[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [New Search]
Hmmm, I don't know. Once you leave stock expect more maintenance
regardless of engine size. This maintenance is mainly fine tuning once the
engine is in your hands and pushing you down the road. Sometimes a change
of season may require some tuning. Of course it depends upon the
components you use. With my electronic points, computerized ignition and
special spark plug wires my whole ignition system is pretty bullet proof
and much lower in maintenance compared to a stock setup. However, since I
no longer use FI my carbs require more time like the occasional synch,
clean/change of air filters, cleaning the bodies and chrome tops (gotta
look purty!) and searching for the ever elusive 'sweet-spot' in the (carb)
jets where the flat spots are hardly noticeable (had it taken care of when
I had the 1641cc but this 2003cc breathes a little differently).
As for cost, well, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 don't vary too much -- you're just
paying the difference in piston/cylinder head size (and maybe valve sizes).
All of them will require a better cam, crank, rods, pushrods, etc. to
stand up to the higher stresses (compared to stock). I could easily see a
1.7 costing just as much as a 2.0 -- it all depends upon the quality of the
entire engine system. Since I'm not an engine builder by I am not fully
qualified to go into the details like others on this list could (read as:
"If you're an experienced engine builder please give your informed input").
But I figure that if you have two engines, say the 1.8 and the 2.0, built
to exactly the same standards the only differences between the two will be
the price gap due to cylinder size and the rated torque produced (with that
goes hp too). Life expectancy, traditionally, will be shorter for the 2.0
compared to the 1.8, and they'll both live shorter lives compared to a
stock unit built to the same standards.
It all depends upon what you want, in performance and maintenance and cost.
Every one is different and will have differing view points. I would go
for the gusto and grab the 2.0 -- if you're going to spend a good chunk of
money might as well get it all! To each their own!
Toby "man, that's harder to explain than I thought" Erkson
air_cooled_nut@pobox.com
'72 VW Squareback 1.6L bored and stroked to 2.0L
'75 Porsche 914 1.8L
Portland, Oregon, http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/8501/
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Engines
Author: type-3-errors@umich.edu at SMTPGATE
Date: 9/23/97 10:51 AM
...
So then, Toby, what are your feelings about going w/a 1835? Would=20
that be all the trouble and expense of a 2L w/o the extra power?
T o M
*=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=
=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`*
* http://www.wolfenet.com/~peaceman *
* ICQ# 3252482 *
*=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=
=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`*