Check www.ststurbo.com they put it away from the engine. I would think it would have a big turbo lag.

same basic design/idea of how Ben M., iamchappy, and a few others are running thier 914 turbos....people need to quit getting hung up on the "lag" issue...

with things properly tested and designed, even with long, long tubing, one can still have a workable system

Lag can be compensated for with the right combo!

Now, just how are you going to keep the combustion inside the engine??? Head leaks with TIV Turbos are the only reason I don't do more with them...

BUT, LOOK OUT in 2005!

Lag is simply a function of heat loss, not tube length. Long tubes just loose heat faster. If you insulate there will be little lag even if the pipes are long. Remember, pressure change propogation happens at the speed of sound. At 1000ft per second you are not going to notice the difference between a 4ft pipe and a 3ft pipe assuming the same heat loss between them. I have used absolutely no insulating yet and I actually have to TRY to not get on boost. I say that because driving to and from the office I try to stay off of boost for the last two miles of the drive to cool things down. When I'm "on it" the engine is always above 3,000rpm, and I've got 9psi by that point so there is no "lag" to speak of. If I lug it down to 1,500rpm and floor it, then yes, there is lag as the turbo spools up. Boost will ramp-up steadily from 2,300-3,000rpm. I actually like this. The car is very drivable with the torque coming on smoothly at the bottom. When I need serious power I drop to whatever gear puts me at ~3,000rpm or better and the boost is instantanious. So are the smiles.

-Ben M.

ps - and I'm sure Jake is correct regarding combos and head leaks.

An engine girdle?

Can't you rig an adjustable boost controller for the cockpit? My Vortech Blower has that.....

BTW...I got a Crown Type IV turbo kit in a trade for some parts a few years ago....sold it to a guy in Solvang....never heard from him again....assumed he keeled himself....

heh, lag.... just keep the engine revved and you wont worry about lag

never drop below 4000 rpm or so and you wont worry about lag

Nor will you have to worry about heater fans!

If you guys are driving these things lower than 2k/rpms.... I feel sorry for ya..

Jeeees!


M

Nice Old school Crown turbo system, thou I did not care for the design the boast on these was restricted via the boast controller, very inefficient design adds too much heat to the charge. The more modern - Yeah right Wategate is a better choice then yes it is easy to add a dial to the cockpit and watch the parts fly. I don't use them but when my ricer buds want me to add one, I put it on and then rig it to only make the boast gauge go up and down, instead of the computer.

Nobody complains about to much power - they complain when the engine burns, drops parts or punches holes into things! Unless you are racing, and you want to turn down the boast don't think you can tune with a frickin' knob! I see so many badly tuned cars it is not funny.

I have an $80,000 show truck sitting in the garage right now with a super cool built engine a nice blower and Accel fuel injection. It runs like crap and thats why it is here, I am going to reprogram the Accel and get it tuned properly, have to fix the alignment and wipers etc.... This guy spent 80K on a piece of crap that wins shows but you can't drive the dang thing even down a parade line at the show. Yeah he as tons of knobs-on the dash, I am going to gut the and make them into a placebo group when this thing is done. He is paying me to make it run correctly, don't need him jacking it up because he thinks he knows EFI, engines, supercharges, gearing etc... Heck he could not find a shop to do the alignment on this thing, a piece of chalk and a framing square and a plumb bob worked just fine for me. Since the thing is jacked up so high, its not a problem setting everything by measuring with a tape. Can't believe people pay for this crap, I am now back to turning wrenches for a living. No I did not give up the day job - this is beer money

Next project is a GTO no not a ferrari (I wish) engine rebuild on a Pontiac 400 V8, this guy restored it, and left the engine and drive train alone - dang, oh well more money for the holidays. A bug is next - electrical, and the a 914 race car for PCA GT5R, I am becoming the handy man of autos around here. Bring it on Daddy needs a new plasma cutter!

Dang sorry about the rant - MikeZ knows how to turn my knob I guess!

Just gear it like a damn Dirtbike and no sweat!

But you still gota keep the combustion in the chambers fellas......

Thats not easy, even for me.. It can be done, especially if you keep a small bore, that has been my key for making it work....

All successful Turbos we have done thus far used a stock 1700 cylinder bored .5mm to accept a 90.5mm type I piston. Couple that with your flavor of stroke and rod ratio, cam and properly outfitted heads and you have something....

Otherwise it'll look like the fourth of July under your car when those head start flamin under boost!!!!

My most favorite example of this was the customer of another builder that was complaining about oil leaks from his engine.... Thats because the combustion leaks were frying his pushrod tubes and baking the o rings in 50 miles...

I tore it down, built it right, tossed the Turbo on Ebay and the guy has been happy every since and says it makes more power N/A my way than it did Turbo! (But his combo was totally fucked up anyway the first time around)

WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE!



M

Yes, sir.......

That's my point. There is only lag below 3,000rpm and since durring any spirited driving I'm always above that, I never experience lag.

As for longevity, head leaks, etc. Well, I built this on a 1.7 which should give me the best head sealing I can get from a stockish typeIV. The total turbo install cost me $175 (I'm a Root/Malmz sorta guy ). If the engine goes I won't shed any tears. It's been way too much fun already. I'll drop in another $250 1.7 and do it all over again. Unless I've already dove into a Subaru turbo conversion before this motor lets loose. In the mean time I'm going to keep smiling because this thing is a riot.

-Ben M.

Have Fun! You are starting from a solid base. The 1.7 is the best TIV that was built in terms of strength and head sealing..

I know you're right about head sealing issues (even with a 1.7), and I recognize that I'm probably running on borrowed time. I'm sure having fun though while it lasts.

-Ben M.

Hell, I take risks all the time, thats how i foundout about the issues!

Run the damn thing till parts are hanging out and have as much fun as you can!

When you want to get serious about boost get a Subaru motor or something else Japanese. They can handle a ton of boost in stock form.

Subaru turbo was the long-term plan but I wasn't ready to undertake such a big project yet. I figured the typeIV turbo would be a quick/cheap way to get me by for a while. I was so fed-up with the gutless stock 1.7 that I had to do something. So I threw together the junkyard turbo in two weekends and I've been all smiles ever since. Now that the 914 isn't my daily driver I can get serious about doing a long-term project like the turbo Subaru and there's not a time-crunch to get it back on the road like there's always been in the past.

-Ben M.

what would be a reasonable amount of boost for a stock 2.0 type-4? any upgraded head gaskets or head/cylinder mods to help hold in boost?

That stock cam is the big limiting factor, since it bleeds so little CR away..

I'd run no more the 6 PSI to be safe...

No head gasket is gonna help ya here...

I'm working on an inconel filled O ring for the cylinders to cure this issue, but only testing will show if it will work with a cast iron cylinder. They were designed by Porsche for the 102mm cylinder which was of course aluminum..

Its worth a try!

any cam suggestions to help? 6 psi seems like such a dull number. is 9 to 10 psi really unreasonable?

That cam really does suck..

How are you feeding this puppy??? What EFI or carbs??

i've been looking into megasquirt pefi with ignition control. i'd like to get some feedback
from experienced turboer's before i invest my time and hopefully not too much money into a turboed teener.

HUH?

What I do??? <_<

My Vortech Blower runs well on my Mopar 360....it's in a sleeper Dodge Dakota and runs about 8psi normally....except for the shittyass gas mileage it runs great. AT about 70 on the freeway...I can click the electric ODrive off push up the boost controller and that thing puls like a strippedass ape up to 140mph.

I love it when some yokel rides my butt on the onramp and I pull away like he was stuck in a mudbog.

I'm sorry I have to sell it....too many cars and trucks and now that the remodel is "almost" over....I need to thin the herd.

Yeah the stock engine is not raelly suited for the turbo upgrade. You might look into running a CIS unit for ease of fuel delivery. A built stock motor can handle 14 at most. After that the heads start flexing and then you get really cool things (or not so cool).

I am planning on running 15 on a daily basis but it ain't and aircooled engine either. Supercharged boost levels and turbo charged boost levels really have little in common. In my opinion there ain't much point in building a turbo setup to run anything less than 10psi. But that is what makes this a great country. Opinions.

my turbo install is similar to Bens, cheap and if something goes "boom", not a big deal...motor cost was 250 and the turbo was 250....i'm not looking for it to produce exhilerating hp numbers, I just want a little more so when i do drive the car to work, I don't get passed by diesel trucks going up Vasco Rd (not sure of the incline angle, but I have to drop down a gear in all of my vehicles except when driving the 911 just to keep going the speed limit)

Well, that Crown Engineering drawing brings back some memories, for sure! That's the one I had on my '73. Yea, I never liked that boost controller either. I found it better to control boost with mild exhaust restrictions if the turbo was sized properly.

Keeping boost around 6-7 psi is a nice balance between reliability and performance, IMO. As you go higher, the diminishing returns of stressed components, spark timing management, fuel management, etc, become extraneous requiring a purpose built motor. Those high boost Japanses motors were built to take it from the start, along with the appropriate management systems and intercoolers so the comparison is apples to........ Sounds like Jake has done some TIV turbo work; nothing like experience to get a real handle on things. Also, don't loose sight of the fundamantals.

No lag at 3000RPM? RPM doesnt matter nearly as much as load. If you were travelling down hill at 3000 in a no load condition and nailed it, you would get lag. I'd look at some type of bypass valve to help on-again throttle response. FWIW.

Andy

well i have to do a valve adjust every 3,000 miles, so i'll just retorque the heads at the same time, every time.

Better drill holes in the upper tin and get plugs for them. Otherwise you can't get to the top head bolts.

Whoa, whoa, hold on a minute.

before we all contribute any more to an urban myth, let's clear something up.
There are two very different things we mave managed to mix up here, turbo lag and boost threshold.

Lag is the time it takes for the turbo to spool up enough to develop boost pressure (when in boost threshold).
Threshold is the rpm range of the engine at which a turbo system will develop boost.
They are not the same thing at all.

Even at 6000 rpm at partial throttle, it will take time to build boost pressure when the loud pedal is mashed. Hopefully not very much time, but there will be a delay. THAT IS LAG.

If you nail the throttle at 1500 rpm, you wont develop boost until the engine revs up to a certain point, usually anywhere from 2500 to 3500 rpm. THAT IS THRESHOLD.

Early 930 turbos are notorious for having excessive lag, but that is not entirely correct.
A large part of the blame should be put on threshold which is exaggerated by the extremely long gearing of the 4 speed transaxle. It takes a long time for the engine to rev up into threshold so it can build boost. That isn't lag at all.

Having a remote mounted turbo will work fine, but the extra length will add to the lag a little.
It takes time to pressurize a pipe. The longer the pipe, the longer it takes to pressurize it.
While the threshold will only be increased slightly, the lag and the time it takes to build full boost will both go up.
Prolly not enough to stress about, but they will go up.
Longer pipes mean cooler pipes unless thay are well insulated, cooler (exhaust) pipes means less energy and efficiency, but again proly not enough to stress over.

I see nothing seriously wrong with their product, it prolly works fine but I cracked up when I read some of the marketing BS on that web page. They claim that the remote turbo system is as efficent and has no more lag, but then they turn around and say the turbo runs 500 degrees cooler. Who are they trying to buffalo, a bunch of spikey haired Honda drivers?
Real gearheads who understand turbos, and anyone with half a clue about physics will see through their BS in a second.

I ran my type 4 turbo at 6 to 7 psi all the time, occasionally at 9 psi (which the engine didn't like as much, too much heat) without any head gaskets installed and never had a head leak.
I did lap the surfaces together on assembly that's all I did.
I must have been lucky.

A retorque of the heads isn't what will cure it..

Its a design issue, and material issue that is intensified by boost......

Retorquing the heads, especially tighter than stock will make the issue worse....

i read in a tech article somewhere that it's good to retorque the heads to spec when you do a valve adjust. don't know if that is really necessary, but it didn't seem like it would hurt anything.

6 psi boost is not boring, it is very fun and very surprising. 7 is more fun, anything much more than that is pushing it unless it is engineered very well.
Drive a type 4 with 6 psi boost before forming an opinion.
Don't get into the ricer trap of more is better, bench racing doesn't do any good with turbos and type 4s.
The stock type 4 cam is very well suited for a turbo application because it is so mild and had a relatively low overlap. Turbo engines don't like wild cams.
With a turbo at 6 psi boost and a stock cam a 2 liter type 4 will happily rev to well over 6000 rpm without falling off. It will pull hard until the valve springs float so it takes some discipline.
First time Mikey rode in my turbo at an AX he asked, "doesn't this thing have a rev limiter"?


Re-torquing head studs after the engine has operated for a length of time is...... well it isn't accurate.

Torque in this case is the amount of twisting force required to put a predetermined stretch on a fastener and is EXTREMELY dependent on friction. It isn't how much you twist, it's how much you stretch the stud that really matters.

When you build an engine you put some sort of lubricant on clean head stud threads and the washers, right?
When you retorque the head studs do you take the nuts off, clean all the threads and washers and apply new lubricant?

I have a spreadsheet put out by HYTORQ that lists friction factors for many different type of thread lubricants, even for dry.
According to the spreadsheet you would have to use almost twice the torque with clean dry threads to acheive the same stretch as when using never-sieze on clean threads. If the threads are rusty, that number will skyrocket. If you get peace of mind by doing it, great. Just remember that the numbers you are using are basically meaningless and won't do a bit of good except maybe tell you if a head nut came loose.

thanks for the info, sammy. i'll save head torquing for a rebuild. the difference between
an old and new bolt/nut is something i didn't really think about.

