So what advantages, besides rear mount cooler, small /6 conversions offer? Options

[Tdskip]

Yeah, back to looking at 2.2 and 2.4 engines while day dreaming. Not sure it is relational...

Just curious If there are any significant handling/weight advantages. I don’t think so, so does it come down to aesthetics of how the engine spin and sound?

I will duck and cover now...

[mb911]

Less low end tq, same if not more cost to rebuild. Peakier usable range, advantage easier and cheaper total cost for a conversion because oil cooler, and flywheel setup is a standard cup style used on all early 911s and work up to 2.7 engines..

If money was no option for me it would be 3.2 or 3.6 for the stock fuel injection..

[brant]

the advantages for a small bore -6 are really dependent on the owners personal preferences.

less torque, so less transmission requirements
the same weight
better sound, and better induction noise
a 66 mm crank on the 2.0 and 2.2 so revs faster and higher

the short stroke crank and subsequent free revving motor is really the only advantage of any significance... and only for a discerning owner who wants a short stroke. (SS made famous in early 911 racing)

[mepstein]

Mag cases are lighter
Smaller engines have a different sound
No oil cooler needed on the mild builds
Easier on the trans and less conversion parts needed.

I drove a narrow body 6 with a 160ish hp engine and custom gears. It had some glass lids, bumpers, some other light weight stuff and sticky tires. It was a blast!

[Superhawk996]

Mag cases are lighter
Smaller engines have a different sound
No oil cooler needed on the mild builds
Easier on the trans and less conversion parts needed.

I drove a narrow body 6 with a 160ish hp engine and custom gears. It had some glass lids, bumpers, some other light weight stuff and sticky tires. It was a blast!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) x 2

914's are all about light weight, low Center of Gravity, vintage engine sounds, and nimble handling. If you seek fast in a straight line, there are many cheaper not to mention faster alternatives than a 914.

I'm biased though - currently working on a 2.4L six.

[horizontally-opposed]

Mag cases are lighter
Smaller engines have a different sound
No oil cooler needed on the mild builds
Easier on the trans and less conversion parts needed.

I drove a narrow body 6 with a 160ish hp engine and custom gears. It had some glass lids, bumpers, some other light weight stuff and sticky tires. It was a blast!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

x10

Have driven all sorts of conversions over the years, and a really well done 3.2 or 3.6 (or 3.8) can be really nice, but there's something about a mag case 2.0 or 2.2. Sounds, the way it spins, all that. I've got a 2.2 making 169 hp at the wheels, or 160~ at the wheels with the factory airbox in place, and have little interest in more power. 190-200 is a pretty nice sweet spot in a narrow 914—not fast by modern standards but not slow, either, and more importantly satisfyingly powerful and fun. The little 2.2 is surprisingly torquey, too, as it has Solex cams. Sometimes, it's hard to believe the midrange torque is from just 2.2 liters. Has 2.7/3.0 driveability with 2.2 revviness and sounds. Downside is no 911S 2.2 rush from 6000-7200 rpm—it pulls "just okay" up there. I'd have a tough time trading the midrange drivability for the top-end rush, but I do think about it from time to time. So far, no need for an external cooler, though I am thinking about one mounted at the back of the car for "that time I needed an oil cooler after all."

If I was going to go longer stroke, I'd probably want to have something bigger than a 2.4 but the most fun 914 I ever drove was a GT-bodied car with a 2.2S w/MFI, short gears, and a diff. It was a hoot—everything felt "right."

To each their own...I can see where a 3.2 Motronic is deeply appealing, too.

[roblav1]

I've had many 911 engined cars... the most boring were a 3.2 and a 964 3.6. The most fun were a 2.2S MFI and a 2.7RS with Webers. Lightweight, the sound, the smell, the feel!

Mag cases are lighter
Smaller engines have a different sound
No oil cooler needed on the mild builds
Easier on the trans and less conversion parts needed.

