Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Joshporsche Oct 22 2004, 08:07 AM

Hey guys! I'm sure this has been hashed out a million times here, but i was just wondering how it feels to have a powerful 914-6. I own a totaled 2.0 and it's stock. Wrecked it right after high school. (good tires are important!!!) Interesting enough-my friend owned a 1998 454 suburban and my 914 was exactly as fast as it all the way to 98 mph when the suburban's governor kicked in. Here's my question-how fast is a regular 914-6? What car (speed wise) does it compare to? I understand all 914-6's will be different-but i would like to know about yours. Let me know your thoughts!

Josh

Posted by: skline Oct 22 2004, 08:17 AM

I dont have a 6 to tell you about, but I can tell you the 6 had a lot more torque and would get there a lot quicker. Not so much faster to speak of but a lot quicker. It would probably go about 10 to 25 MPH faster than a 4 and get there a lot faster. Speaking stock to stock that is.

Posted by: Lawrence Oct 22 2004, 08:21 AM

Having owned both a stock 2.0/6 and 2.0/4... The 4 is quicker around an autocross course. It carries less weight in the engine compartment.

Would I trade my /6 for a 2.0/4? Nope. Sixes rock... even small sixes.

-Rusty

Posted by: d914 Oct 22 2004, 08:23 AM

I have a realatively stock 2.0-4 and a 2.5-6 that was a street car. Not exactly a fair comparision. The 6 kicks ass. The four is fun. Jake will be here shortly with a four that can probably kick my ass, but the sound of a small six reving up to 7k is a wonderful thing along with the allure of the porsche 6. Now the bad side, Sixes cost MONEY... Rebuilds will cost your first born male child... A jake 4 will cost as much as a six up front but will cost less in rebuilds. A low milage 3.2 seems to be a nice comprimise, fuel injection, computer controlled, long life, stock hp over 200, lots of tq.....

Depending on budget, suspension, TIRES, a jake like four and you have a car that will take years for you to grow into its potential.

Posted by: ! Oct 22 2004, 08:31 AM

The stock six also has different gearing.....

Posted by: vortrex Oct 22 2004, 08:32 AM

if you are talking 0-60 and 1/4 times I think a stock 914-6 is comparable to a ford focus and many other modern commuter mom cars.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 22 2004, 08:33 AM

This is such a hot topic that I added a page on my site all aboiut the six conversion and another about the V8 conversion.

all my graphs for the MassIVe Type IVs are not up yet and I still need to finish one page but you can view it here.

http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/914.htm

Enjoy

Posted by: drew365 Oct 22 2004, 08:45 AM

If you're talking about just for the street I have little experience. Here's my experience with track cars: I run a 2.7 twin plug 6, my friend runs a 2.0/4. He is usually only 1 to 2 seconds off my pace on big tracks like Willow Springs and Laguna Seca, so he is very quick. In nearly 3 years of racing I've never done any engine work, not even changed the plugs because they still look good. He pulls his engine to do some kind of repair just about every event. He's gone through more sets of heads than I can remember. I'm sure if he had one of Jakes creations the story might be different, but generally speaking a 6 that's set up right will give you loads of reliability and smiles. I enjoy resting between sessions while he runs around with a jack.

Posted by: Bleyseng Oct 22 2004, 08:59 AM

I don't find that much difference in a stock six and a good 2.0l fout UNTIL 5000 rpms. The six starts really coming on while its all over for the four banger.

A 3.2 six is another animal and its like having a liteweight rocket engine in the car.

Geoff

Posted by: iamchappy Oct 22 2004, 09:22 AM

Both are great for different reasons, I drove a 2.0 4 for almost 30 years but always was looking to get more power out of it, but if I was looking for a nice street and highway cruiser and gas millage was a concern I would stick with a pure stock fuel injected 2.0.

I use my car more for fun and around town errands but enjoy the thrill of a blast onto the highway. I have always looked to the 930 Turbo Carrera as the benchmark for the performance I was looking to achieve. It would be tough to get that 300 plus hp performance out of a 4 regardless of the 100lbs lighter factor.

As far as costs, I consider my car the same as owning a 911.

In 30 years of owning and driving a 914 I put less than 90,000 miles on it.

If I take very good care of my 40,000 mile turbocharged 3.0 six, It should see many years of driving before it sees that expensive rebuild.

Posted by: boxstr Oct 22 2004, 09:27 AM

I have had a 3.0 six with 964 cams, webers,915 trans. Faster than you need to go. I have a 305 V8 914, 4 speed trans, Holley projection, faster than you need to go. Not a perfect AX car but lots of power. I have a 2.4 six, Zenith carbs, stock 5 speed trans, 5 lug. Much more drivable and fun. Great for AX and street. I have a big 4, Dells,big flares 17" five lug wheels. Stock 5 speed trans. Lots of fun to drive, not as fast as any of the other cars, but you aren't going to get in trouble as quick.
CCLINCAMPCOMPARISION

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 22 2004, 10:05 AM

I have had stock 1.7's 2.0's, most of them FI 914's that made great drivers, but not much power. The problem I have with building a large 4cyl is the noise factor. When you usually open up something like that, you usually hear all carbs and exhaust. not for me. I have had 914-6's with 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.7 engines. Those 911 engines were all stock and nice and quiet. None ever gave me any troubles either. Very solid engines.

I would think it is your tastes. Any 914 is worth the effort IMO.

Right now I am running a 73' 914-6 with a 2.2T engine. Great flat power band, easy, easy, easy to drive. Not loud, stock air cleaner, no carb noise. We have taken it on quite a few trips and love it. Great comprise at 26mpg hwy.

Posted by: J P Stein Oct 22 2004, 01:27 PM

If you're gonna be happy with 150 hp, get one of Jakes motors
.....I'll forgive Jake the bias shown on *his* website

If you want more, get a 6er.

Neither option is cheep.

If ya want a V8, get a Vette.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 22 2004, 03:09 PM

JP,
I even admit to the bias right there on the site AND make the statement that if it rubs you the wrong way- it just does.... Thats why it is on my site.

I added that statement just for a certain few individuals......

Like I say on the site, I'd take a V8 over a six- if your gonna cut and weld may as well get all the power you can!

BTW Reliable HP doesn't stop at 150 ponies.... I can do 180 reliably without Nickies, or 200 with Nickies...

Got 9 of them on the road (in 914s) with 190+ and nothing but positive results. They run cooler head temps than a stock 2.0

Posted by: Brett W Oct 22 2004, 03:33 PM

Someone awhile back posted the dyno results for a 2.0 six. I don't remember if he posted the dyno charts but my 2056 made more peak power than his. I wouldn't mind comparing the dyno charts to see what really happens but maybe later.

"Faster" is a relative term. I can take a four cylinder civc and blow your doors off in a straight line and on some race tracks for half as much money. Does it make cool noises like the six, NO.

A found can go faster than a six at the track but it will be much harder. On the street they both have good and bad points.

I would agree with Jake and either go with a four or V8 (which is what my street car will bring). If you have an original six car for really cheap OK, but I wouldn't convert if it were me.

Posted by: 914forme Oct 22 2004, 03:40 PM

Jake is that with KitCarlson Injection or can we expect even higher numbers?

Just wondering

BTW, the new site looks good, passed the info onto a bud, who I will be helping put togther a PCA GT5s car this spring. He is flopping on the motors. What can I say I like to weld and fab stuff, driving is only part of the fun.

But he is the driver and flips the bills for the parts so he will get what he chooses, I will educate him, and do my job put the stuff in.

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 22 2004, 03:47 PM

Posted by: TimT Oct 22 2004, 04:03 PM

Posted by: Hi_Fi_Guy Oct 22 2004, 04:21 PM

I am loving my Jake built 2270 TYPE IV. The power is good, always plenty of power in every gear to accelerate away from traffic. With the front mount oil cooler temps have not even been an issue. The engine revs fast and pulls hard.

I have no experience with a 914-6 but my Boxster has the latest 2.7 liter 6 and I can say that when the VarioCam kicks in from 4,000 to 7,000 RPM the rush is awesome. Just the "feeling" from that type of six could sway me.

Luckily I don't have to worry about being swayed when it comes to my 914. The 2270 Jake built to last and is even smoother and quieter after the first valve adjustment at Stuttgart Southwest with Jake on Tech-Support duty (THANKS JAKE!).

I will admit that the induction roar of the carbs does get a bit old and can make the car feel more coarse and less refined (especially if you are used to driving a 914 with F.I.). It is not a big issue but worth considering, especially if you wanted to use a 914 as a daily driver.

The only other downside of a big four has been the annual AZ smog test. It took quite a bit of tuning by Patrick Motorsport to get it to pass and then they had to try to reset everything to how Jake had it set-up to run best... dobtfull if it is tuned as well as when it left Jake's shop. Quite a few hours of labor to get a pass. I think a switch to a good electronic ignition would make it easier to pass. F.I. would make it a breeze.

All in all I am very happy with the 2270 and I am sure I will be happier as the miles add up.

P.S. Jake, I am finishing my interior install and getting everything ready for Phoenix Flight. I'll take plenty of pics at Phoenix Flight and get something together to post on your site as a testimonial. I am a very satisfied customer.

Posted by: Sammy Oct 22 2004, 05:31 PM

There aint nothing like a six.

And...........

I disagree with rebuild costs of a six vs. a high power 4.

A well built six will need to be gone through about every 175,000 miles or so and will cost about $5k to $6k to rebuild right.

I'd be surprised if a hot-rodded 4 makes it past 75,000 miles, and will cost almost as much to rebuild.

I loved type 4s, until I drove a car with a flat six porsche engine.

no offense.

Posted by: Bleyseng Oct 22 2004, 06:02 PM

No matter what you do to a four its still just a bus motor. Now a six is a piece of art!

Geoff (nomex on)

Posted by: Brett W Oct 22 2004, 06:19 PM

OK so YOU scored a couple of engines, what do you do about the oil tank, new carbs, exhaust, motor mounts, clutch, , etc. Most other conversions cost substantually more. If you are doing a six conversion for 1000k please keep it up but don't expect me to recommend such a cheap swap to any of my customers. I do things right (usually not cheap) and not half way otherwise my customers can find someone else to do their work.

I could probably build a bottom end 140hp 2056 for 2500$ My 130hp four will run circle around your 130 hp six because of the wieght differential. I spent 3000$ to make the power out of my engine through some shitty stock HE. I don't build sixes, don't have a lot of interest in building sixes. I will probably get into the late water cooled motors because the have more potential, but that is another arguement.

Cost
P&Cs 4cyl. 550$ 6cyl 1600$ 2.0L
Gaskets 50$ 289.99
Rings 60$ 85$
Camshafts 150$ 500$ea
Valves 130$ 200$
Chain tensioners N/A 160
OIl hoses N/A A lot
Oil pump 60$ 800$


HHHHMMMM don't see lots of value there. Now is the six inherently more durable, in most cases. Is the six more desireable, Yes in most cases. Is a six conversion worth as much as a real six with a better motor? No. Can they be done for the same money? NO. The 6 will always cost more up front. The four may not last as long but I can build 3 140hp fours for the price of one correct 6 conversion.


Sammy is right. The six is a distinct upgrade for the 914. I always like a well done conversion, but not for me. I am interested in V8s and fours. I could get intersted in playing with a 10 or twelve though if I happened on one for cheap.


These are my opinions, you have yours and the fellow that ask the original question needs to form his.

Posted by: morphenspectra Oct 22 2004, 06:51 PM

research....research .....research.
when i went in search of more power.i came to one conclusion,(for what i want)6 cyl porsche power was just the way to go.i went over cost.and drove a few sixes,fours, bigs fours,and v8 conversions(yick).i even have drivin a rotery coversion.( too many problems).
and i dont pull ideas out of my ass.i look at all sides of the choice.the six will last you longer and be more reliable.as far as cost goes,ive seen the cost of big fours that reach the cost of just doing a stock rebuild of a six myself.but this is only my opinion.the power of a six felt right(3.0)and the car still handled great.v8 conversion had great power,but when you started to turn the car all the traditional feel of the 914 was gone.even more so when you went to stop even with brake upgrades on the cars i was driving.but to each his own

Posted by: Sammy Oct 22 2004, 08:43 PM

I drove a stock 1.7 liter 71 914 all through the end of high schoole and through college (until someone offered me way too big a paycheck) and thought it was the best car in the world.
My next 914 turned into a turbo 2 liter, I was sure it was the best car in the world.
Then I built a V8 914. Fun but untyimately disapointing,. I grew tired of it quickly.
Mike Zois took me for a ride in his euro 3 liter 911SC, I was hooked. the sound, the feel, the way it just pulled harder and harder the more it revved, and it got smoother the higher it revved.
i was hooked and decided that was what i needed right then and there.
I got one but soon saw a drawback, no torque to speak of below 4000 rpm, I had to rev it up all the time or keep it in a lower gear to have throttle response. I imagine smaller sixes are worse, never drove one. granted my SC has AC, sunroof, power everything so it is prolly close to 2700 lubs, that might have something to do with it. now with pressurized intake all is well. I have the smoothness, reliability, sound, and power.

I dream of a big six 914 and soon I will build one, but it may be a track only car.
Sounde like one of you guys with a powerfull 4 needs to take me for a ride and bring me back to my senses.

Posted by: ! Oct 22 2004, 08:46 PM

What REALLY bugged his eyes out was the 110mph brake down to 20 mph......guy about snotballed his pants.....of course he b!itched the whole time.....what a whiner.....

Posted by: trekkor Oct 22 2004, 09:13 PM

I'm with Root on this one. Deals are everywhere, and they always find me.

Got my running SIX with webers for $1500.

My goal is to convert by the end of November for under $4k.

it will happen.

As far as which is better...don't know. We'll see.

I do remember someone said, "no one converts from a SIX to a FOUR".

KT

Posted by: davidcalvin Oct 22 2004, 09:32 PM

I _love_ my 76 2.0L. It runs really well, is totally stock and easy to get serviced, and anything faster would just get me into trouble.

If its fast enough to get a ticket in, its fast enough for me. I'm keeping this one furever.

Posted by: krk Oct 23 2004, 12:08 AM

My bits to add -- they are small ones tho.

I drove a 73 2.0 as my daily driver here in SJ for probably 4 years. Loved the car. GT flares. Silver. Never planned to sell it. Oops -- bought other cars. Seems if you continually buy cars, at some point there are space issues. Who knew. (duh)

I now split time between a fairly stock /6 and a 76 911 turbo. Both silver of course.

The 73 was nimbler than the /6 -- yeh, the flares an wider stance make it hard to compare -- but part of it is also likely the response or pedal feel difference betweeen the FI 2.0 and the carb'd 2.0. The FI version seemed to make better torque off the line, and was lighter in the accel linkage, so in the normal driving, it probably was more responsive. (I sold the car a couple of years ago, so age related memory fade is kicking in)

The stock /6 is slightly weaker in bottem end torque, but after that, it is noticeably stronger -- it doesn't feel like it's maxing out even when you push it hard through the rpm range. And if you like the sound, the webers on a /6 at the howling stage are musical. I've never heard MFI in one of these, but that has to be a blast as well. (but who's kidding who -- the stock /6 doesn't exactly push you into your seat) I am a bit of a "stock junkie" so at this moment, I don't have changes planned, but....

I love the idea of a turbo /6 -- the 911 turbo is a blast to drive, but it is heavier and a bit tail happy. Personally, I don't care that much (I feel lucky to have one to drive! , but my current thinking is a M471 look, with a turbo /6 would be my current 914 pick.

kim.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 23 2004, 07:57 AM

I have assisted with two six conversions and done one 100% myself.... I do have experience with the conversion.

The cost to rebuild a 150 or 180HP four cylinder isn't much at all. I offer the service to any of my customers that still are the original owners of my engines for 1/2 labor!

The parts to do the job are as limited as a full set of bearings, cam and lifter set (maybe if you have conventional lifters- not needed if you have ceramics) a set of rings, set of valves and a few incidental items..

I just did one of these jobs 3 weeks ago for a 115,000 mile 2270. It was an early version of mine and only made 135BHP in its original state. I was even suprised with the engine's wear and integrity. The customer is a neat freak and kept the engine in perfect tune, with oil changes every 2K.
I did the service mentioned above and replaced his cam and lifters with a more developed set with ceramics and his bill was still only 1800.00- the engine made 153BHP on the dyno this time around with no other changes.

Rebuild a six for that and get dyno tuning to boot!- I dare ya.....

I will never try to convince anyone that I talk to that has strong feelings about a six to go with one of my engines, or any other four. If you want it- go get it but the day when that MassIVe sticker is looked you in the face, on the back of the 4 cylinder car that just passed you remember just how shitty you are going to feel! Don't worry though, you won't be alone, its happeneing more and more day after day! The only thing that feels better than passing a six with a four is the Camaro that I killed at the drag strip last Friday night with my 66 Beetle and just 200HP! He went home shortly therafter.....

Some people have an attitude of "There is no replacement for displacement."

My attitude is " The only replacement for displacement is weight reduction."

Posted by: Eric_Shea Oct 23 2004, 09:46 AM

Gint and I just took my bone stock puny six for a jaunt up Little Cottonwood Canyon last weekend (Z, when you wake up you're still in Kalifornia ). We were both euphorically bouncing off redline with a six-cylinder chorus playing behind our ears. Banging the freshly rebuilt stock brakes upon occasion.

I've had the occasion to get it out on a few striaght and empty roads. It tops out around 130mph. Stunning? Nope. Awe inspiring? Nope. More in line with Jim's (PorscheRescue) vintage thread. To pilot a 34 year old 2000lb car around at redline and enjoy the sound of the engine and the balance of the drivetrain and brakes working in perfect harmony is enough to put a smile even on the Capt'n's face.

T'ain't nothing like a six.

All that being said, a nice 4 rocks!

T'ain't nothing like a 914.

Posted by: mskala Oct 23 2004, 01:12 PM

I can't say anything about all the conversions, rebuilds,
and exciting stuff that some of the guys here are experts
of.

But I've have a stock '73 2.0, a stock '73 1.7, and then
the current stock (engine) '70 914-6.

The -6 is faster. By the time '73 rolled around, enough
weight was added that I think it's about the same or
heavier than the -6, whose engine was about 90 pounds
heavier than the -4. I find that gearing can be better or
worse at autocross depending on the setup, second
and third gear plus the different rev range are very
different.

Now, I think a stock -6 is not hugely faster than the -4,
but I do like the sound a lot better, and at least for me
I like the idea of having the stock 911 2.0T because it
seems very reliable and I'm not worried that it's pushed
to the limit by the factory, and the trans and the chassis
can more than handle it, stock.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 23 2004, 08:16 PM

So what about this sound is so different than a TIV??

I just don't understand! Hell I have guys that complain that they are too loud and drown out the radio (4 cylinders that is)

I have driven alot of -6 cars and never noted a sound much different than a -4..... Now if the sound was like a Turboshaft or something spooling up I might understand!

Posted by: TimT Oct 23 2004, 08:22 PM

Posted by: jeff Oct 23 2004, 08:48 PM

4,6,8,10,Rotary,Ford flathead??Hampster on wheel ??I wish mine would just run!Just stick something in and have fun theres always someone faster or more reliable (like one of those fast hondas with the big beautiful wings and huge tailpipes!Sstick something in and post pics so we c an all go oooo!

Posted by: trekkor Oct 23 2004, 09:01 PM

It's funny, in the game Need for Speed, Porsche Unleashed, you can even hear the difference between the the Four and the SIX...Like that really means something

Seriously, the sound I've been hearing out of the SIX cars at Sears over the last few months has been awesome.

I even have video footage of a 2.0 vintage racer 911 twin plug, revving for me at 3 feet on dual Supertrapps.

If the the SIX is bogus, i'll do something else.
It's all for fun. Has no real effect on my actual life

KT


Attached image(s)

Posted by: bob91403 Oct 23 2004, 09:26 PM

As I understand it, a stock 2.0L 4 has an advantage over a stock 2.0L 6. In that it has almost as much horsepower, but less weight (better handling). The advantage the six would have is acceleration from like, 60 to 90, where the extra torque shows up. When you start talking about bigger fours and sixes, it's the same thing. As long as the horsepower is comparable the lighter four will handle a bit better, but, the extra torque from the six will give you better high end acceleration. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Oh, FI is less troublesome than carbs. So, if I were going to put in a six, it would be a FI one.

Posted by: trekkor Oct 23 2004, 09:52 PM

If i remember correctly, the stock 2.0 FOUR makes 95hp while the SIX cranks out 110hp. Some books have 'em at 130hp I think.

Most conversions will not be a 914-6 2.0 motor, BTW.

People are going with 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 3.0, and BIGGER.

Thats HUGE to me.

Dependending on the year model you are comparing it to, the wieght difference is only 100-200#'s.

It's like have me in the the passenger seat full time.
Again, no biggie.

Imagine 130-250hp for a 200# trade off.

Hmmm.

Oh, and why spend huge bucks on a rebuild, when you can find another used motor for cheap?

KT

Posted by: Aaron Cox Oct 23 2004, 09:55 PM

Posted by: trekkor Oct 23 2004, 10:41 PM

Brad was right, 914club is better than TV.

KT

Posted by: VegasRacer Oct 23 2004, 10:47 PM

my 2 ¢ worth

My first teener was a stock 1.8. I thoroughly enjoyed it for 5 years. I then decided I wanted more oomph. I seriously considered a stock 914-6. I didn't think it offered enough 'more' to justify double the price for not much more than a VIN that started with 914xxx. I bought another 4 and 'improved' it. It was nice, but not prefect. I decided some sort of a conversion was what I needed. I checked out some V-8's. They do have their benefits but they were not right for me. I finally decided on a 3.0+ conversion. For my taste it seems to be the best of both worlds.

There is no 'right answer' to this question. That is why there are so many options and so much variety out there. I can appreciate any teener from a stock 1.7 to a tube frame, twin plug, turbo monster.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 23 2004, 11:31 PM

I guess that most of you guys that have never experienced a truely refined TIV engine with a correct combination- Thats the issue....

Yes, I have driven some really crappy 4 cylinders myself, and taken apart thousands..

Please don't compare something that takes me 80 hours to configure, machine, assemble and dyno to something cranked out of a lesser facility.

I am very familiar with the sound of a six, but at the same time I can' tell much difference from one of those from my MassIVe 2270 or 2316 in the sound dept... especially with a Tangerine Super Header...

The other nice thing about a -4 is that even in the highest state of tune any backyard VW mechanic can work on it! No need to pay someone 80 bucks an hour because its a "Porsche".....

I wonder if any of those six experts have ever been able to build one of their babies while blindfolded in front of 500 people???? I did and thats just how simple the TIV is. Simplicity is a must!

Posted by: SGB Oct 23 2004, 11:42 PM

I love that type IV sound! With the valves set right, carbs spot on, my car does NOT sound like a VW. There is valve noise. "tttttttttttttttt" nice and even like dumming fingers on snare drum, and a whirrr from the cooling fan not unlike a you know what. If I really get on it, there is a dB concern. Really, to me it sounds like a Porsche shoould sound, it is just all occuring on a four-beat instead of six-beat.

Posted by: 9146986 Oct 24 2004, 09:00 AM

I do remember someone said, "no one converts from a SIX to a FOUR".

KT

Posted by: morgan_harwell Oct 24 2004, 11:49 AM

>>I understand all 914-6's will be different-but i would like to know about yours. Let me know your thoughts!

Brief story of why the 914/4 I bought is now a 914/6:

It was originally a 2.0L/4/webers when I bought it in 1986. Stupid me! I soon learned carbs are smog illegal on a 4cyl (still are! just don't have to test every other year). Within a year I realized I bought the biggest Lemon in California! Not smog legal, junk transmission, cheap paint, missing parts, ... I believe in PPI now. I also learned that 1st year there was such a thing as the 914/6.

The carb noise didn't bother me much, but not passing smog was a big problem. The fuel mileage wasn't that great either, compared with it's 6cyl replacement. The 2.0L/4 was real strange performance wise, some days it just SCREAMED, other days it couldn't get out of it's own way (barometric pressure?). Then I priced out how much it would cost to make the 4-banger smog legal. WOW! Change pistons, cam, find good FI system, fuel pump, etc., AIRC around $3500 in 1987. Comparable to a DIY /6 conversion.

If I hadn't done the six conversion, I wouldn't be driving a 914 today. Because of its uniqueness & great handling I went ahead with the /6 conversion.

I found a $2500 2.4L/CIS 6 with 90K miles on it. In 1987 it cost an extra $4187-$1250(4cly stuff sold) to swap the engines. The 2.4L/6 is still in the car today. It is my every-dry-day driver. I'm am genuinely astonished at how durable & reliable the 6cyl has been! The motor now has around 275,000 miles on it. Each time it has been smog checked, it passed easily. The valve guides are now showing signs they're tired, but the engine still pulls very hard. Hard enough to spin the clutch loose at 5k RPM (needs a clutch job). I think the carbed TIV engine would have required 2 rebuilds by now.

Since my 914 is my every-dry-day driver, i.e. I put ALOT of miles on it, pollution control is a high priority. I remember visiting 1960s LosAngeles as a kid where within a day my eyes would be burning & I couldn't see the San Gabriel Mtns.. Anyway, I'm thinking of replacing the 2.4L/CIS-6 with a 3.2L/DME-6 engine rather than rebuilding the 2.4L when the time comes. For about the cost of rebuilding the 2.4L I can source a stock 3.2L and gain 70hp, better gas mileage and more modern smog emission numbers thanks to it's computer controlled closed loop engine management system.

Moral of this story: get a PPI !

-Moe-

Posted by: cdn914 Oct 24 2004, 01:20 PM

I have owned a stock 914-6 for about 16 years, currently own another (project), and have owned about 10 914-4s, 1.7s and 2.0s - over the years. The 2.0 fours are great fun to drive and have wonderful motors, even in stock form. The 1.7s are always fun at speed but getting up to speed can at times be frustrating. The factory sixes have a character all their own. They certainly sound different (read wonderful) , and the engine sound alone still excites me each time I take it out for a run. In many ways, it is a simpler 914 than the 914-4s and the unique 914-6 parts on the car just add to its unique character. I consider the 914-6 to be a more attractive 911 Targa with the engine in its proper place, a properly fitting roof and better rigidity than its 911 Targa counterpart. Many modified 914-4s will outrun the factory 2.0 six but the exclusiveness and unique character of the six will always cause it to remain at the head of the marque. I like to consider the 914-6 to be the 914 model's revenge on the 911 as the 911 of the time period will always have to look over its shoulder for its "poor" sibling which can leave the 911 floudering in a spin around a curve. For this reason the 914-6 will always command a healthy respect in the Porsche clan, something the 914-4s still have to work harder to achieve. Most 911 owners now know better than to frown on the 914s, especially since the 914 continues to win the autocross at the Porsche Parades every year, but for those who need reminding of the stature of the 914, the 914-6, and its ultimate form - the 916 (914-6S?) - will continue to serve as reminders to them of which model had the better design right from the start.

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 25 2004, 09:07 AM

One thing I really like about the 914Club is that so many 914 owners with so many flavors of 914's still come together. Yeah, this is better than TV for sure! But I don't watch TV, so what would I know?

All in all, drive what you want. If you have a $2500 914 and have only $2500, I could easily convert it to a 6 for someone or myself. If you don't have the resources of Root behind you, then probably best to talk to Jake to build you something strong and reliable.

I like the 4's, but the 6's have a mechanical sound unmatched by most other engines on the road. I like that.

As for carbs and such (Brett was asking about that), I buy all my engines as complete runners. Usually from 911 owners who are upgrading to bigger engines. Most of the time, they just want to get rid of what they are pulling out. A 2.2T is good for nothing more than a door stop to someone who is putting in a fresh 2.7 or 3.0 or whatever.

This is a cool forum and I enjoyed reading everyones thougts. Thanks for all the input!

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 25 2004, 10:19 AM

I still want to know what is so different about the sound from a Big Four??

Nop one has been able to explain exactly what the differences are in straight terms.

When I drove a six it didn't sound very different at all from one of my 2270 4 bangers...(my hearing isn't the worlds best from too many days around the dyno and too many turbine engines singing in my ears) Then again I have only driven one other 914 that didn't have one of my engines installed and it had stock FI, so of course it didn't "Sound good"

So tell me, whats the sound? Cooling fan? Carbs? exhaust note??

Posted by: Randal Oct 25 2004, 10:44 AM

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 25 2004, 10:47 AM

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 25 2004, 11:06 AM

I can see where firing order would change the note, but not by a huge amount..

Posted by: Lawrence Oct 25 2004, 11:07 AM

So what's so expensive about them????? I did a whole thread were I put together a 914-6 for like the 5th or 6th time for about $6k, new windshield, price of car, flares, paint, 7&8x16 fuchs, oil tank, new targa seals etc. etc. etc. Yeah, this one only has a 130hp 2.2, but it is still 130 STOCK hp. Give me a wasted spark ign and 32mm vent's and I would bet 140-145hp.

The engines I find are just ones by chance. I don't look for anything specail. The last one I had was, wait, the one before that was a 2.2E, wait, so was the one before that as well. So 160hp STOCK. I haven't ever paid over $1k for a 911 engine. All have been great runners with the worst worn vavle guides maybe puffing off a little smoke on a cold start up.

So C'mon you two. Lets here it, how much do you have to spend to get 130hp out of a type 4 engine or better, 160. I paid $600 for my 2.2T engine, 130hp and $800, $1000 for the last two 2.2E engines at 160hp.

Prove me the idiot here, make me believe you can pull down a 4cyl and make it put out 130 for under $1k.

Or, make me believe you can put a 5.7 in a 914 for less than a $600 911 engine that you only have to drill a few small holes into fo the oil tank. Straight bolt up stuff.

C'mon, I double dare ya! :finger2:

Posted by: J P Stein Oct 25 2004, 11:20 AM

Sounds? We got sounds. On the inside, it sounds like the hounds of hell are loose back there.....not particularily pleasent

http://www.moronthrottle.com/videos/Ulf-Chuck-Driving.mov

Dunno how we got off on this tangent. Sound is over rated.
Power & handling ring my bell.

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 25 2004, 11:23 AM

QUOTE(Root_Werks @ Oct 22 2004, 04:47 PM)

So what's so expensive about them?????  I did a whole thread were I put together a 914-6 for like the 5th or 6th time for about $6k, new windshield, price of car, flares, paint, 7&8x16 fuchs, oil tank, new targa seals etc. etc. etc.  Yeah, this one only has a 130hp 2.2, but it is still 130 STOCK hp.  Give me a wasted spark ign and 32mm vent's and I would bet 140-145hp.

The engines I find are just ones by chance.  I don't look for anything specail.  The last one I had was, wait, the one before that was a 2.2E, wait, so was the one before that as well.  So 160hp STOCK.  I haven't ever paid over $1k for a 911 engine.  All have been great runners with the worst worn vavle guides maybe puffing off a little smoke on a cold start up.

So C'mon you two.  Lets here it, how much do you have to spend to get 130hp out of a type 4 engine or better, 160.  I paid $600 for my 2.2T engine, 130hp and $800, $1000 for the last two 2.2E engines at 160hp.

Prove me the idiot here, make me believe you can pull down a 4cyl and make it put out 130 for under $1k.

Or, make me believe you can put a 5.7 in a 914 for less than a $600 911 engine that you only have to drill a few small holes into fo the oil tank.  Straight bolt up stuff.

C'mon, I double dare ya!    :finger2:  :D

What's so expensive, Dan... is doing the conversion right.

Anyone can cobble shit together.

-Rusty

Posted by: Bleyseng Oct 25 2004, 11:32 AM

Rusty, its seems Roots biggest savings in the motor cost ie: $1000 2.2 vs a $4500 3.2.

$4500 3.2
+4500 in conversion parts
$9000 Total in parts
$1000 labor
$10,000 total cost based on Brad R's rule of thumb conversion guide
Rootwerks costing
$1000 2.2 motor
$4500 conversion parts
$5500 in parts
$0 labor by himself
$5500 total cost
I don't get to excited by a 130hp six myself but a 3.2 250hp six is another story. I know where to pick up a $500 2.4 with carbs but I can't justify the rest of the money for that motor.


Geoff

Posted by: Lawrence Oct 25 2004, 11:39 AM

Just because some people go spend $300 on a throttole linkage or $450 on a tin set or $250 on oil lines doesn't mean I have to. So and for implying I cobble anyting together. But cudo's for speaking your mind. My stuff is backyard, hand made, but by now on a few conversions and doing just fine.

So kiss my and while your at, so shop at AA, I hear they have some great deals on 914-6 conversion parts.

The above statements were in no way inteaded to be offensive.

Posted by: Aaron Cox Oct 25 2004, 11:44 AM

this looks personal

ouch.

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 25 2004, 12:01 PM

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 25 2004, 12:05 PM

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 25 2004, 12:08 PM

this looks personal

ouch.

Posted by: Joshporsche Oct 25 2004, 12:29 PM

Thanks for all your input!! Thinking back, my 2.0 was pretty fast, I got going 134 in Provo Canyon and that was fast. With all this said, I would love to feel a 914-6. Anyone in Utah want to give me a ride in your 6? Just thought i'd ask. Since joining this club i've never obsessed about something so much in my life.

Posted by: Cloudbuster Oct 25 2004, 12:51 PM

Here's me. '75 with a 2.0 four. Do I go 4 or 6? I'm leaning towards 4. Even though I spent the past weekend at a DE, and went around in the track in an RS America, I still lean towards a 4. Why? Because I'm a perfectionist, cheap and lazy.

I have a neighbor with a wrecked 911 S that is probably a great donor. I could probably get the whole car for around $2K. But I don't want to have to buy a $2K motor just to rebuild it. It has been parked for unknown years. Fabrication is not an issue either. I have a friend with a complete machine shop (who is currently working toward restoring a 356 Carerra 2 with a 4 cam motor).

I could be wrong, but the recurring 914 theme seems to go like this:
Drive - problem - troubleshoot - cobble - drive - problem - troubleshoot - frustration - cobble - drive

To avoid this situation, the level of perfection I desire seems to be 3 times greater for a 6 over a 4.
I would rather have new(ish), cheap(er) underpowered stuff that I can count on, than have old, cobbled together stuff that I have to wrench on every other week. To me, new and cheaper = 4 cylinders. So I may only get 50K miles out of a 4 as opposed to 100K miles from a 6. Compiled at less than 200 miles a month, 50K miles will exceed the remainder of my life. I can't forget about the upward power-cost spiral as well. More power means bigger tires. Bigger tires means rims & flares, on and on... I could do it, but I'd rather be driving 140hp 4 in 6 months rather than a 180hp+ 6 in however long it takes me to convert it (probably never).

As for sound, I'd take a 6 over a 4. The most memorable moment of my motor-head life was out in the Imperial County desert 12 years ago. The McMillan clan was racing one of their flat 6 unlimited off-road cars against a field comprised mainly of Type 1 powered buggies and V-8 trucks. In a scene straight from the movies, over the "Waaauuugggggghhhhh...." bellow of 4s and 8s, I hear this faint banshee-like "WooWooWoowowoooooo" of the McMillans doing well over 80 mph. I look to the west and 2 miles away through the mirage I see a shimmering speck as the sun glinted off the roof of the car while it bounced its way across the desert. It was like the ghosts of the race car gods were hovering over the track.

A Honda V-4 at 7k RPM sounds better still.

Posted by: J P Stein Oct 25 2004, 02:38 PM

Posted by: d914 Oct 25 2004, 02:45 PM

you have a 911 donor cheap, full suspension and 5 lug conversion and brakes......a six waiting for a rebuild whats the issue.

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 25 2004, 02:49 PM

Hey, d914, how do you like your 2.5? I was thinking of building one. I know a guy who knows a guy's wifes husbands sisters brother that has a 2.7 with a bad crank. I was thinking of using the crank from my 2.2 for a 2.5. I guess the heads and cams are in good shape.

Posted by: Series9 Oct 25 2004, 03:06 PM

Posted by: d914 Oct 25 2004, 03:11 PM

I love it, but all the power is up top. Even at about 1800-1900lbs and a six I still need first to get moving. With my new cam power starts at 4k and I have the rev limiter at 7500. short 4th and a short 5th. When it was a street car 3rd gear was good from about 50-55 to 110mph, and quickly....Its all I've ever known besides my 4. All bad days go away at 6k+. If your into low end tq forgetaboutit.... You should hear it with megs...

Posted by: Cloudbuster Oct 25 2004, 04:02 PM

Posted by: Sammy Oct 25 2004, 04:27 PM

I'm with Root werks on this one.

A trained monkey can buy parts and bolt them on.

The stuff root werks does is just short of brilliant IMO. Finding a way to make something completely functional without thowing fistfulls of money at it is kind of what I like about 914s.

If something functions as well as well as a high dollar OEM part, it is as good as a high dollar OEM part IMO, maybe better.
Spending big money for that "original appearance" does nothing for me. Of course I've never even had an incling to be a CW either.
I do kind of like the idea of being a cobbler tho, shows imagination and a learned skill

I posted on rennlist 914 a few years ago that I could do a decent looking, good running 914/6 conversion for under $4k. Some scoffed, some that know me agreed.
Now we have a new king, Root Werks who has taken my statement and bettered it. But, he didn't make the claim first like I did, he built it first and then shared.
Long live the king.

Posted by: trekkor Oct 25 2004, 08:11 PM

Root has been good to us.

KT

Posted by: 9146986 Oct 25 2004, 09:48 PM

As far as the engine choice, Porsche developed a killer engine, and that's part of the 6'er thing. The Porsche "mystique". You open the lid and it says "Porsche" on the engine. OK maybe there's some vainity in that, BUT it wasn't a push rod engine in the 914GT that made such an amazing finish at LeMans. Porsche built it's racing heritage on killer engines that could go the distance, and for many years with a four cam engine that certainly wasn't on the mechanically simple side. The flat six engine is a very cool piece of mechanical art.

Put the two engines side by side; whatever type four combination it takes to equal the HP of a SC 3.0 with Webers and E cams, ask 100 gear heads which engine they would want in their car.

After that it becomes a budget issue, and how much dough you want to throw at your car, and how much of the job you can do yourself.

The first time I drove a "real 6", that upper revving power band feel of the engine was something I'd never felt in a 914 before, however that engine had some miles on it and truly didn't feel faster than my fresh injected 2.0. It was also at that time though, I knew I had to have a 914 with a flat six engine.

I think Root has done a good job of showing how a conversion can be done on the cheap. Not everyone lives in a community where you find cheap 911 engines though.

As far as homebrew stuff, it's your car you can do whatever makes you happy. From the photos posted on the sheetmetal, it looks like it: fits, is functional, didn't cost much, and looks it. But it works, you made it yourself, and wasn't out much to do so. I wouldn't put it on my car, or on a customer car, but hey it ain't my car!

Posted by: wheelo Oct 26 2004, 01:46 AM

"The Boxter's are coming"

- Brad Roberts

Posted by: Bleyseng Oct 26 2004, 07:33 AM

Well, thats true also once they get into the $10 range they will be fair game as AX toys IMHO. As the 914-914/6's get worth alittle more ($10-20k) and the cheapies get harder to find the 914's will get away from their Cheapass image and more of a Collecter car image. Maybe another 5 years,

I still think the six is the engine of choice as the engine compartment is even designed to fit it! (note the engine bulkhead)
Gotta make time to go visit Dan (Rootwerks) and see his six conv.

Geoff

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 26 2004, 08:26 AM

Thanks for the kind words (those who gave them). I am a big Porsche fan and love to work on the cars, see peoples cars, help them out when I can etc... It is why I have continued to keep my part time shop going over the years. I think next spring I will sponser an event through my shop through the PNWR again. It has been a few years since I have done that. Those rock.

Posted by: Bleyseng Oct 26 2004, 09:55 AM

Sponsor a DynoDay and burgerfeed Dan! I like showing up for those.

Geoff

Posted by: Root_Werks Oct 26 2004, 11:29 AM

The last one I did was a part 2 of a tour/tech session from my place to Roger Jobs Porsche. Yeah, I had plenty of food at my place before the second part of the tour rolled out. Man, people sure can eat alot!

I had a route mapped out from Marysville to the dealer and we never touched I-5. The drive rocked! I will get with the PNWR team and put something together.

Posted by: Eric_Shea Oct 29 2004, 09:30 AM

Posted by: bob91403 Oct 29 2004, 09:58 AM

Four works. Why stop at six, go to eight, hell, go to ten or twelve! It just gets tougher to maintain, costs more to rebuild when ONE goes bad. Add two pistons, you double your trouble, and your cost. Why do you think they made so few 914/6s? They cost too much! The fours were a better bet for both cost, and reliability. That's why most of us have them to enjoy. Yeah sure, everyone here wants a six. Just because they're worth more, just because they made less of them. It DEFINITELY has value, for the rareity, for the collector value. Put them all in hermetically sealed glass cases and let everyone ooh and ahh at the sixers. I'd rather drive my four and be thankfull. Screw sixers. I want Jake to do my rebuild, then I'll have the best four banger out there. Instead of some overvalued, overpriced, high maintainance six that I'd feel reluctant to drive the hell out of because it's a SIIIXXX.

Posted by: Sammy Oct 29 2004, 01:34 PM

I'm not bagging on type 4s at all, but saying a six is unreliable is not realistic or accurate. I have a hard time accepting that a type 4 is more reliable than a six.

They were designed to be held at redline forever and not wear out. Except for a few instances (dilavar head studs, 2.7 head studs pulling out of cases, 3.2 rod bolts) they are basically bulletproof and last nearly forever.
I have a friend with a 911SC daily driver that just turned over 300,000 miles and the heads have never been off it.
I took mine apart at 104,000 miles (to replace lower head studs) and found no measureable wear. Everything was still in spec.
I threw new rings in just for fun but it didn't need them.
The only thing I needed was 12 studs, seals, and gaskets.
Not counting the rings or special tools I could have done the rebuild for under $400. I spent more than that because I did a few "while I'm in there" types of things but you get the point.

Posted by: d914 Oct 29 2004, 03:14 PM

[I'll have the best four banger out there. Instead of some overvalued, overpriced, high maintainance six that I'd feel reluctant to drive the hell out of because it's a SIIIXXX]


a little to much caffine today????

Posted by: 9146986 Oct 29 2004, 04:05 PM

Four works. Why stop at six, go to eight, hell, go to ten or twelve! It just gets tougher to maintain, costs more to rebuild when ONE goes bad. Add two pistons, you double your trouble, and your cost. Why do you think they made so few 914/6s? They cost too much! The fours were a better bet for both cost, and reliability. That's why most of us have them to enjoy. Yeah sure, everyone here wants a six. Just because they're worth more, just because they made less of them. It DEFINITELY has value, for the rareity, for the collector value. Put them all in hermetically sealed glass cases and let everyone ooh and ahh at the sixers. I'd rather drive my four and be thankfull. Screw sixers. I want Jake to do my rebuild, then I'll have the best four banger out there. Instead of some overvalued, overpriced, high maintainance six that I'd feel reluctant to drive the hell out of because it's a SIIIXXX.

Posted by: Mueller Oct 29 2004, 04:11 PM

Perry, it's called "Napoleon complex"...those with the small /4's have to bash what they do not have or understand

(I'm actually a fan of the small /4, that is why I have a 1.8 with bigger heads, short stroke motor )

Posted by: Series9 Oct 29 2004, 04:58 PM

Quick! Pick one!

Yeah, that's what I thought...


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Bleyseng Oct 29 2004, 05:57 PM

I'll take a six any day and you can take that to the bank!

Geoff

Posted by: Eric_Shea Oct 30 2004, 03:46 PM

Six is unreliable vs. a four?

Mine's never been rebuilt... yours?

You too much Mr. Guru...