, that sounds like the 1750 engine must have been better than the 2 liter, but it is not due to the block and pistons. It is due to the camshafts. If you take the stock cams from an older Spider and place them in a stock '74 Spider, it will be more powerful.

Best regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,155 Posts
I would vote for the 2L since the '76 body is heavier than a 71 or Duetto and can use the extra torque. Plus, the 1750 motor would be worth more to sell separately than a 2L, while the '76 Spider would probably be worth more with a 2L motor than with a 1750.

It looks like that '76 sheetmetal is progressing nicely !!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,156 Posts
I am rebuilding a '76 spider and have a perfectly good 1976 2L to drop into it. I also bought a '71 parts car for the bumpers and other various parts. Just for grins I pulled the 1750 engine and threw a working SPICA pump on it. To my amazement it fired right up. It runs every bit as good as the 2L.

So my question is this: Which engine would be the better choice? I think the 2L has more hp but I understand that people prefer the 1750 as being more free-reving. Certainly the 1750 is more unique but the 2L lends itself more easily to modification if I was inclined to do so (right now they are both bone stock).

I could essentially build '71 1750 Spider and use all the componentry from the donor car except using the substantially more solid '76 body. But I'm not trying to be a poser and build a fake '71.

I am leaning toward the 1750. What do you think?

- Rich D.
Ok, I'll offer up a different opinion. The '75 - '79 Alfas are about the slowest out of the box, due to strangled engines and heavy bumpers. I once sold a 1750 motor to a guy with a late 70's Spider, stock, and he was amazed at how much faster the car was with the 1750.

So, if both motors are stock, I think the 1750 will result in the faster car. Make sure you take the headers and downpipes along with it..

I think the best overall would be to pull the cams, and maybe the injection pump, off the 1750 and stick them on the 2 liter.

HTH,

bs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,971 Posts
if u r going to keep it stock...1750 sweeter reving, more cammy feel and better looking (oil filter housing)

if u r building a performace track motor 2L... few extra CC's, easier to source parts and stronger bottom end.

my 2 cents

davbert
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,166 Posts
From what I've read, in stock form 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are quite similar - no discernable differences. That being said, supposibly you have more torque with the 2 ltr and don't have to rev it as much as the 1750 to get going. I know when I had my '69 GTV that was one thing I didn't like too much about it - lack of low end grunt, not that the 2 ltr has an overwhelmingly amount more.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
The 2000 is torquier and easier to drive around town, and has more potential for ultimate power. Plus the nitrided crank. Realistically, not a lot of performance difference in everyday driving. With Spica, both should be smooth and strong.

I prefer 1750 as a drop-in for a mechanical clutch car (Super, Duetto) with a flywheel change, but for a hydraulic clutch car, I'd go with a 2000, all things equal.

Euro cams will pep either engine up nicely for very little money or work. Gave noticeably more low and mid end to my Super's 1750.

Andrew
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,156 Posts
Bill:

Other than the bumpers and associated attachments, what else would the '76 have that would make it heavier?

- Rich D.
I know that the doors had reinforcements internally that the earlier Spiders didn't have. Not sure what else might have changed. Those bumpers sure are heavy, though!

bs
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
A 76, at least in Calif, has an air pump compared to a 74. I would expect a 74 Spider to already have the side impact beams in the door; Berlinas got them in 74.

Andrew
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,156 Posts
A 76, at least in Calif, has an air pump compared to a 74. I would expect a 74 Spider to already have the side impact beams in the door; Berlinas got them in 74.

Andrew
Andrew, of course, is right. The side impact beams were added in '73 or '74. The '73 and '74 Euro bumpers also had a lot more behind them than the '72 bumpers.

49 state cars got air pumps in '75, but we didn't see catalytic converters until '77 or so.

bs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,087 Posts
Rich,
Unless something is damaged in your '76, I wouldn't replace any parts. The two objections to the series 2b Spiders ('75 - '81/'82) are the ones that were dictated by U.S. regulations: the smog equipment, and the bumpers. With a smog free 2L engine, you will restore the performance. If you swap the bumpers, you will give it the look of a European Spider. (Europe never had the black rubber bumpers.) If you replace the SPICA with carburetors, you will go to a full European spec, which means that you would see your stock 111 hp increase to around 140 hp. In addition going to a full European spec does not affect the originality of the car very much at all. From a concours perspective, retrofitting the bumpers, and replacing the SPICA with carbs results in only a combined penalty of 1.2 points out of 100.

Best regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,155 Posts
I think you have identified most of the weight differences, afaik, with the exception of the extra body structure where the rubber bumpers mount. That extra metal may only add up to 25 pounds or so, give or take.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top