Price check on isle 5, 1974 914 2.0 Options

[speeder]

Hi all, new to this community but a longtime Porsche and 914 enthusiast. Maybe I should have posed this question in the marketplace section but I figure that the same people are here, maybe even more of them.

I recently acquired a 1974 914 2.0, factory black with original fuel injection intact. It runs great and has had at least a partial rebuild with Mahle sport pistons, (slightly higher CR), plus a lot of other maintenance. It's set up for track/autocross with racing seats, Konis all around and adjustable sways. It presently has Khumo DOT slicks on factory Fuchs 914 alloys. It's a go-cart. It also has Pagid race pads, a little squeaky on the street. Also a Bursch muffler.

My plan was to return it to 90-95% stock and restore it. It has almost zero rust, including the "hell hole" under battery and other traditional places. The dash is very clean and not cracked but original seats and console are not present. I have a pretty good source for those.

The body is mostly straight but the rear trunk hinge needs repair, (common failure on these cars). The only troubling thing is that the right rear fender appears to be "off" a little, gap between it and trunk seems too large. The car has some additional bracing in rear part of pan, (track mod), and I suspect that removing it might cure the problem but not sure. These are all issues to be addressed during a restoration and I have good body sources.

The car drives great and is a blast. Shifts well with a good transmission.

I may sell it to pursue another Porsche opportunity, what am I sitting on here? In a perfect world, I would never sell it and restore it. They are rare in this configuration, (black/73-74 2.0). I know what perfect '73-'74 2 liters go for but this car is not that. It is a rust-free car to restore or drive as-is, however.

Any educated responses are highly appreciated! Thanks,

Denis

[brant]

Wow...
I wish I had three early chrome bumper corvettes in my possesion instead of 3 914's.... The same original price equals money in the bank!


I agree a 2.0 is better than a 1.7
but I would take a solid chassis 1,7 that has never been rusted or wrecked over any rusty 73

I can always add sway bars, shifters, or even a 2.0 motor to a 1.7 much easier than fixing rust...

the differences are minor in that they have the same body and same mechanicals

yes there are some special editions, GT's and -6's that are more rare
but of the 100K normal 914's built, there really is amazingly little difference over the years. Same thing with 911's... it all easily bolts in, up, backwards, etc....

as a buyer 1973-74 does nothing for me
and condition does everything


and I don't see the day in our life times where a 1973 normal 914 commands a premium over a 1972 just because of the year (versus equiptment and condition)

I know a 1972 911S commands a premium over a 1977 911, but ..... its not going to happen.

the 1972 911S is rare because it was an S model
neither 72 or 73 914's were really S models.
neither were limited, or had huge HP differences than the other
isn't the 73 914 2.0 factory rated for 9 extra hp over a 1972 1.7?
and what do you bet that the extra 100lbs of weight (including door braces) actually made it no faster.

I like to use and drive cars
and I still choose the one that is most tailored to my tastes and in the best condition... not year.

and if I was purchasing for a museum collection, it would be even more true that I would take a 10,000 original mileage, pristine, perfect condition 1971 with a 1.7 over a worn out 1974 model for the granite display floor

absolutely completely equal condition, miles, records and everything down to the dust settled on top... I'd take the 1973-74 over a 72 just to save myself the work of bolting things on/off. but thats not how it works and I don't see multiple thousands of value in one year over the other.

[dlkawashima]

isn't the 73 914 2.0 factory rated for 9 extra hp over a 1972 1.7?
and what do you bet that the extra 100lbs of weight (including door braces) actually made it no faster.

I'd bet a lot that the opposite was true, actually. R&T test results from back in the day show that the 1.7 was over 3 seconds slower to 60 mph than the 2-liter. And note that R&T reported the 2-liter was running poorly during the tests, so perhaps the difference was even greater (though I doubt R&T could have matched the times laid down by C&D ..... R&T's times were always slower).

Road & Track, April 1970 (914 1.7-liter):



Road & Track, February 1973 (914 2-liter):


Car & Driver, March 1973 (914 2-liter):