Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Dave_Darling Feb 29 2004, 03:43 PM

A couple of bits from the new edition of Ludvigsen's "Excellence Was Expected". These are relevant to some recent threads I've seen around here.

Engine weights: Ludvigsen lists the 914-6 engine's weight as 387 lbs, and says that it was 110 lbs heavier than the 914-4's engine. Which would put the latter at 277 lbs.

2.0 HP ratings: He says that the US-spec 2.0 made 95 DIN HP, or 91 SAE Net HP. The SAE Net spec is more stringent than the DIN testing spec, and it tends to produce slightly lower numbers. It is likely that our dynos here in the US are set up to measure SAE Net, which would explain why most of the 2.0s we see do not produce the HP that we expect.

I would think that much of that info comes from factory sources, but Ludvigsen is not infallible. He states several times that no Sporto 914s were built (apart from prototypes), when we know that is not the case. Some of us have seen 914-6 Sportos, more of us have seen pictures of them, and a factory document published in Panorama about eight years ago tells us that there were 25 of them (4 one year and 21 another year; I never remember which is which).

Still, it's an interesting couple bits of info.

--DD

Posted by: Gint Feb 29 2004, 03:47 PM

After the discussion wraps up, I'll stick this in the Classic Threads forum.

Thanks Dave!

Posted by: McMark Mar 1 2004, 12:05 AM

Factory manual lists the 4 engine as 278 lbs. So sounds about right.

Posted by: maf914 Mar 1 2004, 07:42 AM

Dave,

I assume that the original material from the first Excellence Was Expected was basically reprinted for the new edition, then the history was brought forward to today.

Was the original edition reprinted/repackaged or was it reworked? Are there any diferences or additions to the early year's material presented in the new versus the old editions? I'm curious, as I have the old edition.

Mike

Posted by: Jake Raby Mar 1 2004, 08:06 AM

I have worked on a 914 Sporto.

Posted by: eitnurg Mar 1 2004, 09:32 AM

Does he still maintain there were 20 916's?

Posted by: Dave_Darling Mar 1 2004, 10:33 AM

Nope, he now agrees that there were 11 of them. Out of a planned initial run of 20.

There's more in there, BTW--SAE Gross ratings of the CA-only 73 1.7 and the 1.8 motors, weight of the 2.0 motor (slightly heavier than the 1.7), and so on. I'll try to get that typed in but probably won't get a chance until tomorrow.

--DD

Posted by: Dave_Darling Mar 1 2004, 09:54 PM

More tidbits:

914-6 engine -- 110 HP & 116 lb-ft torque DIN spec, 125 HP SAE Gross (not Net!).

W engine (70-71 1.7) -- 80 HP & 98 lb-ft DIN spec, 85 HP & 109 lb-ft SAE Gross, 76 HP & 100 lb-ft SAE Net.
EB engine (CA-spec 73 1.7) -- 72 HP & ??? torque DIN spec, 69 HP & 90 lb-ft SAE Net.
EC engine (US-spec 74 1.8) -- 76 HP & 94 lb-ft of torque DIN spec, 72 HP & 91 lb-ft SAE Net.
EC engine (US-spec 75 1.8) -- 72 HP & 89 lb-ft SAE Net.
GA engine (US-spec 73-74 2.0) -- 95 HP & 108 lb-ft DIN spec, 91 HP & 105 lb-ft SAE Net.
GC engine (US-spec 75-76 2.0) -- 88 HP & ??? torque DIN spec, 84 HP & 97 lb-ft SAE Net.

914-6 engine weight: 387 lbs.
W engine weight: 277 lbs.
GA engine weight: 321 lbs.

Road & Track performance figures (only mag to test all three cars listed)
1.7 L 914-4
0-60 MPH: 13.9 sec ; 1/4 mile: 19.2 sec (other mags tested ~1.75 sec quicker to 60 and ~0.75 to 1/4 mile)
914-6
0-60 MPH: 8.7 sec ; 1/4 mile: 16.3 sec (other mags tested ~0.5 sec faster to 60 but the same to 1/4 mile)
2.0 L 914-4
0-60 MPH: 7.6 sec ; 1/4 mile: 17.8 sec (other mags tested +- ~0.5 sec to 60 and ~0.6 sec faster to 1/4 mile)

And those are some of the interesting snippets from the book.

--DD

Posted by: reverie Mar 1 2004, 10:34 PM

Thanks, Dave.. nice to see the numbers.

Now I know why the group of slightly modded 2.0s pulled away from my RX-7 so easily on our trip to Portland.. every on-ramp, every curve, every straight.. even when I was ready, they would just GO. I think my RX-7 (7.9, 15.9) was happy just to keep their taillights in sight.

Posted by: synthesisdv Mar 2 2004, 06:55 AM

Any idea why the GA is listed 44 lbs heavier? I remember reading that while back but I can't imagine why if only the heads and some cooling tin is different.


dr

Posted by: Bleyseng Mar 2 2004, 08:56 AM

Probably due to that boat anchor of a muffler on the 2.0l.

Posted by: DNHunt Mar 2 2004, 09:01 AM

The crankshaft weighs a frickin ton. Throwing those things around would put some muscles on ya.

Dave

Posted by: Bleyseng Mar 2 2004, 09:03 AM

Its the same crank just different grinding, Dave.

Geoff

Posted by: Dave_Darling Mar 2 2004, 09:07 AM

Yup. The 2.0 crank probably weighs a tiny bit less than the 1.7/1.8 one, because the rod journals are ground smaller so there is less metal there.

I think the major weight difference is probably in the larger pistons and cylinders, and the rest is probably in the intake and exhaust. I don't think the heads are much if any heavier.

--DD

Posted by: DNHunt Mar 2 2004, 09:07 AM

It's still heavy.

Dave

Posted by: mskala Mar 2 2004, 10:40 AM

Does Ludvigsen think the 1.7 is mag and the 2.0 is aluminum case?
What are they made of? I don't have one of those 4-bangers any more.

Posted by: Dave_Darling Mar 2 2004, 11:02 AM

I don't recall what he says the cases are made out of, if he addresses it at all.

In fact, they're all aluminum--none were magnesium.

All Type IV engines had aluminum cases, except for a very few industrial motors and possibly a couple of special-purpose Super Vee motors that had magnesium cases. I am told those have engine serial numbers that start with "VO" or "V0". I believe that they were 1.6 liters, though.

--DD

Posted by: Dave_Darling Mar 2 2004, 03:21 PM

Oh, and that's all the info I dug out of Ludvigsen this time through. Iffin you wanna "Classic"-fy this thread, go ahead Gint.

--DD