![]() |
|
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. |
|
![]() |
unpolire |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 6-July 08 From: Los Angeles CA Member No.: 9,260 Region Association: Southern California ![]() |
I have never driven a stock original 2.0 914-6. I have driven properly converted 914s with 2.7/3.0 transplants and my own stock 1.7Ls. Aside from the cache of a six in back, if you can have 200-250 h.p. from a four, why convert to a six? Is there a noticeable difference in torque and smoothness over a properly modified four? Can you feel it on the road? A serious question seeking the definitive answer that could save $10-20K later. Let's hear from both camps, pluses and minuses.
|
![]() ![]() |
Tom_T |
![]()
Post
#2
|
TMI.... ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 8,321 Joined: 19-March 09 From: Orange, CA Member No.: 10,181 Region Association: Southern California ![]() ![]() |
All good points, but if you're comparing a stock 2L 6 with 110 HP - to a milder 2056-2270 4 with 110-165 HP - then you'll save about 270 lbs. in wt. over the 6, plus quite a bit in the wallet! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif)
PS - IIRC the 2L stock 6 was only about 110-125 ft/lb TQ & the 6's TQ doesn't come in until pretty high in the revs., whereas the stock 2.0 4 had about the same TQ much earlier & with a flat plateau TQ curve all the way to redline pretty much at max., which is why the 73-74 2.0 GA's were a decent replacement for the 2L-6 ..... and the TQ curves that I'd seen on the Raby site for the 2056 & 2270 had the same early/flat with 140-180 ft/lb TQ IIRC - so the milder 4's have much better TQ than the stock -6! If you're talking a conversion-6 with a later air or water boxer 6, then that's a whole different ballgame & price range - and the individual's preference. PSS - Another built-4 option is FAT Performance here in Orange CA - especially if you're in CA or the west, since Raby is in GA back east. Google their website for T-IV motors. Ron the owner there can build you an engine to whatever you want (IIRC he does aircooled 6's too), & he's a super nice guy who will walk you thru his shop personally & spend time with you, which is nolonger an option with Raby due to their "insurance concerns" last I heard. |
sixerdon |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 466 Joined: 23-May 03 From: Dartmouth, MA Member No.: 731 ![]() |
All good points, but if you're comparing a stock 2L 6 with 110 HP - to a milder 2056-2270 4 with 110-165 HP - then you'll save about 270 lbs. in wt. over the 6, plus quite a bit in the wallet! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif) PS - IIRC the 2L stock 6 was only about 110-125 ft/lb TQ & the 6's TQ doesn't come in until pretty high in the revs., whereas the stock 2.0 4 had about the same TQ much earlier & with a flat plateau TQ curve all the way to redline pretty much at max., which is why the 73-74 2.0 GA's were a decent replacement for the 2L-6 ..... and the TQ curves that I'd seen on the Raby site for the 2056 & 2270 had the same early/flat with 140-180 ft/lb TQ IIRC - so the milder 4's have much better TQ than the stock -6! If you're talking a conversion-6 with a later air or water boxer 6, then that's a whole different ballgame & price range - and the individual's preference. PSS - Another built-4 option is FAT Performance here in Orange CA - especially if you're in CA or the west, since Raby is in GA back east. Google their website for T-IV motors. Ron the owner there can build you an engine to whatever you want (IIRC he does aircooled 6's too), & he's a super nice guy who will walk you thru his shop personally & spend time with you, which is nolonger an option with Raby due to their "insurance concerns" last I heard. Tom, Where do you come up with these comparison numbers? My information comparing the stock 4 vs 6 isn't even close to your figures. Lets look at some apples to apples comparisons: From the R&T 2.0/6 test article June 1970, it states that the "curb" weight of the test vehicle was 2195 lbs. From the Road Test 2.0 /4 test article July 1974, (curb) 2230 lbs. From the Road Test 2.0 /4 test article May 1973, it states that the "weight as tested", 2139 lbs. The factory brochures: 1970 2.0/6 - 2070 lbs (Dry weight DIN) (stock steel wheels standard?) 1973 2.0/4 - 2138 lbs (Dry weight DIN) (stock alloys standard?) Where does the /6 270 lbs extra come from? HP & Torque; /6 110 @ 5800 & 131 @ 4200 (DIN) /4 95 @ 4900 & 108 @ 3500 (DIN) To answer the original question........My experience is with various stock /6's and stock /4's. Never driven a big custom /4. For me, it's /6's hands down. Dido what SLITS says. Don |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th May 2025 - 07:03 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 ... |