Which would you choose?, Subie w/325 hp or 2.8 massive IV with 225 hp Options

[Jake Raby]

I agree that above the 220 HP level "other" engines may be a more suitable choice for the 914...

At that level an engine making 55 HP/ cylinder is on the ragged edge N/A..

Perhaps in a couple of years, after we have fully developed the 2.8 and 2.9L engines that have already made 250 HP N/A things might change..

The "Mighty Spyder" engine I built in 2006 made 265 HP as only a 2.4L engine using our dated twin plug arrangement.. That engine revved past 8,500 RPM as a street engine and I am working to apply roller cam technology to that combo as well.. Its one of my favorite combos at 69mm stroke and 105.7mm bore with a 235 CFM twin plug head.

We'll see what the future holds..

One thing is for sure- bigger isn't better.

[michaelt55]

I figured I'd chime in as a person who has owned a Raby engine and one who has a V8 in his 914. I sold my Raby engine because I wanted a little more umph and knew at the time I could not justify buying a bigger engine and I was getting a killer deal on the V8. Did I like Jake's engine? Sure did... Would I buy one at a later time when my kids are out of college? Hell yes...especially for my kit car. I have also seen the customer loyalty that Jake fosters and the way over the top "tech support" he gives. So I would pick the 4 (2056 or larger) from Jake over the Subie due to that type of support. Am I a "Jake supporter"? Yep..reckon I am... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer3.gif) In fact if he keeps working on the boxster type engine I may go to that...

Michael

[LarryR]

I agree that above the 220 HP level "other" engines may be a more suitable choice for the 914...

Your 2270 probably gets pretty close to that? 220? I know I was extremely impressed by the one running around here.

I would also like to just add one more thing about adding a 3.6 since I may have added the illusion that you could have a 3.6 for 6500. The answer is yes you can have the engine for that but then look at the conversion costs:

915 trans 1500
wevo kit 2000
linkage 620
eng tin 420
oil tank 1000
oil cooler 1500 (with lines)
mounts 500
flywheel 500
clutch pkg 1000


so 8640 and that is the short list there is another couple of grand I am forgetting. Then big brakes, suspension etc...

[Jake Raby]

Mike, thanks for the post..

The Boxster and 996 engines are our future... But you can trust that the funds they;l generate will go right back into aircooled development :-)

Glad I was able to please you and exceed your expectations.

[CliffBraun]

Best choice of all for a 914-4 owner that plans street and some AX is to just go with a nice 2056 and pass on the drag racing. Why not keep thae car as close to stock as possible to retain reliability that was engineered by true engineers rather than barn yard bandits.

As a newbie here, I probably don't add much weight to this discussion, however I'm an ME in training and a big part of that is understanding the trade offs. In my 914 I ended up going for as low mass as possible (also low polar moment), so I was torn between a built Type I and a Type IV. I ended up going with the Type IV because of cost and because of classing.

I've no experience with Jake's engines, but I am suspicious of someone promising those gains and using such language. Anyone who shadow boxes about the engines they build (2.8 type IV is good/ we don't build those often, so you can't use them against us) is kinda stringing you along. Promising two different things based on different engines is kinda a misleading way to do business.

Anyways, I don't mean to rip on Raby, double speak kinda irritates me ever since I read 1984 though. My planned set up is a 2.0 with slightly longer connecting rods, and nicer internals to produce a great deal more torque without sacrificing reliability.

I decided not to go with a 2.4 (not even a 2.8!) because of reliability issues, Andrew broke a 2.4 at an autocross, and I didn't want the slightest chance of that happening. That said, I would be nervous as hell with a 2.8....

Much less one built by someone with a God complex.

I'd be happy to give more details about what I'm building provided the people building it don't have a problem with that. I am very much of the opinion that the advantage in the 914 is being able to maintain velocity through corners, rather than putting a big flippin' engine in it. Ever seen a V8 conversion win an autox?

Just one PS, your response to Chris' comment is complete shit, the entire thread is about a big Type IV, and you comment "Thats why we don't do that. Most all our engines make their power with a 96mm bore that slides right into the stock, non machined case."

To me that's hugely misleading, again, the entire thread is "big IV vs other engine" and you're responding with how the small Type IV is great....

Yeah, most of your engines don't do that, but that's what he's talking about building; I could give a damn if your 1.8 produces infinity horses reliably; a 2.8(especially based on the same case) is an entirely different story.

Incidentally, my no holds barred 914 is a Pauter engine running on methanol, as far as I've read nothing Raby builds can come close. You have to design (or copy) mounts, but it's still better than paying a ton for snake oil that bolts to your stock mounts.



Lemme know how I'm wrong so I can fix myself.

[PeeGreen 914]

Best choice of all for a 914-4 owner that plans street and some AX is to just go with a nice 2056 and pass on the drag racing. Why not keep thae car as close to stock as possible to retain reliability that was engineered by true engineers rather than barn yard bandits.

As a newbie here, I probably don't add much weight to this discussion, however I'm an ME in training and a big part of that is understanding the trade offs. In my 914 I ended up going for as low mass as possible (also low polar moment), so I was torn between a built Type I and a Type IV. I ended up going with the Type IV because of cost and because of classing.

I've no experience with Jake's engines, but I am suspicious of someone promising those gains and using such language. Anyone who shadow boxes about the engines they build (2.8 type IV is good/ we don't build those often, so you can't use them against us) is kinda stringing you along. Promising two different things based on different engines is kinda a misleading way to do business.

Anyways, I don't mean to rip on Raby, double speak kinda irritates me ever since I read 1984 though. My planned set up is a 2.0 with slightly longer connecting rods, and nicer internals to produce a great deal more torque without sacrificing reliability.

I decided not to go with a 2.4 (not even a 2.8!) because of reliability issues, Andrew broke a 2.4 at an autocross, and I didn't want the slightest chance of that happening. That said, I would be nervous as hell with a 2.8....

Much less one built by someone with a God complex.

I'd be happy to give more details about what I'm building provided the people building it don't have a problem with that. I am very much of the opinion that the advantage in the 914 is being able to maintain velocity through corners, rather than putting a big flippin' engine in it. Ever seen a V8 conversion win an autox?

Just one PS, your response to Chris' comment is complete shit, the entire thread is about a big Type IV, and you comment "Thats why we don't do that. Most all our engines make their power with a 96mm bore that slides right into the stock, non machined case."

To me that's hugely misleading, again, the entire thread is "big IV vs other engine" and you're responding with how the small Type IV is great....

Yeah, most of your engines don't do that, but that's what he's talking about building; I could give a damn if your 1.8 produces infinity horses reliably; a 2.8(especially based on the same case) is an entirely different story.

Incidentally, my no holds barred 914 is a Pauter engine running on methanol, as far as I've read nothing Raby builds can come close. You have to design (or copy) mounts, but it's still better than paying a ton for snake oil that bolts to your stock mounts.



Lemme know how I'm wrong so I can fix myself.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) You're picking some fights with some rather experienced 914 guys that DO know their stuff... This could prove to be interesting (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happy11.gif)

[LarryR]

Just one PS, your response to Chris' comment is complete shit, the entire thread is about a big Type IV, and you comment "Thats why we don't do that. Most all our engines make their power with a 96mm bore that slides right into the stock, non machined case."

To me that's hugely misleading, again, the entire thread is "big IV vs other engine" and you're responding with how the small Type IV is great....

Yeah, most of your engines don't do that, but that's what he's talking about building; I could give a damn if your 1.8 produces infinity horses reliably; a 2.8(especially based on the same case) is an entirely different story.

Lemme know how I'm wrong so I can fix myself.

I think that a couple of us introduced the idea of a smaller displacement type IV due to budget consciousness.

As for engine builders having uber confidence in their product I dont think I have ever met a really good one that didnt (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

As for the rest of that I think I'll just say no need for all that venom ... Not really the best way to introduce yourself by insulting the folks that have been around here the longest.

[Jake Raby]

Cliffbraun,
If I were you I'd get a few more than 22 posts under my belt before making such a post. People might take you a little more seriously that have been on these boards since they were started... At this point you just seem like someone that hasn't done their homework on what we create and wants to throw more fuel on the fire with your opinion. You have zero first hand experience with my creations and your knowledge of who and what I am is probably limited to this post only.

As far as the "God" approach, well that type of attitude is what pisses off guys like Grant and thats why I like to employ it, when necessary. It really gets them going and it has obviously has worked with you as well. Meet me in person or talk to me on the phone and you'll never guess that the person you have read about here is actually me..

But with you being an ME in training, we aren't supposed to get along anyway. I look forward to future debates with you :-)

At any rate..

