If you have a 3.2 L Build would you still drive a 2 L or 1.7 L car in the garage? Options

[Tdskip]

Asking for a friend, this is a kind of ridiculous question given what’s going on in the world ....

Let’s imagine that this person had a civilized 3.2 L build, good manners and not high strong or overly jittery. Let us further imagine that this person also had a similarly civilized to your car and 1.7 L car, and just to make this a bit more apples to apples that those were also decent street cars that had good manners and we’re not overly tuned or jittery. Basically let’s assume that all three have stock interiors and shift decently and compliance suspensions etc. last assumption is that they all have a similar body condition so basically removing the variables except engine.

I know that a couple people here have multiple cars so there may be some first-hand experience with this question, but yes, trying to figure out if my 1973 1.7l and/or 2.0L car will end up sitting idle once the 3.2L is up and running.

Thanks in advance for the thoughts and hope everybody had a good week .

[thelogo]

Think about it . circa 1970s daily commute , grocery getter the 1.7 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif)

Modern day same truth still applies . if you want the car for pleasure ... A 3.2 with that 11blade fan spinning is more for pleasure ( no replacement for displacement) . but you dont really need all that for going to walgreens or a breakfeast joint .

1.7 is the most user friendly platform in a mid engine cars . does just about everything well . 1st timers can handle its quirkyness and good drivers can make it hum



3.2 . you always need to be prepared to stop quickly and its just a hassel constantly trying to stay under 100mph (IMG:style_emoticons/default/pray.gif) 3.2 in the wrong hands = widow maker
1.7 in the wrong hands ....pretty harmless


And maintence cost /6 vs 4 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif) i think you already know how that turns out

[Steve]

Think about it . circa 1970s daily commute , grocery getter the 1.7 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif)

Modern day same truth still applies . if you want the car for pleasure ... A 3.2 with that 11blade fan spinning is more for pleasure ( no replacement for displacement) . but you dont really need all that for going to walgreens or a breakfeast joint .

1.7 is the most user friendly platform in a mid engine cars . does just about everything well . 1st timers can handle its quirkyness and good drivers can make it hum



3.2 . you always need to be prepared to stop quickly and its just a hassel constantly trying to stay under 100mph (IMG:style_emoticons/default/pray.gif) 3.2 in the wrong hands = widow maker
1.7 in the wrong hands ....pretty harmless


And maintence cost /6 vs 4 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif) i think you already know how that turns out

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)
Most modern cars are faster than a 3.2 914. Are you driving a Prius? Most modern cars have over 200hp. A 3.2 is not that fast. A modern BMW or Mustang is faster and more dangerous power wise. I do all my own maintenance work, so maintenance on my 3.2 is cheap. 3.2 DME injection is much easier to troubleshoot than 914 fuel injection. I have Boxster brakes on all four corners, so stopping is not a problem, but a modern car will stop better with Anti Lock Brakes. I also have no problems staying under a 100. The main benefit of a 3.2 is getting there quicker and more torque. My 3.2 engine is a 1984 engine, never overhauled and has over 300,000 miles on it. I think I am getting my moneys worth out of it. If you want exotic car performance you need at least a 3.6.

[thelogo]

Think about it . circa 1970s daily commute , grocery getter the 1.7 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif)

Modern day same truth still applies . if you want the car for pleasure ... A 3.2 with that 11blade fan spinning is more for pleasure ( no replacement for displacement) . but you dont really need all that for going to walgreens or a breakfeast joint .

1.7 is the most user friendly platform in a mid engine cars . does just about everything well . 1st timers can handle its quirkyness and good drivers can make it hum



3.2 . you always need to be prepared to stop quickly and its just a hassel constantly trying to stay under 100mph (IMG:style_emoticons/default/pray.gif) 3.2 in the wrong hands = widow maker
1.7 in the wrong hands ....pretty harmless


And maintence cost /6 vs 4 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif) i think you already know how that turns out

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)
Most modern cars are faster than a 3.2 914. Are you driving a Prius? Most modern cars have over 200hp. A 3.2 is not that fast. A modern BMW or Mustang is faster and more dangerous power wise. I do all my own maintenance work, so maintenance on my 3.2 is cheap. 3.2 DME injection is much easier to troubleshoot than 914 fuel injection. I have Boxster brakes on all four corners, so stopping is not a problem, but a modern car will stop better with Anti Lock Brakes. I also have no problems staying under a 100. The main benefit of a 3.2 is getting there quicker and more torque. My 3.2 engine is a 1984 engine, never overhauled and has over 300,000 miles on it. I think I am getting my moneys worth out of it. If you want exotic car performance you need at least a 3.6.

Hey . lets get something stright i dont drive no prius. Its a ( scion xb) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grouphug.gif) so slower

And if i had /6 conversion i would want it long gearing not quick acceleration

And of course a new m3 s faster but still not many out there faster then a 3.2 conversion that are rear or mid engine (IMG:style_emoticons/default/poke.gif)

Ive seen 1 new alfa ? I think it was a alfa 4c .
( pos )basically
The guy had to really work to pass me .

And then he had to adjust his rear view from all the reflections of his gold chains (IMG:style_emoticons/default/poke.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)