Alfa Romeo Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I read this information while at a magazine shop. Let me start by saying, I dont believe everything I read, but is it true?

Magazine facts:

- The 1750 engine produces 132HP
- The 2000 engine was built like the 1750 but with a bigger bore and produces 132HP (had SAE after it, what does that mean?)

Interesting stuff! If modified, I assume the 2000 would pump more horsepower, but the 1750 (modded) would rev out higher, correct or no? So would both be matched on the track? Or can the 2000 modified just simply take a 1750?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,681 Posts
modified 1750 vs 2000

i have seen 1750's putting out 200 hp but they are stretched to the limit and have to be taken apart after every race weekend. the avg 1750 race motor puts out about 170-1750 hp at around 7000-7500 rpm.

2000's can put out up to 210 hp but are at the limit of the motor's ability. a reliable 2000 race motor puts out about 190 hp at around 7000-7500 rpm.

both the 1750 and 2000 with carillo rods and balanced bottom end have no problem winding out to 8000 rpm on those long straights.

in my opinion, the best 1750's and 2000's are being built by jon norman up in berkely. they are race proven!
anthony
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Hmmmm 190hp out of a 2 liter. I wonder if my engine will turn into 190HP engine. Eventually my motor will blow and I'll save up for a tricked out engine!

Anyone know the actual horsepower and torque for the 1750 and 2000?
Is roadtrip right about the 1750 being 117?

Start posting guys!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
Sniady said:
[B/]Anyone know the actual horsepower and torque for the 1750 and 2000?
Is roadtrip right about the 1750 being 117?

Start posting guys! [/B]
117 is the figure I saw on the British classic car magazines.

SAE stands for Society of Automotive Engineers.
There are two horsepower ratings for engines (in addition to the kilowatts Kw), one is the SAE standard that we use here in the States. And the other one... haha... forgot about the other one since it wasn't common any more. Was that DIN? Anybody?
I think there was also another standard in Japan.

I think the 132 rating refers to the other standard (DIN?), which the "horse" is an even sicker horse than the SAE "horse".

I was also told the 1750 was a much sweeter revver than the 2000 engine, is that true?

Haven't driven a 1750 before, but the 2000 is a sweet enough revver for me. :) Honda S2000 revs good but it is a souless engine compared to an Alfa 2000.

A reliable 190hp 2000 engine is good enough for me :D
190hp on about 1100kg = 172hp/ton, not bad.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,681 Posts
1750 vs 2000

a stock 1750 does rev more freely than a stock 2000. in race trim, they are about the same...my opinion
anthony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
Sigh

My poor 1600 gets no honorable mention. Same block as the GTA. My GTV doesn't have as much pull as my Spider does, but I still have fun. I have a 2 liter with European 105.48 cams for the GTV some day.

What's the deal with the 1300's? Are they any fun? Or were they just for saving money on the purchase price of the car?

I wouldn't call the S2000 engine soul-less. An 8500 RPM red line sounds like it's got enough spirit to lend it back to it's motorcycle heritage. It's still got the highest horsepower per liter rating among normally aspirated 2 liters.

Perhaps you meant the Honda s600 was without soul. I can attest to that, having owned one. It was still a kick to drive though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,451 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Re: Sigh

67GTV said:
My poor 1600 gets no honorable mention. Same block as the GTA.

I wouldn't call the S2000 engine soul-less. An 8500 RPM red line sounds like it's got enough spirit to lend it back to it's motorcycle heritage. It's still got the highest horsepower per liter rating among normally aspirated engines.

Perhaps you meant the Honda s600 was without soul. I can attest to that, having owned one. It was still fun to drive though.

1600 not 1600 GTA. If it was a GTA block then it'd be loved!:D :D :D

Yeah, I'm kinda with Kai on the S2000. Two liter normally aspirated engine pumping out 225hp? Rear wheel drive to! I'm not a fan of Honda either, but I like the S2000.

AlfaChan just hates rice rocket. :D





so do i
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
Re: Re: Sigh

Sniady said:
Yeah, I'm kinda with Kai on the S2000. Two liter normally aspirated engine pumping out 225hp? Rear wheel drive to! I'm not a fan of Honda either, but I like the S2000.

AlfaChan just hates rice rocket. :D


so do i
I love the S2000 engine as a piece of engineering marvel (2.0 with 240 hp.. yeah), but when I drove it back to back with a Spyder. Oh no...
I immediately took off the top of the Spyder and turn off the radio.

On a S2000, I shift when the gauge blink.
On a Spyder, the engine was telling me "5 4 3 2 1.. shift now!"

I should say the S2000 steering is really sweet and the tail out action is just addictive.

I think what I mean by soul is the sound and feel of the engine, I don't know how to describe it, but whenever I hear an Alfa engine, my heart rate just raise, it sounds like the engine is talking back to me. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
992 Posts
1600 and 1300

Well...the 1600 and 1300 engines found in the GT Jrs, Jr. Zagato and Guilia Supers are supposed to be a kick in the pants. From what I hear they are free revvin little beasts. I'm sure they lack the torque of the 1750 or 2000.

