Home  |  Forums  |  914 Info  |  Blogs
 
914World.com - The fastest growing online 914 community!
 
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG. This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way.
Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
 Reply to this topicStart new topic
> saving weight on a 1.7, will it make any difference
drewvw
post May 30 2006, 11:17 AM
Post #1


new england car guy
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,631
Joined: 24-February 06
From: Boston, MA
Member No.: 5,630
Region Association: North East States

With a stock 1.7 how much weight would you have to lose via FG/CF hoods,lids and such to see a performance gain?

This is a purely theorectical question regarding how weight affects the performance of the engine, I am not planning on doing this...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aaron Cox
post May 30 2006, 11:19 AM
Post #2


Professional Lawn Dart
***************

Group: Retired Admin
Posts: 24,541
Joined: 1-February 03
From: OC
Member No.: 219
Region Association: Southern California
whats your power to weight ratio now?

wont get much better by dropping 50 lbs.....


and FG fits like shit most of the time....

not worth it on a nice street car.... track, definitely
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
drewvw
post May 30 2006, 11:25 AM
Post #3


new england car guy
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,631
Joined: 24-February 06
From: Boston, MA
Member No.: 5,630
Region Association: North East States

The car is bascially bone stock outside of SS heat exchangers and a bursch exhaust. I figured the weight drop would have to be substantial.

I read in the archives about the FG/CF stuff: Great for racing, bad for street cause they don't look so good and collison is baaaaaad.


I'm just going to have to build myself a 2.0 at some point, or maybe start by driving one first...are they that much quicker, really?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Aaron Cox
post May 30 2006, 11:27 AM
Post #4


Professional Lawn Dart
***************

Group: Retired Admin
Posts: 24,541
Joined: 1-February 03
From: OC
Member No.: 219
Region Association: Southern California
a hot 2.0 or 2056 can make 120 hp.....

your used to a tired 1.7... 70 ish hp....

will almost doubling your car's power with no additional weight make an impact?


yes.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mueller
post May 30 2006, 11:28 AM
Post #5


914 Freak!
***************

Group: Members
Posts: 17,146
Joined: 4-January 03
From: Antioch, CA
Member No.: 87
Region Association: None
it's just simple math....

let's say your car wieghs 2000 pounds and has 80hp

2000/80 = 25, so you have 25 pounds per 1 hp

remove 100 pounds for 1900/80 = 23.75 pounds per 1 hp

for referance, the early Miatas weigh 2116 with 116 hp, for a 18.24:1 ratio

to get the same hp/pound ratio for your stock 1.7 as the Miata has, you'd have to get your car down to 1459 pounds which is near impossible for a street driven (and safe) 914 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
drewvw
post May 30 2006, 11:36 AM
Post #6


new england car guy
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,631
Joined: 24-February 06
From: Boston, MA
Member No.: 5,630
Region Association: North East States
math has never been my forte, so thanks for that mueller.

Heres my problem (besides being bored at work):

This club....you hang out here for awhile and all of a sudden your trying to figure out what engine config you should be gunning for next! Which is a compliment of course...

my 1.7 isn't tired and runs great, was rebuilt by a pro ( ~10K miles on it) and its fun to drive around the city where the roads dont let you go too fast and yet...


well you get the point...aaron ideally I'd like to build a 2056 and probably throw some carbs on it, but I want to stick with the /4. Going to a /6 is too much cost/time/work for me, it would be a bad idea....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
URY914
post May 30 2006, 11:49 AM
Post #7


I built the lightest 914 in the history of mankind.
****************************************************************************************************

Group: Members
Posts: 121,038
Joined: 3-February 03
From: Jacksonville, FL
Member No.: 222
Region Association: None
My car WAS a stock '73 1.7. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
drewvw
post May 30 2006, 12:00 PM
Post #8


new england car guy
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,631
Joined: 24-February 06
From: Boston, MA
Member No.: 5,630
Region Association: North East States
QUOTE(URY914 @ May 30 2006, 10:49 AM) *

My car WAS a stock '73 1.7. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)


when I posted the topic, I assumed you would be the first to "weigh in" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lapuwali
post May 30 2006, 03:12 PM
Post #9


Not another one!
****

Group: Benefactors
Posts: 4,526
Joined: 1-March 04
From: San Mateo, CA
Member No.: 1,743
Turbo...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
So.Cal.914
post May 30 2006, 04:57 PM
Post #10


"...And it has a front trunk too."
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 6,588
Joined: 15-February 04
From: Low Desert, CA./ Hills of N.J.
Member No.: 1,658
Region Association: None
Find and build a 2.0, save the 1.7 for a spare.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sixerdon
post May 30 2006, 08:11 PM
Post #11


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 466
Joined: 23-May 03
From: Dartmouth, MA
Member No.: 731
OK Drew, try this.
Start with a half tank of gas or less. Leave your top home. Take out your spare and the carpet covered board out. Carpets out. Do you have sound deadening in the engine compartment? Out permanently unless you really do want it. Pump up your tires to 36f/40r. Roll down your windows and go! Tell us if you feel a difference.

