Re: A Round-Tail engine question/1750 vs 2000 Revving

[Kevin Trent <trentkc@domain.elided>]

On 10/3 back in V8#1186 I opined on the torque superiority of the 2L over 
the 1750, in that case an early 1750 without offset piston pins.  Yes, I 
agree that cams and cam timing make a significant difference in the 2L 
engine.  I have a two 2L spica injected engines, both set to 1750 cam 
timing, one with 1750 cams, the other with Euro 10548 cams, and both rev to 
7k with nooooo problem.  More data points - I have the early 1750 mentioned 
above and a 2L, both with webers and marelli plex ignition,  and both 
carrying an 11 mm 300 degree cam intake and Euro 10548 exhaust cam set on 
102 degree cam timing I&E.  That 2L revs to 7K better than the slug 1750 in 
addition to loads more low end torque.

//kct, Powell, TN


At 05:42 PM 10/5/02 +0000, you wrote:


> Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 08:33:46 -0500
> From: Robert Wilkinson <wilk@domain.elided>
> Subject: Re: A Round-Tail engine question
>
> I've never driven a 1750, but since the introduction of the 2000 the
> superior revving of the 1750 has never been disputed.  In the Alfa Owners
> of the time, 2000 owners were advised to advance their intake cam, or
> replace their cams with 1750 (or, more recently, Euro 2000) cams.  This mod
> wasn't mentioned in the hypothetical comparison that started this thread.
> I'd like to hear the group's collected wisdom on the merits (if any) of
> this kind of swap.  Presumably, the 2 liter cams were introduced, as was
> the engine, as a smog measure, not simply to shift the power band downward.
>  Will the 1750 cams restore the "likes to rev" nature of the 1750 without
> too much loss of that beautiful torque of the 2000?  With, without Spica?
>
> Robert Wilkinson
> 72 Spica Spider
>
> The 1750 engine always seemed to enjoy revving whereas the 2L seemed
> uncomfortable over about 4000 RPM.  For "feel" the 1750 gets my vote.
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided