Which engine would you keep?

[n10zf8]

Hey all,
When I bought my 72 spider it came with a 2.0L from a 79 installed and the stock 1600. According to the PO the 1600 runs, I know that it turns although I haven't yet tried running it, I want to clean it up and out and inspect for issues before I do that.
The question I pose to all of you is, assuming after a refresh on the 1600 it runs do I keep it and sell the 2.0L or the other way around.
Whichever I keep I will be using the money from the other to pay for a full rebuild, so your input is truly appreciated, thanks.

[azruss]

many years ago, i converted my 70 1438 to a 79 2L carb motor with a 4-2-1 exhaust and a re-jetted carb off a 71 spider. It was a great improvement to the car. No downside, all up!!!!

[divace73]

tho only reason I'd put the 1600 back in is if you want to keep it original and stock, otherwise the 2L will make driving a little more easier and fun to boot..
Since it is already done, I'd keep the 2L in the car and set the 1600 (is it the 1608??) on and engine stand and do it up over time like a piece artwork (with twin IDF's of course)

[n10zf8]

Divace that is the 1608 and the formal plan was to perhaps build it up as a spectacular engine since I do have the Weber 40 IDFs and manifold but the other half is wanting less parts out and around.

Thanks azruss. I hear most people say they prefer the 2.0 and it does run well needing only standard maintenance at this point.

I do appreciate the input as I am kinda torn on what to do. The first spider I ever drove was this same year with the 1608 and dual webers and I just remembered it being such an amazing ride, I just am not sure of which way to go. Ugh!!?!

[manoa matt]

No direct experience as i drive an 1800, but from what I've gathered, the 1600 will be a high reving zippy engine that will produce some amazing sounds. The 2L should have gobs of torque and plenty of HP, but is a bit less rev happy due to the longer stroke. Keep em both.

[majicwrench]

Ya know, tis tough. I have a 1608 in mine, and like keeping it original to a point. If I had a Fiat I was gonna customize a bit ( OK I do have a 70 and a 71 just sitting around, hmmm) a 2000 would be a much better engine, the extra umphh would be well worth it.
KEith

[n10zf8]

I feel better knowing the choice is a difficult one for anybody .

[chrisg]

I prefer the 1608 engine. Is there any greater difficulty sourcing parts to build the 1608? I've had all three engines...in large numbers, a very wide range of conditions (40-240K miles, single vac 2ndary-34DMS-IDF-FI) and I still have a soft spot for the less low end torquey 1608. To me, it's what is right on these cars...and I don't mean in a "collector"/"original equipment" way... I mean, it seems like suited for the European style of driving. That said, if you prefer more power on the lower end & don't particularly want to or expect to be driving in the 3000+RPM range routinely then the 2L is nice. Hard to go too wrong with either. Unless the money or space is an issue, I'd say building up a badass 1608 and flogging the 2L while that's happening sounds like a good plan.

[n10zf8]

Well I will be starting the rebuild process on the 1608cc, since I have all of the seals and gaskets it comes down to whether or not I want to put in high performance parts and if so what level of performance. My wife wants a 120+ bhp build, how can I say no.
I have the dual Weber IDFs 40mm carbs and intake as well as an Abarth exhaust so I suppose I just need to get a few internals to have great build.