Don
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mueller
post May 30 2006, 08:20 PM
Post #12


914 Freak!
***************

Group: Members
Posts: 17,146
Joined: 4-January 03
From: Antioch, CA
Member No.: 87
Region Association: None
QUOTE(sixerdon @ May 30 2006, 07:11 PM) *

OK Drew, try this.
Start with a half tank of gas or less. Leave your top home. Take out your spare and the carpet covered board out. Carpets out. Do you have sound deadening in the engine compartment? Out permanently unless you really do want it. Pump up your tires to 36f/40r. Roll down your windows and go! Tell us if you feel a difference.

Don


Don,

excellent idea !!!

I guess you could wiegh those items as well for testing..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brew
post May 30 2006, 08:28 PM
Post #13


That's Captain Moron to you!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 391
Joined: 5-August 05
From: Colorado Springs
Member No.: 4,546
QUOTE(drewvw @ May 30 2006, 09:36 AM) *

well you get the point...aaron ideally I'd like to build a 2056 and probably throw some carbs on it, but I want to stick with the /4. Going to a /6 is too much cost/time/work for me, it would be a bad idea....



Isn't a 2056 a /4?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
drewvw
post May 30 2006, 08:56 PM
Post #14


new england car guy
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,631
Joined: 24-February 06
From: Boston, MA
Member No.: 5,630
Region Association: North East States
QUOTE(sixerdon @ May 30 2006, 07:11 PM) *

OK Drew, try this.
Start with a half tank of gas or less. Leave your top home. Take out your spare and the carpet covered board out. Carpets out. Do you have sound deadening in the engine compartment? Out permanently unless you really do want it. Pump up your tires to 36f/40r. Roll down your windows and go! Tell us if you feel a difference.

Don




Hey c'mon! I asked the question more in the interests of science than actually believing it would make a substantial difference.


you sixer guys...so cocky with your 911 engines (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
drewvw
post May 30 2006, 08:58 PM
Post #15


new england car guy
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,631
Joined: 24-February 06
From: Boston, MA
Member No.: 5,630
Region Association: North East States
QUOTE(Brew @ May 30 2006, 07:28 PM) *

QUOTE(drewvw @ May 30 2006, 09:36 AM) *

well you get the point...aaron ideally I'd like to build a 2056 and probably throw some carbs on it, but I want to stick with the /4. Going to a /6 is too much cost/time/work for me, it would be a bad idea....



Isn't a 2056 a /4?



yes it is...ideally I would build a sweet IV. Six is too much work for me...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SirAndy
post May 30 2006, 09:00 PM
Post #16


Resident German
*************************

Group: Admin
Posts: 41,676
Joined: 21-January 03
From: Oakland, Kalifornia
Member No.: 179
Region Association: Northern California
QUOTE(drewvw @ May 30 2006, 07:56 PM) *

you sixer guys...so cocky with your 911 engines (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

i think he was serious. if not, he should have been ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

my personal experience:
the less HP, the more you can feel the weight difference in the performance of your car ...

if you have 600HP, you won't feel a 100lbs difference unless you're a pro driver in a full racecar.
in a stock 75HP 1.7L, you *will* feel the difference of 100lbs ...

i'd say, remove all unneeded ballast and take her for a drive and judge for yourself ...
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif) Andy
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sixerdon
post May 31 2006, 05:50 AM
Post #17


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 466
Joined: 23-May 03
From: Dartmouth, MA
Member No.: 731
Thanks Andy.
BTW. Take out the passenger seat for this run. 30 seconds to remove. No passengers for this run. Do it!!

Don
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bd1308
post May 31 2006, 05:52 AM
Post #18


Sir Post-a-lot
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 8,020
Joined: 24-January 05
From: Louisville,KY
Member No.: 3,501
Whatever you do, don't carry a 914 engine in the front trunk....

talk about ballast...it was pokey when the engine was in the trunk...

b
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BK911
post May 31 2006, 08:51 AM
Post #19


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 672
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Rocky Top, TN
Member No.: 1,674
Region Association: None
stock car: 2000#/80hp = 25#/hp
lightened car: 1900#/80hp = 23.75#/hp

So compare new #/hp to old #: 2000#/23.75 is like having 84hp in a stock car, so about 4hp per 100#'s.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
« Next Oldest · 914World Garage · Next Newest »
 

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum

- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 8th June 2024 - 05:38 AM
Invision Power Board v9.1.4 © 2024  IPS, Inc.
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community!
We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ...