you guys are too funny....oh yeah, carbs vs EFI, LOL

Here's a dyno graph for a stock, rebuilt 2.0 with d-jet. I doubt that
carburetors can control the A/F ratio this well throughout the rev range.

Click here to see picture

If you decide to ditch the F.I. and go carbureted, use a single weber side draft DCOE and mount in on a garrett turbo. Hay, it worked for me ;)

Alfred, what does the squiggle at below 2800 mean? Is that normal?

Cams
 

Does someone have a Carb cam they'd like to reccomend...?
I' worked at a place where we commonly switched F/I busses to the 2 barrel Weber, and the 1.8 car I have now has 36 Dell's added with stock cam done at same place I believe.
I remember even rebuilding a 2liter engine AS I WAS TOLD with some hi-perf cam and sticking the F/I back on!
jeez...what a mess. Eventually went to Radio Shack and bought a resistor to run inline with the head-temp censor. Deliverance.
I don't think I should ask around my town for what Cam to use...
I'll probably run 40 DLRA's.
Robert O
70' 914

Web-Cam 86--good all-around cam. There are some (like Jake Raby) who love split-duration cams, where the exhaust is open somewhat longer than the intake. Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, as the exhaust ports don't flow as well as the intakes on our motors. But those are, I think, more expensive than just the standard 86.

The 86a is, I believe, even more aggressive and loses more low RPM torque to pick up high RPM power.

--DD

Sorry, I don't know. The dyno graph is from Ed Carlson (he's on Rennlist). I always thought that the squiggly part of the A/F ratio curve was associated with the moment he stomped the gas pedal and it took the d-jet a moment to react. Not really sure though.

When I try to simulate the hp and torque output of a stock 2.0 using DeskTop Dyno I find that the hp and torque numbers are better with the default cam specs that the software uses rather than with what (I think are) the Webcam 86a specs. Same thing happens when I try to simulate the output of a 2270 cc motor. I wonder how accurate the software is? I should ask Wolfram Research to consider adding an engine simulation application for Mathematica.

FAT Performance FC442. .465lift 290deg duration. Much more sportee.
I'd allow lots of slop in choosing between cams - valve train geometry and setup makes a huge difference in realized lift, IIRC, depending how I did it, I'd get a .050" variance. I'd be real surprised if anyone gets full advertised lift out of most cams - if so it just goes to show that comparative claims at least should be taken with a grain of salt. I would view computer simulations based on those numbers as fun but rough guides as best. I played with every variable and maxed out at .438" IIRC with proper geometry, and was told I did well. It took longer than any other part of the rebuild.

Dave