My post to Chris that was "pure shit" was meant to explain that an engine as large as a 2.8 is not necessary to make a broad power band with tons of useable power while tipping the scales at over 200HP from a 2316cc power plant, on pump gas.

One of the biggest issues we have to contend with from a consulting standpoint are guys that make the engines too large to be efficient. For years the idea was to build the engine as big as possible and it would make power, but thats just not the case. Those big engines are very difficult to equip with heads and exhaust that will be effective enough to create power or to put that power where it needs to be in the operating range. This is why 95% of my engine combinations utilize the 96mm bore as it provides the best mix of performance, reliability and cost when the sub system requirements are factored into the equation.

To me a "Big 4" is anything beyond a 2056, it doesn't have to use a huge 103 or 105mm bore to make big power.
Now as far as making big power on Alcohol:
We don't build drag race engines and no classes that the TIV competes in will allow the use of Alcohol. Most of the race engines we build are heavily impacted by rules that dictate displacement and the largest "race" engine we build is 2013cc for SCCA E Production. The range is pretty much 1500cc engines for Land Speed Racing (the current 1500cc record is held by RAT power) as well as 1832cc engine for SCCA F Production.

My focus always has and always will be on street engines that are capable of being dual purpose competition engines when the driver wants to attend an AX or a DE event. We turn down competition engines on a near daily basis because they are both not our specialty and they also take up a ton of our time that can be used to develop new technology for the MassIVe 4 street engine or to help educate the following on the proper methods of manipulating or tuning their own engine.

That said, the 2.8 engine thats been the topic of this thread is more than likely mis-configured and makes less power than a properly enhanced 2.3L engine. Thats the way the ball generally bounces.

[grantsfo]

I'd be happy to give more details about what I'm building provided the people building it don't have a problem with that. I am very much of the opinion that the advantage in the 914 is being able to maintain velocity through corners, rather than putting a big flippin' engine in it. Ever seen a V8 conversion win an autox?

Yes please more details! I know we have some awesome T4 developers here on West Coast but they have profesionalism to stay off public 914 forums and focus on their work. I'd love to start hearing about other builders and what they are doing with the T4.

There certainly is the money and enthusiasm on the West Coast for a premier T4 builder to emerge. I'd go to a T4 if I could find somone I could trust to buid a motor for me in California. I have the T4 case I was going to use for a Raby motor a couple years ago sitting in my garage.

Now that I'm focusing primarily on AX I may go back to T4 again. But I want something that will put out 200 HP and rev to 7500 RPM.

This post has been edited by grantsfo: Jul 3 2008, 09:35 AM

[Chris Hamilton]

Yes please more details! I know we have some awesome T4 developers here on West Coast but they have profesionalism to stay off public 914 forums and focus on their work. I'd love to start hearing about other builders and what they are doing with the T4.

He's getting a rabbit-rods 2.0 built by my dad. He had quite a bit of budget for the project, so we spent quite a while playing with various ideas. Type 1 engines, Type 4 engines, v8s, 6-cylinders, inline 4 cylinders, and the most cost effective solution ended up being the long-rods 2-liter. It uses the stock mounts ( obviously ), runs on pump gas, never leaks, never overheats, revs to 8,000 , and should last him a good 10-20 years of daily driving. The engine ends up being wider than a normal 2.0, but you can still adjust the valves with it in the car.

[james2]

Have you had good luck with the rabbit rods?

I know in type 1 motors they are frown upon because they take so much material from the rod journal. This reduces the overlap on the journals and weakens the crank.

The rabbit rod is only 46mm compared to the stock 50mm size for a type 4 and 55 mm for a type 1

BTW, plenty of people are running the 2 inch ( 50.8mm) chevy ( actually Buick 215 ci) journal in both engines.

Yes please more details! I know we have some awesome T4 developers here on West Coast but they have profesionalism to stay off public 914 forums and focus on their work. I'd love to start hearing about other builders and what they are doing with the T4.

He's getting a rabbit-rods 2.0 built by my dad. He had quite a bit of budget for the project, so we spent quite a while playing with various ideas. Type 1 engines, Type 4 engines, v8s, 6-cylinders, inline 4 cylinders, and the most cost effective solution ended up being the long-rods 2-liter. It uses the stock mounts ( obviously ), runs on pump gas, never leaks, never overheats, revs to 8,000 , and should last him a good 10-20 years of daily driving. The engine ends up being wider than a normal 2.0, but you can still adjust the valves with it in the car.

