View Single Post
Rouser Rouser is offline
Registered User
Rouser's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 614
Send a message via ICQ to Rouser Send a message via AIM to Rouser
I believe the argument Jake makes against installing hydraulic valvetrain is valid. Sure, the bus T-IV's may have had them, but you're looking at a whole different application and operating environment.

I suppose the 914 2.0L engine could've been (originally) designed/introduced with hydraulics, but in comparison to the 914/6 powerplant it was to replace, the engineers took into consideration the performance aspect of solids and went that route. As much as hydraulics supposedly (see Jake's comments) would save in periodic adjustments, the loss in horsepower wasn't acceptable (a step backwards?).

A close friend has a 914 2.0L FI w/hydraulics, and Holy Crap! the clatter it makes during warm-up if it sits for any length of time; them suckers drain out awfully soon, ya think?. I have to turn my head and chuckle, thinking "This eliminates the hassle of valve adjustments?"

If you're going to punch it out to 2.2L+, than solids is the best bet for power AND longevity. Besides, if you're only keeping it 30-40K, why spend the extra money for hydraulics in the first place? A "solid" 914 engine is worth more than a "hydraulic" one.

Old 10-24-2001, 05:04 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #5 (permalink)