I drove a narrow body 6 with a 160ish hp engine and custom gears. It had some glass lids, bumpers, some other light weight stuff and sticky tires. It was a blast!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

x10

Have driven all sorts of conversions over the years, and a really well done 3.2 or 3.6 (or 3.8) can be really nice, but there's something about a mag case 2.0 or 2.2. Sounds, the way it spins, all that. I've got a 2.2 making 169 hp at the wheels, or 160~ at the wheels with the factory airbag in place, and have little interest in more power. It is surprisingly torquey, too, as it has Solex cams. Downside is no 911S 2.2 rush from 5000-6000 rpm on up to redline. So far, no need for an external cooler, though I am thinking about one mounted at the back of the car for "that time I needed an oil cooler after all."

If I was going to go longer stroke, I'd probably want to have something bigger than a 2.4 but the most fun 914 I ever drove was a GT-bodied car with a 2.2S w/MFI, short gears, and a diff. It was a hoot—everything felt "right."

To each their own...I can see where a 3.2 Motronic is deeply appealing, too.

[Mark Henry]

It's not that much lighter, I forget but it's only 20 or so pounds.
The cost is about the same, case work costs more for a mag case, but the 3.0 up need a adaptor clutch, etc. so in the end it's likely a wash.

Any /6 build will cost way more than a /4, but end of the day a 914 with a six (conversion) will be worth more than a hot rodded /4.

[gereed75]

Mine is a 2.4 S heads, Weber’s with mod Solex cams which I built about three years ago.

First of all I built it from the 2.4 T motor that was already in the car, so there was no thought of buying another motor. Probably true for many people.

Second I just love the nature of the smaller displacement motors - the way they sound, the way they rev. I think that it just fits the nature of the car. These are vintage Porsche’s after all.

I run a stock 914-4 side shifter, and again a real nice match up.

I have tracked the car once, just to see how it ran. It did fine vs a variety of Caymans, boxster, SC vintage 911’s.

How freakin fast do you want to go anyway? This thing is a pretty quick little street car that is just a blast to drive on the street. And it has plenty of torque.

No oil cooler necessary

I drive it a lot - two or three times a week, that probably equates to 1500 miles a year. Even if I built a crap motor and the mag cases shit the bed after 20,000 miles (neither seems likely) I will be long gone by then.

So why NOT build a nice quick, vintage small displacement motor? For our use, nothing wrong with them at all. In fact it is the essence of what made Porsche so viscerally desirable and mythical back in the day. Yes it does feel just right for me too.

I’ve got a “spare” mag motor with everything I need to build a 2.2 S motor and will do that long before I search out a “more durable, stronger” 3 liter. These things are toys, not long haul diesel semi trucks.

This Discussion makes me want to go out in the garage and start the thing just for grins.

[Superhawk996]

Lifted from Pelican or somewhere else along the line. Can't vouch for 100% accuracy but it generally seems like a plausible weight progression. Like people, cars and engines put on weight as they age. Don't forget these are supposedly engine weights and don't include things like auxillary coolers, lines, etc.


lbs-- models-- Source
400 lbs - 2.4L E, S, RS 1972-73 - Tech. Spec. book
403 lbs - 2.4L T 1972-73 - Tech. Spec. book
440 lbs - 2.7L 1975-1977 - Aichle - 911 Engines
419 lbs - 78-83 930/09,19,10 78-81 78-81 & 82-83 - Tech Spec. book
441 lbs - 78-83 930/03-08,13-17 78-81 & 82-83 - Tech Spec. book
462 lbs - 3.0L 1980-82 - Aichle - 911 Engines
483 lbs - 84-87 930/20,26 84-87 - Tech Spec. book
485 lbs - 84-87 930/21,25 84-87 - Tech Spec. book
482 lbs - 3.2L 1987 - 1988 - Aichle - 911 Engines
524 lbs - 964 89-94 M64/01,02 ROW &US 964 - Tech Spec. book
497 lbs - M64/03 RS 964 - Tech Spec. book
605 lbs - M30/69 3.3L 964 - Tech Spec. book
608 lbs - M64/50 3.6L 964 - Tech Spec. book
510 lbs - M64/05-08 993 - Tech Spec. book
487 lbs - M64/20 993RS v-ram w/o ZMS 993 - Tech Spec. book
507 lbs - M64/20 993RS v-ram w/ ZMS 993 - Tech Spec. book

