New springs for the 914 Options

[914Next]

Took my '73 in to Checkpoint Auto in Marietta to have them address a rough idle problem. Figured while it was in I'd have them replace the original springs which were really starting to sag. Hated to change them out because they were original to the car but much prefer not having a tail dragger.

Before



After

[914_teener]

Looks great!

My looks just like yours did.

What springs did you put in and what spring rate?

Do you have adjustable perches or stock Boge?

Thanks.

[EdwardBlume]

Looking good! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/w00t.gif)

[whitetwinturbo]

Which red is that beauty?

[thelogo]

Took my '73 in to Checkpoint Auto in Marietta to have them address a rough idle problem. Figured while it was in I'd have them replace the original springs which were really starting to sag. Hated to change them out because they were original to the car but much prefer not having a tail dragger.

Yeh looks a lot better out back

My springs are beginning to compromise
My tire clearance

So Im thinking new springs also And I'm sure a complete. suspension 're fresh would be even better

[914Next]

Looks great!

My looks just like yours did.

What springs did you put in and what spring rate?

Do you have adjustable perches or stock Boge?

Thanks.

Thanks. Springs are 100lb. I recall Jeff mentioned he was putting in Weltmeister. No perches. Wanted to keep things as stock/original as possible.

[914Next]

Which red is that beauty?

Thanks. The color actually is a bit off in these pics but its Bahia Red.

[dlkawashima]

Maybe it's the angle of the pictures, but to me it looks like the back is now sitting too high (assuming you want to match the car's original stance).

If you extend the line formed by the top of the rocker panel out to the back wheel, you can see that it crosses above the wheel cap.
In my opinion, it should bisect the wheel cap (or very nearly do so).


Here are a couple of pictures of the 2-liter from back in the day ... one from R&T and one from Car & Driver.
The rendering from R&T should be pretty accurate, and the profile shot from Car & Driver is the actual test car.
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-12234-1389060498.jpg)

[Tom_T]

Steve & Dave K.,

The OE `73 2.0 springs were 90# (1.7L too IIRC), so his new 100# will give him more boost.

If it were me, unless the rear tires were rubbing in the wheel well or bottoming out on bumps - I would've just dropped the front by 1/2" - 1" by adjusting the torsion bars up there, since the factory set them higher than on Euro/RoW 914s due to the DOT headlight height requirements.

Most of us just dropped or had the fronts dropped like that to restore the perfect 50:50 weight distribution, & improve both handling & looks. Many of the SoCal dealers did it on their own quietly, so they would test drive better .... & therefore sell better (no names to protect the guilty from the "DOT police" ;-).

I really didn't think your rears looked too low before Steve - but the front looked high - as in that factory USA setting stance which they all came here with.

What's done is done! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

PS - both the R&T rendering & pix show that front-high factory stance, & the fronts would be about 1/2" - 1" lower when adjusted.

LOL - I still have my xeroxes of that R&T article (& the similar MT one) that I got when I was researching for a new sports car, & then started looking for 914s back in 1975 & got my `73 2L! (yes ... they were Xeroxes back then!)

Unfortunately I don't have pix of mine on this new laptop yet - so maybe someone else can post a side pic of a properly lower 914?? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

My avatar pic is really tiny, but it shows the lowered front attitude more-or-less - although it's still a bit higher than normal driving height in front, since it has the front bumper/tits/foglights/etc. off & spare/tireboard/etc. out & fuel + windshield washer tanks both empty for strip-down to restore it - & so it's a still bit lighter up front in that pic.

Cheers! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)
Tom
///////

[SirAndy]

assuming you want to match the car's original stance

The cars original stance for the US was dictated by safety regulations, more specifically by the minimum front bumper height.
Porsche simply raised the front of US cars to meet regulations.

European and presumably ROW cars had a different stance with the front being lower than the rear.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

[Tom_T]

assuming you want to match the car's original stance

The cars original stance for the US was dictated by safety regulations, more specifically by the minimum front bumper height.
Porsche simply raised the front of US cars to meet regulations.

European and presumably ROW cars had a different stance with the front being lower than the rear.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

That's what I said Andy, but it was also & more to do with the headlight height per DOT standards, as in many write-ups, & per my talking to the dealers & my factory trained 914 mechanic back in 1975.

Both the 356 & 911/912 headlights in the fenders & the 914's pop-up headlights (& others with pop-ups, like the 924/944/968, 928, Fiat X1/9, etc.) allowed them to keep the low front hood line for road visibility, & still meet those US-DOT headlight standards.

Bumper height was also a consideration later in 73-74 (with 3 mph front tits 73, then F & R 74) & 75-76 (7 mph F&R - ergo big bumpers) impact resistant bumper regs, which I don't think were out yet to the public to be known about by Porsche in the late 60's when the 914 was designed, nor even by late 69 when the 914 was first released - but they still had that USA front-high stance in our dealers here from day one.

