Best model year for building Autocross/HPDE car? Options

[Richard Casto]

Ok, here goes post number two. In my other post you will see I am looking for some tips on shopping for a 914…

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?act=...=ST&f=2&t=35953

I currently have been autocrossing on and off (most off) since the late 1980s and consistently at local events for the past five years or so (Honda Civic in STS). I have always loved the 914 and want to build a “fun” car for local competition. The idea is to buy a car that I can may run in DSP with a handful of modifications (suspension upgrades, and 2.0 swap if car was not initially a 2.0 L, etc.), then do a six cylinder swap and run in SM2 and eventually install safety equipment (cage, upgraded brakes, etc.) and participate in track days/HPDE. In addition to not making modifications outside the realm of SCCAs DSP and eventually SM2 classes, the car also needs to be licensed for street use. While this would NOT be a daily driver, I am not able (at this time) to trailer a car.

What I am curious about is if there is specific range of model years that would work best for me? I could go the 73/74 2.0 route, but as the car will exist in it’s stock or semi stock form for a short period of time, there may not be much motivation to pay the premium for a nice 73/74 2.0. I also tend to not want a 75+ due to the extra weight. But with the option of SCCA update/backdate rules, I don’t know if that is a valid assumption (i.e. can I build a lightweight 75/76?) And at the same time, maybe any 74 or earlier car would be just as good or better due to the SCCA update/backdate allowances. My concern about the very early cars is the potential issue with installing an aftermarket seat for the passenger (don't know if update/backdate will allow interior swap from newer car) and lack of sideshift transmission.

I know that you could build a "fun" car from any 914 of any model year, but would there be an order of preference when looking for a car. Something such as…

1. 73/74 2.0
2. Any early car with movable passenger seat and sideshift transmission
3. Any non 75/76 car
4. 75/76

I would appreciate any comments from anyone that has experience building to any SCCA Solo specs and especially anyone that has build a dual purpose autocross/track car

Thanks!

Richard

[brant]

QUOTE (Richard Casto @ Aug 2 2005, 07:45 PM)

QUOTE (nebreitling @ Aug 2 2005, 06:24 PM) my quite stripped down '75 with fiberglass bumpers is quite light  :shades: Are you using a fiberglass replica of the older or later style bumpers (I don't even know which is available)? I don't know much about what they did to the 75/76 (if anything) when they changed the bumper. Basically can you mount the older style bumper on the 75/76? For some reason I was thinking there is at least a tab missing on the body or something like that. I suspect SCCA SM2 rules would prohibit fiberglass bumpers anyhow. Semi related question... I also don't know how I feel at the moment about fiberglass vs. OEM bumpers. As the car is going to be driven on the street at times, what is people's thoughts about the safety of fiberglass bumpers vs. the steel or later rubber ones? Of course in today's crash tests, I would guess a 914 would score about the same (1 star?) regardless of the bumper material. Oh, and thanks for all of the replies so far.

Richard,

you can back date the bumpers in metal (rubber) or glass.
Sounds like with your classification plans you'll need metal

the body structure behind the bumper is slightly different front and rear.
but the back dated bumper will hide/cover 99% of that.
and weight wise its probably only 10lbs difference in the body structure.

So Ideally the early car would be 10lbs lighter for bumpers, 10lbs lighter for ventillation, 10lbs lighter for seat, 30 lbs lighter for doors...

the point is that it adds up..
but 60-80lbs in the end isn't going to make or break the car unless your talking full tilt race car.

I'm happy to say that I was able to get my car down to 1850 with metal body panels..... although it is far from street legal or far from stock. (does have a passenger seat thou)

brant