Aside from the cache, why a six over a four with same h.p.? Smoothness?, 1970-1976 914-4, 914-6 Options

[unpolire]

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.

[a914622]

For me its all about long term durability. Im getting to old to be tearing into an engine every couple of years. Not that I dont like to, i just want to worry about the destination and the radio station.

Back in the day i was always pulling the type 1 and redoing heads or changing cams. Even the little 1.6 diesel got a hot rod motor that only lasted 2 years.


I am in process of putting a svx engine back together. It had 196,000 miles on it and i did not find one thing out of factory spec on the tear down ! Even the pistons have no scuff marks on them. 250 hp - 200k miles and the same firing order as a 911 SWEET im in.


jcl

[unpolire]

I am in process of putting an svx engine back together. It had 196,000 miles on it and i did not find one thing out of factory spec on the tear down ! Even the pistons have no scuff marks on them. 250 hp - 200k miles and the same firing order as a 911 SWEET im in.


jcl

When the SVX was new, I recall one magazine road test, by Automobile, in which they uniquely declared that they would not change a thing. If it had stayed in production and been refined like a 911, it would be one absolutely amazing car today, turbocharged with a 6-speed or CVT.