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.

[MoveQik]

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.

Are you asking about a stock 2.0/6 compared to a highly modified 200hp/4?

OR

Are you asking about any 6 versus a big/4?

[Steve]

Do a search.. This has been hashed over hundreds of times in previous threads.
Here's a good thread.
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=15842

[carr914]

Exactly, because it takes a lot ( Raby) to get to that 200hp level out of a 4. A Stock -6 only has 110hp. I have raced a Raby 4 cyl motored car and it was Great, but, I prefer a 200+ HP Six. Torque, not as High-Strung.

[SLITS]

A big four with lots of horsepower is a limited time engine normally due to the heat produced in making horsepower, the thinness of cylinders and a bunch of other considerations. The engine is highly stressed.

You can purchase one of Jake Raby's high horsepower engines that exhibit longevity, but you're going to be into it $11K probably. You can try building it yourself though.

The six will probably make more torque which is actually what propels the vehicle. High horesepower & no torque doesn't do crap. A six, treated well, will have much better longevity due to being less stressed.

Anyway, it's a mute question. Go whichever way you feel comfortable with ... It all costs big bucks.

There are many threads on 4 vs six ... do some searching and read.

[Tom_T]

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.

[gothspeed]

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.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) ............ that was my logic during powerplant considerations ........... I decided on a semi modded 2056cc .......... I am expecting between 130-150 HP which should be plenty for a GT clone/replica ..... anything more than that would be icing on the cake!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I further chose the 4 because of the simplicity and weight .......... and for extra cooling I will be running an oil filter 'sandwich' adapter with the extra cooler in the wheel well ............. it is currently twin carbed with 44 IDF Webers, Web #270 Camshaft, ported heads w/ 44IN &38 EX valves, counter weighted crank and H-Beam rods/ARP bolts .......... runs and sounds very nice ....... on the engine dyno so far ....... still need to finish the car though ....... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[unpolire]

Do a search.. This has been hashed over hundreds of times in previous threads.
Here's a good thread.
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=15842

Thank you, but the answers I was seeking are more of a hands-on personal nature, not just theory, power, and torque, and members have been kind enough to respond.

[jcd914]

The sound!

What sounds better than a Porsche flat six?

[sixerdon]

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

[J P Stein]

I'll assume you know something about engines and show you the big difference.
Had to steal a pic of the T-4 off the forum.

[Cairo94507]

There is nothing like the sound of a six.

[brant]

the -6 motor is 250lbs heavier

but early cars weighed less
most original 6ers' were early cars

add a 6 to a conversion late car and most of them are around 2300 - 2400 at street weight

[mepstein]

I was under the assumption that the 2.0 six engine was only 200lbs more than a 4 and a 3.2 was ~ 250lbs more. I was also told that Porsche used to under estimate the hp of their engines so the 6's actually felt stronger than their numbers implied. I think it was the cost of the 914-6's vs 911's that led to their demise, not their performance.

[GeorgeRud]

Porsche discontinued the -6 as they were not making any money on them, and it was too tough to sell with a 911T costing only a bit more. The 914 2.0 was their answer to their dilemma.

As far as the difference, the sound of the -6 is worth every extra $$ spent on it! I love mine and wouldn't want to trade it for a big -4 regardless of the horsepower and torque numbers.

[campbellcj]

The six will run all day long at 6,000+ RPM. For 20 years. Rebuild and repeat. If anyone has done that with a T-4 they are probably on this board and we'll hear from them.

[unpolire]

The sound!

What sounds better than a Porsche flat six?

Porsche Type 912 4.5L flat 12! My next door neighbor's buddy has a 917!

[unpolire]

Are you asking about any 6 versus a big/4?
[/quote]
Any Porsche flat 6 over a "big/4."

[gothspeed]

The 6 would be my cost/trouble 'is no object' choice! .......... but since this GT clone is not my main project ........ the cost/trouble/weight savings of the modded 4 ........ more than makes up for the loss of sound and potential HP of the 6 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif) ....... in my opinion ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Bleyseng]

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

Sixes were built as early cars so the whole damn car was lighter with no door bars, no bumper stuff, sound deadening etc.

A 2056 (120hp) four has more torque down low so it feels quicker compared to a stock 110hp six. Cost? you can build a 2056 with 120hp for fairly cheap ($4000) compared to rebuilding a six! plus you get FI, heat, great mpg etc...
Now if you want a high hp setup, a 3.2 six is the way to go and no comparison although a Raby 2270 is quite fun to drive!