[Chuck]

When I got my car, I wanted to do a Subie. You have to decide what's important. The 325 HP Subie would be loads of fun... more fun than anyone should be having on the street. This is where the problem comes... you put a Subie in there, and the PCA won't let you play. SCCA puts you in E-Mod with the trailer-riding monsters. If you don't plan on racing, then the Subie would probably be a great street engine... but then, if you don't plan on racing, you don't need 325 HP either...

This is why I changed my mind, and am building a Type IV... 2256cc.

I've got nothing against a Subie conversion, but it wasn't the right fit for me once I thought it through.

I bought my car with the express purpose of doing a suby conversion. I now have a 3.2 six in a crate that will complete the restoration of my GT clone. It is your car but I would list my personal choices as: 1)Porsche 6; 1a) Jake's IV; 2) subie; 3) everything else.

[Jake Raby]

Nothing wrong with Rabbit rods at all... Some of the first big 4s I designed used them.
There are better rods on the market today that use different rod journals that are my choice.

I tend to like longer rods in a TIV as well, retaining a 1.75:1 rod ratio is typically my goal for engines living below 7500 Revs.

The 165 up 2056 uses a 5.325 length rod (Porsche 356 length) coupled to the stock 71mm stroke and a T1 journal for strength.

The Gen2 MassIVe engines larger than 2.8l use a Honda Fit rod journal.. The same for my RS 2100 356 based engine.

We all have different thoughts.. That's what makes an engine have its character.

[grantsfo]

Yes please more details! I know we have some awesome T4 developers here on West Coast but they have profesionalism to stay off public 914 forums and focus on their work. I'd love to start hearing about other builders and what they are doing with the T4.

He's getting a rabbit-rods 2.0 built by my dad. He had quite a bit of budget for the project, so we spent quite a while playing with various ideas. Type 1 engines, Type 4 engines, v8s, 6-cylinders, inline 4 cylinders, and the most cost effective solution ended up being the long-rods 2-liter. It uses the stock mounts ( obviously ), runs on pump gas, never leaks, never overheats, revs to 8,000 , and should last him a good 10-20 years of daily driving. The engine ends up being wider than a normal 2.0, but you can still adjust the valves with it in the car.

What will you guys do for heads? Anything special to get 8000 RPM? Does the Hamilton Engineering AX car rev that high? Wow had no idea those motors were reving so high?

Is the current motor in the Hamilton car only a 2.0? If it is its damn impressive. It runs just as fast as the Raby 2.4 in our area and has way more top end. Its clear that the extra stroke is far better approach. That motor has great torque from what I have seen.

My six is a stroker as well and now that I have figured out exhaust issue just last month it makes great low end power. Hey you notice that my car is a little faster lately?

This post has been edited by grantsfo: Jul 3 2008, 02:56 PM

[SirAndy]

... I really think that there is a point where if you need say 300 hp you should just buy a 3.6 porsche engine ... 993 engines from 8000-12000 (non turbo) ... My 3.6 can still scare the crap out of me even after almost 3 years ...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[Jake Raby]

What will you guys do for heads? Anything special to get 8000 RPM?

Creating an 8,000 RPM 2 liter is a lot easier than an 8,00 RPM 2.4 liter.

Our off the shelf LE 200 heads have enough flow for 8,000 RPM as they flow just a tad less than the E production heads on Kevin Groots engine that revs clear to 8,500 RPM and is stock stroke with a 95mm bore per the SCCA rule book. Thats a 207 HP engine from 2013cc.

The rules have changed in ECTA this year, allowing up to 2015cc from the 2.0 class. This will allow me to build a budget 71X95 bored engine for Land Speed Racing where RPM is everything. I plan on running a very small chambered LE 200 twin plug head, 51mm carbs and see if we can top 155 MPH. That will take 9,000 RPM sustained...

Big engines, especially those with stroke enhancements make their power lower and thats why the 2374 AX combo is so effective. With an 82mm stroke and a 96mm bore that combo really rips in AX.

The stock stroke has lots of benefits, especially since the right rod and piston combo can create an engine more narrow and lighter than stock.

There are many ways to design these engines..

