Jalopnik 914 4 vs 6 article " Its only 10 HP" Options

[914_teener]

Keeping it relative, the slices of pie are still the same (and if memory still works) ..

1970 914/4 1.7 - 80hp
1970 914/6 2.0/6 - 110hp
* 1973 914 2.0/4 - 95hp * Euro rated at 100?, by '75-76 down to 86hp us)
1970 911T (2.2) 125hp
1970 911E (2.2) 155hp
1970 911S (2.2) 180hp

*1997 Boxster 2.5- 201hp
2000 Boxster 2.7 - 217hp
2000 Boxster S 3.2- 252hp
2000 911 3.4 - 296hp

2018 718 (Boxster/Cayman) 2.0 - 300hp
2018 718S (Boxster/Cayman) 2.5 - 350hp
2018 911 3.0- 370hp

Porsche has always been good about preserving the 911s status.

Recall as well, the 1970 911T came with a 4spd (vs the -6's 5spd) as standard. And while the 911 had 15 more hp, it also weighed 100+ lbs more.. so it wasn't really that much faster.

As for the -6, I kinda wish it had the '69E motor (2.0, 140hp) as its starting point, but I guess why it couldn't. Then again, sport muffler and larger venturies and you are right close to the 140 number with the 2.0t motor.

"s" motor would be nice on the track. The "e" and "t" motors were much more tractable. Who wants fouled plugs just cause you only drove to the grocery store!

I think one could also argue, Porsche could have bolstered the 914/6 status/pricing if it had the 2.2T with 125hp as its engine and made the BASE 911 the 155hp 911E. At least they didn't keep the 912 in the line up (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Porsche did the same thing in 2006... I know cause I have one.

987 CS 3.4 at 296 HP. Lighter than a 911 and quicker...AND the motor is in the right place, and a flat six.

After the 981 they are back to a 4 banger but turbo-ed.

Also, think the author of the article totally mis-characterizes the Type 4 that went into a 914 by likening it to a BUS motor.

It is nothing like a bus motor. I agree. A properly set up stock 2.0 is a whole heck of a lot of fun, and in those days just as good if not better then the stock six that first went in it, at least the 110 BHP motor.

[amfab]

The sound of the six is worth the price of admission...IMHO

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[mepstein]

The sound of the six is worth the price of admission...IMHO

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

The flat six sound is iconic. I hear the flat four sound every time I mow the grass. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)

[MarkV]

The sound of the six is worth the price of admission...IMHO

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

The flat six sound is iconic. I hear the flat four sound every time I mow the grass. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)

I like my lawn mower.... it's air cooled too.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving-girl.gif)

[raynekat]

The sound of the six is worth the price of admission...IMHO

I absolutely agree.
I could never buy or drive a 4 cylinder just because of the sound it makes.
The exact same reason I would never buy a Subaru. Just yuck!
An early flat six on the other hand is just pure heaven to me.

The six delivers the power in a much more sophisticated way as well.

[horizontally-opposed]

No question the flat six transforms the car, and I have no regrets in converting, but I sure had a lot of fun over the first 24~ of the last 30 years with a four, and a tired one at that.

To me, the 914 is chassis > engine. And, after 25 years of testing all sorts of Porsches, the 914 still stands up. It was, and is, a very special stop along the Porsche story. Nothing else since has offered its mix of intelligent packaging, balance, and light weight. And I am not sure we'll ever see anything get near 2000 pounds again…

Four, six…they're all great in my book.

[jdamiano]

The sound of the six is worth the price of admission...IMHO

Nah- Price is too high. I purchased a very nice low mileage 73 2.0 a year ago and have 6 grand total in it after completely sorting it out. A 6 in the same condition would have cost me 10 times as much and been slightly faster maybe, depending on the road and driver. Maybe even less fun to drive. I guess I could drop some cash on a louder exhaust but just not that important to the driving experience to me.

[Racer]

Then again, in period results don't lie (1974 Porsche Parade) - 914/6 is 6 seconds quicker than a 914/4 2.0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[sithot]

Then again, in period results don't lie (1974 Porsche Parade) - 914/6 is 6 seconds quicker than a 914/4 2.0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

A stock 2.0/6 and a stock 2.0/4 shouldn't be 6 seconds apart.

Bobby Smith's 914/4 beat all comers at the 2008 Parade. It wasn't stock nor was the competition.

His best time was 67.8 seconds. The closest 914 was a "6" in Mod-4 driven by Alan Kendall came in at 73.5 seconds.

FWIW, Bobby still believes the 4 to be the best balanced car. Who am I to argue with his successes?

[johnhora]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif)

This is so much fun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Bobby Smith]

Then again, in period results don't lie (1974 Porsche Parade) - 914/6 is 6 seconds quicker than a 914/4 2.0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

A stock 2.0/6 and a stock 2.0/4 shouldn't be 6 seconds apart.

Bobby Smith's 914/4 beat all comers at the 2008 Parade. It wasn't stock nor was the competition.

His best time was 67.8 seconds. The closest 914 was a "6" in Mod-4 driven by Alan Kendall came in at 73.5 seconds.

FWIW, Bobby still believes the 4 to be the best balanced car. Who am I to argue with his successes?

Well...I'm not an expert but after 35 years driving and racing all of the variations of 914's including 2.0 4 cyl, 2.8 4 cyl., stock 914/6's and 914/6 3.2ltr conversions I can give a fair and honest opinion. Take it for what it's worth. If all other things being equal (suspension, wheels, tires, alignment etc. etc.) I feel that a 73, 74 2.0 4 cyl. would be a faster auto-x car than a 914/6 stock 2.0 ltr. It's balance and physics. The 4 cyl. car is so much more nimble. (Forest Gump voice) That's all I've got to say about that!

