![]() |
|
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. |
|
![]() |
hot_shoe914 |
![]()
Post
#1
|
on ramp passer ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,806 Joined: 20-November 07 From: Earle, Ar. Member No.: 8,354 Region Association: None ![]() |
Okay I have come to a point where I am in a delima. I have a '73 2.0 car with the appearance group package that has had all 911 suspension upgrades and I will also be adding GT flares. I was originally going to put a 2.8 IV in it with about 225 horses but now am considering a subie engine putting out about 325 horses or more. I have always been a purist but there is something to be said for smoking the competion through the curves and also being able to dust the muscle cars down the highways. I can get into the 2.8 for around 7000.00 for motor and tranny minus installation. I can get into the subie for about 4800.00 minus installation.
What are the thoughts and opinions out there along with the pros and cons for each. All input would be greatly appreciated. Donald (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) |
![]() ![]() |
CliffBraun |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 252 Joined: 26-April 06 From: San Luis Obispo,ca Member No.: 5,933 Region Association: None ![]() |
QUOTE(grantsfo @ Jul 2 2008, 12:29 PM) Best choice of all for a 914-4 owner that plans street and some AX is to just go with a nice 2056 and pass on the drag racing. Why not keep thae car as close to stock as possible to retain reliability that was engineered by true engineers rather than barn yard bandits. As a newbie here, I probably don't add much weight to this discussion, however I'm an ME in training and a big part of that is understanding the trade offs. In my 914 I ended up going for as low mass as possible (also low polar moment), so I was torn between a built Type I and a Type IV. I ended up going with the Type IV because of cost and because of classing. I've no experience with Jake's engines, but I am suspicious of someone promising those gains and using such language. Anyone who shadow boxes about the engines they build (2.8 type IV is good/ we don't build those often, so you can't use them against us) is kinda stringing you along. Promising two different things based on different engines is kinda a misleading way to do business. Anyways, I don't mean to rip on Raby, double speak kinda irritates me ever since I read 1984 though. My planned set up is a 2.0 with slightly longer connecting rods, and nicer internals to produce a great deal more torque without sacrificing reliability. I decided not to go with a 2.4 (not even a 2.8!) because of reliability issues, Andrew broke a 2.4 at an autocross, and I didn't want the slightest chance of that happening. That said, I would be nervous as hell with a 2.8.... Much less one built by someone with a God complex. I'd be happy to give more details about what I'm building provided the people building it don't have a problem with that. I am very much of the opinion that the advantage in the 914 is being able to maintain velocity through corners, rather than putting a big flippin' engine in it. Ever seen a V8 conversion win an autox? Just one PS, your response to Chris' comment is complete shit, the entire thread is about a big Type IV, and you comment "Thats why we don't do that. Most all our engines make their power with a 96mm bore that slides right into the stock, non machined case." To me that's hugely misleading, again, the entire thread is "big IV vs other engine" and you're responding with how the small Type IV is great.... Yeah, most of your engines don't do that, but that's what he's talking about building; I could give a damn if your 1.8 produces infinity horses reliably; a 2.8(especially based on the same case) is an entirely different story. Incidentally, my no holds barred 914 is a Pauter engine running on methanol, as far as I've read nothing Raby builds can come close. You have to design (or copy) mounts, but it's still better than paying a ton for snake oil that bolts to your stock mounts. Lemme know how I'm wrong so I can fix myself. |
PeeGreen 914 |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Just when you think you're done...wait, there is more..lol ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,219 Joined: 21-September 06 From: Seattle, WA... actually Everett Member No.: 6,884 Region Association: Pacific Northwest ![]() ![]() |
QUOTE(grantsfo @ Jul 2 2008, 12:29 PM) Best choice of all for a 914-4 owner that plans street and some AX is to just go with a nice 2056 and pass on the drag racing. Why not keep thae car as close to stock as possible to retain reliability that was engineered by true engineers rather than barn yard bandits. As a newbie here, I probably don't add much weight to this discussion, however I'm an ME in training and a big part of that is understanding the trade offs. In my 914 I ended up going for as low mass as possible (also low polar moment), so I was torn between a built Type I and a Type IV. I ended up going with the Type IV because of cost and because of classing. I've no experience with Jake's engines, but I am suspicious of someone promising those gains and using such language. Anyone who shadow boxes about the engines they build (2.8 type IV is good/ we don't build those often, so you can't use them against us) is kinda stringing you along. Promising two different things based on different engines is kinda a misleading way to do business. Anyways, I don't mean to rip on Raby, double speak kinda irritates me ever since I read 1984 though. My planned set up is a 2.0 with slightly longer connecting rods, and nicer internals to produce a great deal more torque without sacrificing reliability. I decided not to go with a 2.4 (not even a 2.8!) because of reliability issues, Andrew broke a 2.4 at an autocross, and I didn't want the slightest chance of that happening. That said, I would be nervous as hell with a 2.8.... Much less one built by someone with a God complex. I'd be happy to give more details about what I'm building provided the people building it don't have a problem with that. I am very much of the opinion that the advantage in the 914 is being able to maintain velocity through corners, rather than putting a big flippin' engine in it. Ever seen a V8 conversion win an autox? Just one PS, your response to Chris' comment is complete shit, the entire thread is about a big Type IV, and you comment "Thats why we don't do that. Most all our engines make their power with a 96mm bore that slides right into the stock, non machined case." To me that's hugely misleading, again, the entire thread is "big IV vs other engine" and you're responding with how the small Type IV is great.... Yeah, most of your engines don't do that, but that's what he's talking about building; I could give a damn if your 1.8 produces infinity horses reliably; a 2.8(especially based on the same case) is an entirely different story. Incidentally, my no holds barred 914 is a Pauter engine running on methanol, as far as I've read nothing Raby builds can come close. You have to design (or copy) mounts, but it's still better than paying a ton for snake oil that bolts to your stock mounts. Lemme know how I'm wrong so I can fix myself. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) You're picking some fights with some rather experienced 914 guys that DO know their stuff... This could prove to be interesting (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happy11.gif) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th May 2025 - 01:15 PM |
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 ... |