This post has been edited by Jake Raby: Jul 3 2008, 03:42 PM

[michaelt55]

Best choice of all for a 914-4 owner that plans street and some AX is to just go with a nice 2056 and pass on the drag racing. Why not keep thae car as close to stock as possible to retain reliability that was engineered by true engineers rather than barn yard bandits.

As a newbie here, I probably don't add much weight to this discussion, however I'm an ME in training and a big part of that is understanding the trade offs. In my 914 I ended up going for as low mass as possible (also low polar moment), so I was torn between a built Type I and a Type IV. I ended up going with the Type IV because of cost and because of classing.

I've no experience with Jake's engines, but I am suspicious of someone promising those gains and using such language. Anyone who shadow boxes about the engines they build (2.8 type IV is good/ we don't build those often, so you can't use them against us) is kinda stringing you along. Promising two different things based on different engines is kinda a misleading way to do business.

Anyways, I don't mean to rip on Raby, double speak kinda irritates me ever since I read 1984 though. My planned set up is a 2.0 with slightly longer connecting rods, and nicer internals to produce a great deal more torque without sacrificing reliability.

I decided not to go with a 2.4 (not even a 2.8!) because of reliability issues, Andrew broke a 2.4 at an autocross, and I didn't want the slightest chance of that happening. That said, I would be nervous as hell with a 2.8....

Much less one built by someone with a God complex.

I'd be happy to give more details about what I'm building provided the people building it don't have a problem with that. I am very much of the opinion that the advantage in the 914 is being able to maintain velocity through corners, rather than putting a big flippin' engine in it. Ever seen a V8 conversion win an autox?

Just one PS, your response to Chris' comment is complete shit, the entire thread is about a big Type IV, and you comment "Thats why we don't do that. Most all our engines make their power with a 96mm bore that slides right into the stock, non machined case."

To me that's hugely misleading, again, the entire thread is "big IV vs other engine" and you're responding with how the small Type IV is great....

Yeah, most of your engines don't do that, but that's what he's talking about building; I could give a damn if your 1.8 produces infinity horses reliably; a 2.8(especially based on the same case) is an entirely different story.

Incidentally, my no holds barred 914 is a Pauter engine running on methanol, as far as I've read nothing Raby builds can come close. You have to design (or copy) mounts, but it's still better than paying a ton for snake oil that bolts to your stock mounts.



Lemme know how I'm wrong so I can fix myself.

LOL..."God complex" in my field we call that transference. You have a pretty opinionated post so I am going to watch this thread. ME in training? I assume that is mechanical engineer? I own a low cg V8 that weighs the same as a 4, its all aluminum and its pretty stout. I don't run autox but I believe the driver is the biggest asset there. Grant and Jake don't always agree but I like to read their posts to hear what they have to say on a technical level. Grants a great source of info and Jake is always trying to improve his product. You, on the other hand seems sort of angry and out of place here. ....just my 2 cents....

[Chris Hamilton]

What will you guys do for heads? Anything special to get 8000 RPM? Does the Hamilton Engineering AX car rev that high? Wow had no idea those motors were reving so high?

Is the current motor in the Hamilton car only a 2.0? If it is its damn impressive. It runs just as fast as the Raby 2.4 in our area and has way more top end. Its clear that the extra stroke is far better approach. That motor has great torque from what I have seen.

My six is a stroker as well and now that I have figured out exhaust issue just last month it makes great low end power. Hey you notice that my car is a little faster lately?

We're using custom ported 1.8 heads ( no welding or anything crazy ), a stock 2.0 camshaft, Nology ignition system. The rods are longer, but the stroke is still the same as the stock 2.0 ( I think the displacement comes out to 1971cc or so ). The highest we've taken it was once at Santa Rosa where the finish was that sort of off-camber turn right by the exit to the track, and andrew couldn't find any decent place to shift. We have a mallory tach with rev-limiter, and we ended up turning it up to about 8,250.

If you wanna feel it, come ride with me at the next autocross.

Did notice you've been closer to us lately. We thought it must have been our old tires ( we bought them to run the parade 07 ). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[J P Stein]

The Boxster & 996 engines are history. Porsche's new motor ain't gonna use that POS crank saddle that cause them so much trouble. Split case much like the old 9eleben engine with a wet sump from what I hear. WC of course.

[jd74914]

Cliff, lets hear some more about the Paulter rodded beast?

IMHO dyno charts are better than words. Speculation is nice but it only takes you so for. A good ME knows that numbers are good tools when making comparisons . (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)