[Tdskip]

Thanks for the weight specs @superhawk996

Looks like 80+/- pounds for the 2.4 vs 3.2 then excluding any other related weight light flywheel difference etc.

So maybe 100 to 110 pounds in total with front cooler and lines?

[mepstein]

For me, the 3.2's make sense because I like the Motronic fuel injection over carbs, the aluminum cases, while heavier, are much stronger, it's more than enough horsepower in a 914 and if you compare small and large engines with 100K miles, the small engine (at least the ones I see) are usually used up and need a complete rebuild while the larger engines are usually still running strong. Since most sixes from 2.0 to 3.2 end up costing around the same money to buy used or to rebuild, The larger engine win out for me.

But, I still dream of a aluminum case, hot rodded 2.0 in a light narrow body.

[ConeDodger]

For me, the 3.2's make sense because I like the Motronic fuel injection over carbs, the aluminum cases, while heavier, are much stronger, it's more than enough horsepower in a 914 and if you compare small and large engines with 100K miles, the small engine (at least the ones I see) are usually used up and need a complete rebuild while the larger engines are usually still running strong. Since most sixes from 2.0 to 3.2 end up costing around the same money to buy used or to rebuild, The larger engine win out for me.

But, I still dream of a aluminum case, hot rodded 2.0 in a light narrow body.

^ (IMG:style_emoticons/default/evilgrin.gif)

I cannot tell you how many smiles per mile I get from my 3.2 conversion. Plus, I wouldn’t hesitate to drive it anywhere. It is dead-on reliable.

[Mark Henry]

Thanks for the weight specs @superhawk996

Looks like 80+/- pounds for the 2.4 vs 3.2 then excluding any other related weight light flywheel difference etc.

So maybe 100 to 110 pounds in total with front cooler and lines?

Other things can effect those numbers as well, my 3.0 doesn't have the CIS and related gear as I have carbs.

Many have the opinion that the /4 handles better than a /6 because there's a significant weight difference between the two engines.

[campbellcj]

Gotta said I really had a blast with my car in mag case 2.2 "S" spec narrow body form. The weight, balance, sound and overall experience are "right".

It had/has short gears and a built trans which are a must for this sort of conversion. You need the right gearing to not be slow and miserable in 2nd-4th gears with a relatively low-torque -6.

Still kicking myself as well - I bought that complete running engine including nice Webers for either $3000 or $3500 - few years later could not sell it to save my life and I think took $2500. F*** now just the Webers are worth... And of course then I spent 10X as much building the next engine which for sure is not 10X as fun...

[Superhawk996]

Many have the opinion that the /4 handles better than a /6 because there's a significant weight difference between the two engines.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

Putting more weight in the rear is directionally incorrect and will degrade handling, especially the 914's tendency for on-throttle understeer.

Personally, I think that by putting on weight as I've aged from my 20's probably offsets things enough to call it a wash. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)

I'll end up moving the battery to front trunk, down low, and along center line as a further offset to the weight and inertia add of the six, and the associated oil tank+oil.

[brant]

2.0/6 with twin plugs and 906 cams...

the sound:
hallet race

[horizontally-opposed]

2.0/6 with twin plugs and 906 cams...

the sound:
hallet race

Yeah, that sounds insane.

A lot of people love the sound of the 2.2, and I am one of them (and was long before I became biased...), but there is just something about the even smaller 2.0 six. I noticed it even in a dead stock 1965 911 driven spiritedly by Peter Falk. Just elegant and luxurious and sporting and cool....

