Repost: 1750-2000 facts and figures

["Mark Battley" <m.battley@domain.elided>]

Well those tables looked like sh!t.... I'll try again with rich text turned
off!

"A 1750 may better a 2000 in street form....." 

Here's a quick compilation of some data from tests in the Brooklands Gold
Portfolio:

There was significant variability between tests of supposedly the same spec
car. The numbers that I have included are averages, and not all parameters
were included in each test. Even so, the trend is clear: the 2000 had a
higher top speed and acceleration in both Euro and USA spec than the 1750. I
don't understand the 11.9 0-60 of the USA 2000: how do you record that and
still do a 16.8 1/4 mile??? Typo???

                           2000              1750 
                       Euro     USA      Euro     USA
Sample size             1-3      1      1- 3      2-3
Max speed (mph)         118     118      116      114
0-60                    9.1    11.9     10.0     10.6
0-100                  27.7                      30.8
1/4 mile               16.5    16.8     17.6     17.0
50-70 in 4th            7.2              8.6

<The thing about the early 1750's is, you really don't have to do much to
<them to get impressive performance. They were spec'd at 130 BHP

Yes and no... I suspect that one of the sources of the supposed "higher
performance" of the 1750 relates to the change from SAE to DIN hp ratings
when the 2000 was released. I have read some supposedly authoritative Alfa
reference books that talk about how the USA 2000 "only" had 129 hp compared
to 135 or whatever of the 1750... what rubbish! The following data quite
clearly shows that the difference was due to the different standards used
for measuring hp:

                                                     1750  
                    2000                 early      late 
                                        (9.5:1)  (9.0:1)
                Euro     USA             Euro       Euro      USA
Power (SAE)     150                       132        135    131-135
Power (DIN)     132      129              122        118 

Torque (SAE)    153                       137               134-138
Torque (DIN)    134      130              127  

(Data from Brooklands Gold Portfolio tests and Bremner).

There is something slightly odd between the early and late Euro 1750 figures
(why does 132 SAE equate to 122 DIN and 135 with 118?), but if you compare
apples with apples the 2000 had more power and torque than the 1750 in both
Euro and USA spec. As it should.

As for the "feel" of the engines, I would argue that the Euro 1750 feels
more revvy just because it has less low down torque than the 2000. The flat
torque curve of the 2000 means that it is faster than it feels, unlike many
modern 16 valve EFI engines that do nothing to 5000 rpm, then go wild. I
can't comment personally on the USA versions since I haven't driven one. My
impression what I have read and heard is that their cam and ignition timing
and injection system were set up such that they do not rev quite as freely
as the Euro version: their peak power and torque figures are slightly lower,
it'd be interesting to see comparative power and torque curves.

I like all versions of the Alfa twin cam, from 1300 cc up. They all have
their own appeal. But if you want the most power and torque, in a road or
race motor, the 2000 is your best bet.

Mark Battley
Auckland, New Zealand.

1973 Alfa Romeo 2000 GT Veloce

Alfa Romeo 105 series Bertone Coupe home page and register at:
      http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/1806/105GTV.HTML

------------------------------