[horizontally-opposed]

Then again, in period results don't lie (1974 Porsche Parade) - 914/6 is 6 seconds quicker than a 914/4 2.0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

A stock 2.0/6 and a stock 2.0/4 shouldn't be 6 seconds apart.

Bobby Smith's 914/4 beat all comers at the 2008 Parade. It wasn't stock nor was the competition.

His best time was 67.8 seconds. The closest 914 was a "6" in Mod-4 driven by Alan Kendall came in at 73.5 seconds.

FWIW, Bobby still believes the 4 to be the best balanced car. Who am I to argue with his successes?

^ Bobby is exactly right. And so long as horsepower doesn't come too far into it, a very light four with strong torque is going to be hard to beat on a autocross course.

Still think the "ultimate" execution of the 914 concept—if balance, weight, and power are the objectives—probably has a STi 2.5 or 718 2.5 mounted in the middle with a water-to-air intercooler system up front. But it won't sound or drive like a six…

[Bobby Smith]

Then again, in period results don't lie (1974 Porsche Parade) - 914/6 is 6 seconds quicker than a 914/4 2.0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This data does not include suspension modifications, wheels/tires, alignment specs, driver skill etc. Those things could easily be 6 or more sec.

[Racer]

Then again, in period results don't lie (1974 Porsche Parade) - 914/6 is 6 seconds quicker than a 914/4 2.0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This data does not include suspension modifications, wheels/tires, alignment specs, driver skill etc. Those things could easily be 6 or more sec.

True it does not. But they were the "stock" classes for the cars at the parade. And yes, Parade is not SCCA Runoffs per se in quality of car/driver/tire choice made for a multiday event comprising AX, Rally, Concours etc.

That said, I didn't have much access to any other "in period" result data of what would be "stock" class cars.

Even if you exclude my fathers phenomenal time that day, the next quickest -6 was still 3 seconds quicker than the fastest of the -4cyl cars.

Bob Garretson in a -4 ? This guy was (or was on his way) to being a pro racer for pete's sake!

[Bobby Smith]

Then again, in period results don't lie (1974 Porsche Parade) - 914/6 is 6 seconds quicker than a 914/4 2.0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This data does not include suspension modifications, wheels/tires, alignment specs, driver skill etc. Those things could easily be 6 or more sec.

True it does not. But they were the "stock" classes for the cars at the parade. And yes, Parade is not SCCA Runoffs per se in quality of car/driver/tire choice made for a multiday event comprising AX, Rally, Concours etc.

That said, I didn't have much access to any other "in period" result data of what would be "stock" class cars.

Even if you exclude my fathers phenomenal time that day, the next quickest -6 was still 3 seconds quicker than the fastest of the -4cyl cars.

Bob Garretson in a -4 ? This guy was (or was on his way) to being a pro racer for pete's sake!

Some things to weigh:
*This was a long 90 sec. course which means time differences are magnified.
*What tire was each racer on and what was the quick tire at that time (tires alone
could be 4-5 secs. or more on a 90 sec. course).
*What were the weather conditions? Was it raining? Damp?
*What was Bob Garretson's skill level at that time?
The point is, there are many variables to take into consideration.
I'm not here to argue. I gave my "opinion" based on a lot of experience autocrossing these 914 models. This would actually make a great real world test. If we could only get 2 identical set up 914's. One with a stock 6 and one with a 2.0 four. Driven by the same guy. Yeah right, that ain't gonna happen.

[amfab]

The sound of the six is worth the price of admission...IMHO

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

The flat six sound is iconic. I hear the flat four sound every time I mow the grass. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)

My best friend in high school had a 70s era combi.
it was in Florida and it always smelled like mold, beer, and cigarettes
inside.
The type 4 sound is connected to that smell in my head somehow—and accelerating slowly

[raynekat]

I remember about 30+ years ago when I started auto crossing SCCA. 914-6's were in A stock and there was a guy...I think John Havranak (sp?) that really had a very fast "stock" 914-6. He beat most of the early 911's to my recollection. No way a "stock" four cylinder would have ever been able to keep up with him.

On the opposite side of the coin.
Do you remember Garrettson's big wide black E mod 914? Well that was powered by a big four and he was super fast in his class. Gary Walton drove that car. Doubt if any 6 cylinder could have kept up with that car. It was that light and developed.

[Bobby Smith]

I remember about 30+ years ago when I started auto crossing SCCA. 914-6's were in A stock and there was a guy...I think John Havranak (sp?) that really had a very fast "stock" 914-6. He beat most of the early 911's to my recollection. No way a "stock" four cylinder would have ever been able to keep up with him.

On the opposite side of the coin.
Do you remember Garrettson's big wide black E mod 914? Well that was powered by a big four and he was super fast in his class. Gary Walton drove that car. Doubt if any 6 cylinder could have kept up with that car. It was that light and developed.

I built my 914/4 modeled after the Garrettson car.

[thelogo]

I would imagine the 550 spyder
Takes the whole perfectly balanced
Concept of the 914-4 to the next level
(Compact ,lightweight )
They were all 4 cyclinder right .

Sorry cant help it.

Last known photograph (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif)

[mepstein]

I would imagine the 550 spyder
Takes the whole perfectly balanced
Concept of the 914-4 to the next level
(Compact ,lightweight )
They were all 4 cyclinder right .

Sorry cant help it.

Last known photograph (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif)

Maybe but the replicas ride like crap. I would trade it all for a real 904.