And then you have the race versions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif)

[porschetub]

Mine is a 2.4 S heads, Weber’s with mod Solex cams which I built about three years ago.

First of all I built it from the 2.4 T motor that was already in the car, so there was no thought of buying another motor. Probably true for many people.

Second I just love the nature of the smaller displacement motors - the way they sound, the way they rev. I think that it just fits the nature of the car. These are vintage Porsche’s after all.

I run a stock 914-4 side shifter, and again a real nice match up.

I have tracked the car once, just to see how it ran. It did fine vs a variety of Caymans, boxster, SC vintage 911’s.

How freakin fast do you want to go anyway? This thing is a pretty quick little street car that is just a blast to drive on the street. And it has plenty of torque.

No oil cooler necessary

I drive it a lot - two or three times a week, that probably equates to 1500 miles a year. Even if I built a crap motor and the mag cases shit the bed after 20,000 miles (neither seems likely) I will be long gone by then.

So why NOT build a nice quick, vintage small displacement motor? For our use, nothing wrong with them at all. In fact it is the essence of what made Porsche so viscerally desirable and mythical back in the day. Yes it does feel just right for me too.

I’ve got a “spare” mag motor with everything I need to build a 2.2 S motor and will do that long before I search out a “more durable, stronger” 3 liter. These things are toys, not long haul diesel semi trucks.

This Discussion makes me want to go out in the garage and start the thing just for grins.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) best answer yet,makes you think more about power to weight when you compare say a 2.2 against a 3.2 with front cooler .
Anyone ever weighed the cooler and all the other parts needed I wonder.

[mepstein]

Mine is a 2.4 S heads, Weber’s with mod Solex cams which I built about three years ago.

First of all I built it from the 2.4 T motor that was already in the car, so there was no thought of buying another motor. Probably true for many people.

Second I just love the nature of the smaller displacement motors - the way they sound, the way they rev. I think that it just fits the nature of the car. These are vintage Porsche’s after all.

I run a stock 914-4 side shifter, and again a real nice match up.

I have tracked the car once, just to see how it ran. It did fine vs a variety of Caymans, boxster, SC vintage 911’s.

How freakin fast do you want to go anyway? This thing is a pretty quick little street car that is just a blast to drive on the street. And it has plenty of torque.

No oil cooler necessary

I drive it a lot - two or three times a week, that probably equates to 1500 miles a year. Even if I built a crap motor and the mag cases shit the bed after 20,000 miles (neither seems likely) I will be long gone by then.

So why NOT build a nice quick, vintage small displacement motor? For our use, nothing wrong with them at all. In fact it is the essence of what made Porsche so viscerally desirable and mythical back in the day. Yes it does feel just right for me too.

I’ve got a “spare” mag motor with everything I need to build a 2.2 S motor and will do that long before I search out a “more durable, stronger” 3 liter. These things are toys, not long haul diesel semi trucks.

This Discussion makes me want to go out in the garage and start the thing just for grins.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) best answer yet,makes you think more about power to weight when you compare say a 2.2 against a 3.2 with front cooler .
Anyone ever weighed the cooler and all the other parts needed I wonder.

I didn't weigh mine but I bet the 22' of braided line, cooler, fittings and extras don't add more than 15lbs. Add some weight for oil but there's also a little more oil capacity. There are lots of ways to save some weight; lids and bumpers, lightweight batteries and high torque starters. Early doors, light carpet and sound deadening material, lighter muffler and headers etc. With the right suspension and alignment, these cars shouldn't feel heavy, even with a big engine. They can be driven differently. With a strong engine, you can steer with the throttle.

Once while waiting on a plane at the airport, I played around with weight reduction on my stock '71. I came up with 300lbs on paper. Less than $3K in cost. That would be a 15% reduction and change the power to weight ratio of the 2000lb, 75 hp car. Add a very easy to build 120hp 4 cylinder and you have a pretty fun car for not much money. There's many ways to skin this cat.