Top 10 Slowest Sports Cars

9) 1973 Porsche 914

Suggested By: dogisbadob

0-60: 12.5

1/4 Mile: 18.1 (at 74mph)

Why we want one anyway: "The 914 is no sports car. Not enough power." This wasn't written by some jaded auto journalist, spoiled by the speed of modern family cars. This was written by Motor Magazine in 1973. It meant something to be underpowered back then.

Regardless of its lack of oomph, these little mid-engined ‘70s Porsches look like nothing else on the road, they're affordable, and they'll keep you entertained on a twisting road, just so long as there isn't too steep an incline.

I would agree with that. On stockish four cylinders and even modified ones, the gas pedal doesn't control the level of speed just the level of noise coming out the back.

This car has aged well. If I crashed mine I'd build another. Besides,,,

it's a momentum car.

Opinions

True...It doesn't chnage my mnd!

So are we upset that we made the list or the fact that we only made number 9?

The nice thing about having one of the best handling cars ever, is that you can just build an engine and SMOKE 'EM... I went by a Mazda 3 yesterday and he was apparently offended by my speed. He tried to catch me. But he couldn't keep up with the 9th slowest sports car in history...

Really? 0-60: 12.5 seconds and 1/4 Mile: 18.1 (at 74mph) doesn't sound much like an "opinion."

Driving one of these teaches you to be smooth in the corners, 'cause when you loose that momentum, it can be hard to get back.

When I make runs up Artist point on Mount Baker, I typically like to be near the back going up so I don't slow anyone down and stall their fun.

On the way down, though, I like to be up front with the faster cars. With gravity's help in acceleration, I can keep up with just about anyone.

I see, because it doesn't make a good dragster its a slow sports car?

Its also a horrible moving van, limousine, ambulance, rock crawler and schooner.

I don't get how your supposed to leave a comment.

No real surprise! Stock they suck in a quarter mile straight shot. BFD! As Rob said a few modifications & you can smoke most everyone. Of course my v8 is just a minor upgrade

In the April 1988 issue of Car and Driver, they tested a '73 2.0 and found that it did 0 to 60 in 8.6s and the 1/4 mile in 16.6s at 81 mph.

I remember reading that. I smelled a rat then too... I'm betting that after 15 years someone had the opportunity to modify things just a bit. 2056 probably... They were considerably hampered by their exhaust systems as they came from the factory. Particularly the later cars. Running them hot took care of some of the emission standard goal. It's pretty easy to get 120HP at the flywheel out of the stockish motor with bolt-ons.

........But a 914 doesn't have to slow down at the end of the dragstrip to make the turn to the return road.

Knowing C&D they probably revved it to near red line and then side-stepped the clutch. Here's the article.

This is precisely the motivation behind my build. Well, not necessarily ALL the motivation - there's always gonna be someone faster/crazier/sunk more $ than you, so my philosophy is based really on taking this platform about as far as I (and Joe) can go.

Just make it what it was & enjoy it. I don't hear anyone bitching about a TR2, which was a skug, but never knew it.

Who cares ?

It's a lot more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow

I remember when the 1980 Vette came out Hot Rod magizine had to find a water puddle to do a burnout for the cover. The thing was so gutless it couldn't spin one tire on dry pavement. They actually bitched about the automagic trans only deal. Today we have 650HP crappy handling 'sports' cars - at least now they have brakes.

It occurs to me once again, after reading the Jalopnik article, that the definition of "sports car" is nebulous at best, and clearly skewed when comparing the roads and driving styles/habits of people in different countries and continents. Stats can be more valuable with respect to muscle cars vs. those that can be more valuable with respect to sports cars ... well, I guess in my opinion, straight-line acceleration is all about the former and how a car keeps its momentum is all about the latter.

I'm still going with a tweaked 3.2, mind you.

Aw Pat. Who cares? Really? Most everyone. There's more to sex than the missionary position. It's all good but you can almost always make it better.

I laughed about Bedard's line that the engine sounded like a mini stamping plant, precisely what I thought when I fired up my cold engine for the first time...

All the competition at the time was junk. Everything out of England & Italy was garbage. The 914 was & is a quality well built car.

Try driving a Type 1 VW bus with 36 hp.

The 914 is fast !

I would like to, but I'll probably never have the opportunity.

Fact is........

In the 60's and 70's most Muscle cars stock from the factory ran the quarter in 15 seconds and 14 seconds was fast. The HP's were as much as 300% higher then the 914. Besides that, the four speed H Shift pattern vs. the 914 5 speed pattern enough said....Apples and Oranges.

However, Motor Trend! June 1970 IMPORT Car of the Year, First year for this tribute....ten pages with pictures, all about the 914.

IIRC that 1973 road test was of a California detuned & smog control ladened 1.7L, so they tested the "dog" of the 914 world, and even with that it was faster than the MG Midget, VW Ghia & a few other underpowered sports cars.

Not even a CA 1.7 914 was the slowest!

Momentum car ? Absolutely. Back when I raced karts my favorite class was the Yamaha KT100 which had no big power. Being smooth and keeping cornering speeds up was the trick to winning. The 914 is just like a KT100. Driving my teener smooth I have no problem keeping up with some significant much higher powered cars in the canyons. Not a sports car ? I strongly disagree.

I agree with keeping the momentum up and learning to drive smooth, be hell a stockish 73 2.0 can't even keep up with a poor little Miata. Porsche could have done a better job with the engine, probably without spending a whole lot more money and cranking the price of the car up. But heaven forbid we offend the world dominated by the 911? Maybe if Porsche had gotten past that 911 hang up, Porsche would be building more midengined cars and less rear engined cars.

How good would the 914 have been back in the day if it was the premier model instead of the 911?

Yeah baby! 914 on top, ride em cowgirl!!!

80hp and 2000lbs - does not equal a good power to weight ratio.

that said - 200hp to 2100lbs does : ))

Suspension work came first but its funny about that horsepower thing. I loved the 2.7E spec engine but love the 993 engine more, even with the extra weight. A couple of hours after driving around I was (and remain) convinced that another 150hp will be about right. We'll see how long that lasts...

Just 'cause I have it doesn't mean I have to use it!

I suppose a "sports car" is all about straight line performance? It seems the originator of this story line is unfamilier with the concept of the autocross.
Though the 1.7 often competed in a different class than did the 2.0, the low end 914 often turned quicker times than 912s, BMW 3 series, and any number of Alfas.
These were all totally stock vehicles, and yes, this was back in the late '70s.

The 914s forte is balance and handling, but of course, all of us here know that. And applying that strength on the road, or on the autocross course, is the fun that we all have with our cars.

Paul