I would kill for a dead stock 1600 Super. Hrmmm...actually I know about one just sitting in a barn right now. I would trade in my Berlina for one.

Check out the clips of the Supers on this site. The body roll is insane on those things, the door handles are almost scraping the ground:

http://www.pollanetsquad.it/

(click on Video Wall)

There is a sweet clip of a BMW full of bad guys being chased by the Polizia in a Super. Notice how friggin' nimble the Super is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
Re: 1600 and 1300

magista said:
Well...the 1600 and 1300 engines found in the GT Jrs, Jr. Zagato and Guilia Supers are supposed to be a kick in the pants. From what I hear they are free revvin little beasts. I'm sure they lack the torque of the 1750 or 2000.
I always heard that the 1750 was the free revving beast. I haven't dared to push my 1600 yet. I am not financially ready to drop in my 2 liter yet.

I would kill for a dead stock 1600 Super. Hrmmm...actually I know about one just sitting in a barn right now. I would trade in my Berlina for one.
I wish I had a Super to trade you! I dig everything about Berlina's. I know they don't hold their own to a Super, but I still prefer Berlinas. Super tailights don't look like they match the rest of the rear of the car. Just like Triumph TR6's.

I saw this '69 Berlina change hands two times on eBay!
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
992 Posts
The Berlinas are not as nimble as the Super but I'm pretty sure the Berlina w/ it's 1750 and 2000 engine(s) is quicker.

Remember that the Berlina shares the same platform as the Spider and GTV. The only real difference is the wheelbase. The suspension, engine, running gear is all pretty much the same.

But...the Super has a certain charm that the Berlina can't touch. And they are much more tossable then the Berlinas. But hey, I love my Berlina. It definately has it's qualities...like it hauls *ss. It's pretty much the ultimate sleeper. Heheh.

BTW, my Berlina got a new front bumper. Found a NOS one from a little old Italian guy. Now it doesn't look like it's missing it's front teeth anymore. I also tracked down the backseat I needed.

The project is coming along...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
Damien

Post some pictures of her in the Photo Gallery. I'm always looking for more Alfa JPG's. I have 67 Berlina pics saved, as opposed to 430+ GTV pics. The '69 to '74 Berlinas are my 2nd favorite Alfas. Of course, the SS bumpers look better on the earlier years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
992 Posts
There is one posted in the picture gallery...but it's taken right when I bought it. It still has the stupid old cut bumper. I'll take some with the new bumper on it and post 'em later.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
Just an add on,
I have driven the S2000 and can vouch for its fun factor. Its not a good comparisson to the alfa because its a new car, power everything, modern suspension..
As a new car I loved everything about it, steering was impeccable, brakes worked great, car was light and nimble, and the gearbox was just INCREDIBLE!

My GTV on the otherhand provides me with alot of driving pleasure,waay more feedback in steering and braking, plus I can work on it, bond with it. For a new sports car though, I think the S2000 is a fine example.

My 2cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,373 Posts
From 1600 to 1750 alfa manged to increase engine size by 13 % from 1570 cc to 1779 cc this was acheived by adding 2mm to the bore and more importantly by upping the stroke from 82 mm to 88.5 mm. The net result of this was a 21 percent increase in torque for only a 13 percent increase in capacity and a 12 % increase in peak power.

I love the torqueiness of the 1750 engine. The higher gearing and 14 inch wheels add to the fun. The jump from 1779 cc to 1962 cc only produced a 5 percent increase in tourque and an 8 percent increase in peak power.

just a bit of trivia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
Sniady said:
Hmmmm 190hp out of a 2 liter. I wonder if my engine will turn into 190HP engine. Eventually my motor will blow and I'll save up for a tricked out engine!

Anyone know the actual horsepower and torque for the 1750 and 2000?
Is roadtrip right about the 1750 being 117?

Start posting guys!
The owner's manual for my '69 GTV said 132 as did the cardisk.
 

·
Trained (ex)Professional, , 1953-2018 RIP,
Joined
·
16,232 Posts
Like Ken's '69, my '68 owner's manual also lists 132 HP SAE for the carbed version 1750s. The '69 US version with Spica FI is also listed as 132 HP SAE. These Series 1 cars were fitted with 105.02.03.200.01 cams. The Series 2 US 1750s are listed as having 135 HP SAE; the 3 HP increase due to, I would think, the hotter 105.48.03.200.01 cams and maybe a Spica tweak or two. Don't have a spec on the S2 Euro 1750s.
The '72 2l US Spica cars are listed as having 129 HP SAE net. The key word here being 'net' which to me means that the 1750 ratings are 'gross' HP numbers which would explain the larger 2l engine having 'less' horsepower.
Then there's the rating system itself; SAE and, correct me if I'm wrong, DIN in Europe and JIS in Japan all of which will yield different horsepower ratings on the same engine. And lets not forget the newest trend to rate an engines' output in kW!
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top