Do people really think the 914 is ugly? I never thought so. Options

[scottsilvertt]

Do people really think the 914 is ugly? I never thought so.

I have seen far uglier cars...many of them. Even most cars today are not worth a second look.

I remember it coming out as a kid. So many had poor things to say about the 914. My older brother was Chalon crazy. (he liked the car on his own with no outside influences)
Sadly, I listened to friends and the press...and was too young to form my own opinion.

What had people not liking the car?

what's not to like:
the pop up headlights...about as cool as it can get
the trick removable roof.
the two storage spaces
the engine in the middle? who does that, its amazing.
the simple, never out of style interior.
the lightest seats in the world.
the Italian style door handles. flush and wonderful.

I think of it as another little 904.
a good red one looks like a Ferrari to me.
a friend of mine had a gold, low mileage second gen , angled shaped, Dino (from around 1976). yes, it was neat, but I like the 914 better.

I cannot get enough of the car. I'm more fascinated with it more today than any earlier decade.
I mean the car was incredible at Le Mans.

I knew a guy who said he had over 20 of the cars...and could look at them all day.
what an amazing car that was 50 years ahead of its time.
I can't think of a single high production car, in all history that was more unique, and stayed unique for decades.




spending time with an airplane, and what color is this??


4x4 in the mountains of Europe

[Alain V.]

I’ve never thought of the 914 as ugly,,,,,,,except for the USA version front side marker lights. Whoever was responsible for those should have been beaten with a rubber hose.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/chair.gif)

[KELTY360]

I’ve never thought of the 914 as ugly,,,,,,,except for the USA version front side marker lights. Whoever was responsible for those should have been beaten with a rubber hose.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/chair.gif)

That would be the USDOT that was mandating safety measures. They were right about seat belts…except most people refused to use them.

[Chris H.]

I’ve never thought of the 914 as ugly,,,,,,,except for the USA version front side marker lights. Whoever was responsible for those should have been beaten with a rubber hose.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/chair.gif)

That would be the USDOT that was mandating safety measures. They were right about seat belts…except most people refused to use them.

Safety regulations are also the reason the nose of the US cars were delivered so much higher than the rear. Bumper height requirements I think.

[brant]

I’ve never thought of the 914 as ugly,,,,,,,except for the USA version front side marker lights. Whoever was responsible for those should have been beaten with a rubber hose.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/chair.gif)

That would be the USDOT that was mandating safety measures. They were right about seat belts…except most people refused to use them.

Safety regulations are also the reason the nose of the US cars were delivered so much higher than the rear. Bumper height requirements I think.

I believe it was actually headlight height regulations that caused that in the US

my 1983 SC had the 3/4 of an inch solid spacer on the top of the strut (body lift) for the same reason.

[wonkipop]

I’ve never thought of the 914 as ugly,,,,,,,except for the USA version front side marker lights. Whoever was responsible for those should have been beaten with a rubber hose.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/chair.gif)

That would be the USDOT that was mandating safety measures. They were right about seat belts…except most people refused to use them.

Safety regulations are also the reason the nose of the US cars were delivered so much higher than the rear. Bumper height requirements I think.

I believe it was actually headlight height regulations that caused that in the US

my 1983 SC had the 3/4 of an inch solid spacer on the top of the strut (body lift) for the same reason.

that is certainly true of 911s - that USA market cars were set higher than ROW.
interesting thing is i am pretty sure its from around 75 on. might even be a G body thing. the whole car sits up higher in orig form. i think they stopped around mid 80s or so. might have even been with intro of 964. could have been headlights - likely collision bumpers given the circa 75 date. but before approx 75 i don't believe 911s were set higher. but not really sure, don't really know 911s properly.

begs the question about 914s which are by and large pre 75.
the 4s all seemed to be set sat up at the front - but not the 6s.
the thing that makes me think its not to do with any USA specific regs is that euro 4s seemed to sit up at front from the showroom too. however the 6s did not appear to be that way in any markets.

[lesorubcheek]

that is certainly true of 911s - that USA market cars were set higher than ROW.
interesting thing is i am pretty sure its from around 75 on. might even be a G body thing. the whole car sits up higher in orig form. i think they stopped around mid 80s or so. might have even been with intro of 964. could have been headlights - likely collision bumpers given the circa 75 date. but before approx 75 i don't believe 911s were set higher. but not really sure, don't really know 911s properly.

begs the question about 914s which are by and large pre 75.
the 4s all seemed to be set sat up at the front - but not the 6s.
the thing that makes me think its not to do with any USA specific regs is that euro 4s seemed to sit up at front from the showroom too. however the 6s did not appear to be that way in any markets.

Very good point, and I'm tending to believe it's true. There's a good Hagerty article that discusses the US bumper laws in the early 70s. It says the legislature was announced in 1971 to be in effect beginning in 1973. For '73, the front must survive a 5mph impact and the rear 2.5mph. For '74, 5mph both front and rear. Certainly jives with the 914 bumper tits and '73 911 front tits as well. The '74 911 redesign also makes sense as a proactive means to handle the new regs. Searched high and low for actual bumper height requirements but can't find any details. Only a brief statement on the Hagerty article that mentions height, and only the implication that too low bumper may plow under and therefore not meet the crash regs. In any case I've yet to see mention of any laws pre '73 that would require the front to be elevated.

Also tried to find information regarding headlight laws. All that I could dig up related to the dual 7" laws up to 1957, quad 5-3/4" up to 1975, followed by the rectangular lights.... all the stuff about halogens being illegal in the 70s... but nothing specifically about headlight height. Only talk regarding the beam angle, for which height obviously has a geometric advantage, but nothing saying that headlights must be x inches from ground level. Maybe there were such laws, but dang if I can find them.

And to stay on topic, no I don't think 914s are ugly, however plenty of cars are more attractive, perform better and would be as or maybe more fun to own and drive, without a doubt. I'd love a Miura or a Dino or maybe even a new C8 Z06, but they're not gonna magically appear in our garage. The reason I love 914s is the blend of practicality, fun, economy and nostalgia, with a good helping of originality thrown in as well. I didn't really give a crap if anyone else liked my car when I was in high school and college. I loved it and still do. Just gotta get her roadworthy once again, which is also a very enjoyable activity.

Dan