Before those bumper impact regs. were effective in 73 MY on, you could use almost any bumper height - or even "Nerf Bars". And they were progressive regs 73, 74, 75 as noted above.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)
Tom
///////

[KELTY360]

Before I took delivery of a new '73 1.7, the dealer specifically asked if I wanted the front end lowered to improve handling. I said yes, of course. This was in Buena Park, CA.

To the OP: when I looked at your 'after' pics, my first reaction was, "too high". Looking at your 'before' pic, I would agree that simply lowering the front would have been a better move to start with. BTW, love your car; it's a keeper!

[dlkawashima]

PS - both the R&T rendering & pix show that front-high factory stance, & the fronts would be about 1/2" - 1" lower when adjusted.

Unfortunately I don't have pix of mine on this new laptop yet - so maybe someone else can post a side pic of a properly lower 914?? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Tom
///////

To Tom's point, here is the Car & Driver image ... nose up stance

[914_teener]

Tire size will affect this as well.

I'm running 205's. Looks like the OP is running closer to a stock tire size.

What a nice looking car.

[saigon71]

Looks great!

My looks just like yours did.

What springs did you put in and what spring rate?

Do you have adjustable perches or stock Boge?

Thanks.

Thanks. Springs are 100lb. I recall Jeff mentioned he was putting in Weltmeister. No perches. Wanted to keep things as stock/original as possible.

Looks great! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

Timely post as I'm going to install new springs on my teener while the engine is out. Like you, I'm running the original factory springs and getting some sag.

Question to the 914 braintrust - is 100lb the closest you can get to stock springs? I like the ride of my car as-is and don't need stiffer suspension. Thanks!

[ndfrigi]

I replaced my rear spring with weltmeister 100 lbs. what i noticed the new spring is shorter than the original so rear seats lower than the old one. Good I have an adjustable bilstein shocks and put the lower perch to the highest adjustment.

Rear tires is covered about 1/2" from the lip fender and front tires is almost aligned to the front fender lip.

good I just got new tires today 205x60 on 15 fuchs wheels.

[struckn]

OK, is it me or is there a optical elusion in both the side view photo's previously posted of the Red 914, and the Blue 914. I'm seeing the front wheels and tires look smaller then the rear wheels and tires. Might be my computer but I think something else is doing it as I'm pretty sure the two cars most likely have their front and rear wheels and tires sized the same.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

[dlkawashima]

OK, is it me or is there a optical elusion in both the side view photo's previously posted of the Red 914, and the Blue 914. I'm seeing the front wheels and tires look smaller then the rear wheels and tires. Might be my computer but I think something else is doing it as I'm pretty sure the two cars most likely have their front and rear wheels and tires sized the same.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

Simple optical illusion ... the rear tires/wheels are closer to the lens than the fronts, giving the illusion they are bigger.

My car from about the same angle as the blue 914 ... fronts look smaller than the rears:

[914_teener]

OK, is it me or is there a optical elusion in both the side view photo's previously posted of the Red 914, and the Blue 914. I'm seeing the front wheels and tires look smaller then the rear wheels and tires. Might be my computer but I think something else is doing it as I'm pretty sure the two cars most likely have their front and rear wheels and tires sized the same.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

Simple optical illusion ... the rear tires/wheels are closer to the lens than the fronts, giving the illusion they are bigger.

My car from about the same angle as the blue 914 ... fronts look smaller than the rears:

I kinda agree...

Just took this.

The yellow string is there hung a little on the valance but if I take the plane it was a straight line. If I raise the back anymore then the reference point will be higher in relationship to the centerline of the the wheel.

FWIW.

[914Next]

Maybe it's the angle of the pictures, but to me it looks like the back is now sitting too high (assuming you want to match the car's original stance).

If you extend the line formed by the top of the rocker panel out to the back wheel, you can see that it crosses above the wheel cap.
In my opinion, it should bisect the wheel cap (or very nearly do so).


Here are a couple of pictures of the 2-liter from back in the day ... one from R&T and one from Car & Driver.
The rendering from R&T should be pretty accurate, and the profile shot from Car & Driver is the actual test car.
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-12234-1389060498.jpg)

Yeah Dave, I see what you mean. I couldn't tell if it was just the big change that I was not yet used to or if the rear was really bit high. And Tom or someone mentioned that it might be a bit higher due to the new ones being 100 while the originals were 90lb.

Tom, I was tempted to lower the front rather than change out the springs but in the end just decided to go the new route. I do have the originals in the event I want to change back.

While I was there I also had them change out the drop link bushings on the sway bar which were crumbling. They also found that one of the rear brake pads had been binding and was worn almost completely down. Rebuilt the caliper. I know its likely my imagination but the car just seems a bit more tight than it was.