I should clarify something, on a six I would recommend "checking" the torque on the head nuts every time you have the valve covers off, just in case you have a stud pulling out (mag case) or have a dilavar stud break (3 liter on). You wouldn't be checking to see if the stud is torqued to spec but would be checking to make sure it didn't come loose for some reason. I suppose the same thing would work on a type 4, but I haven't personally had any type 4 head nuts come loose and I haven't heard of type 4 head studs breaking so I don't know if there would be any benefit. It wouldn't hurt anything except maybe the skin on some knuckles.

I'm just going to have to make a video and/or take a few of you for a ride. Sammy's right on all counts. The final word on my turbo is it cost $175 (+$500 PEFI already on the car) and it's an absolute riot.

Restating some of the specs after reading Sammy's posts:
Boost threshold is 2,300rpm
Lag is there but not an issue.
At a steady 3,000rpm cruise you can nail the throttle and boost is almost instantanious, peaking by 4,000-4,500rpm.
Already have a blowoff valve, and it works great. $19 Saab OEM "overrun valve" from FLAPS. Even makes that nice mid-shift "PPPSSSSssss!" noise the kids all like.

-Ben M.

Yep....cheap bastard refused to buy a aftermarket CDI.....

There was a 95mm Ni-Resist ring available for the 930 engine I beieve. If you run it you should mill a receiver groove in the cylinder.

Boost is a measure of restriction nothing more. What is more important is cfm and pressure ratio. If I run 10psi and flow 500cfm the intake charge will not be heated as much as it would should I have to run 15-20 to get the same numbers.

Turbo engines like lots of Lift, which the stock cams do not have. It really doesn't have enough duration to make a good turbo cam either. The Lobe centers are also wrong. The stock cam sucks.

Most of the turbo kits can't handle extended boost runs. While most homemade kits are good for an autocross or short highway run they can't handle running bosst for an extended time. If I remember correctly Sammy's yellow car would overheat the oil after anything more than a short autocross run. This coming from Mark.

I am glad you turboed a 914 and I am glad it is working for you well. I personlly can't see doing all I would have to do to a T4 to make it a boost happy motor. Not worth all the trade offs and limitations.

Hmmm, I guess you've been reading different books than I have.
According to Bob Tomlinson in turbomania (a book about turbocharging air cooled flat 4 engines) he states that long duration is a negative because it allows some of the charge to go out the exhaust with no benefit. He says anything over 270 degrees is too much. Corky Bell agrees with that statement in principle. I can't say much more except I've BTDT with good results.

BTW I never, ever had a problem with the oil getting hot in the turbo and I ran it much harder than short AX laps. I never, ever saw the temp guage get near the red zone. Maybe it did for Mark, I'll have to check with him on that. Last I remember he did say that the oil temp got near the red mark during a rally in the middle of a very hot Atlanta summer. That is the only time I ever, ever heard of that engine getting hot. If he was having problems he didn't mention it.
This car did not have anything more than a stock oil cooler. Maybe if you increase the horsepower a bunch you might need an aux. oil cooler? Big surprise there, who woulda thunk? He and I discussed that very point before he bought the car. It was one of those things I eventually planned to do but was in no hurry because frankly I felt it did not need one in so Cal.

Can you provide some information to what you used to make the statements on the cam? Particularly higher duration and lobe centers as it applies to air cooled flat 4 engines. I'd be interested in reading that.

Heat generated from boost is heat of compression. Nothing more and it is not flexible. it varies only with density, humidity, etc.
Obvoisly 10 psi will generate less intake temperature than 15 to 20. I don't see your point there.

Have you driven a turbocharged 914 with a type 4 engine?

Others have done it with great sucess, they used the stock cams and had very boost happy motors.
If it works it works.
I'm a little confused at your statement that it takes too much to make a type 4 boost happy. Can you provide more details of what you think it takes?
Granted you can't make a type 4 like a twin turbo supra engine or nissan skyline, that isn't the point and only a fool would even contemplate such a concept.

what about a quad turbo, one for each cylinder

I have read Tomlinson and Bell. Both are good authorities, too bad Tomlinson beleives heavily in that Draw through crap.

Duration is based on pressure ratio. IF you have a higher pressure in the exhaust than the intake then running long duration can cause intake charge dilution. In most cases the stock T4 engines when run with 4-6 psi will have a much higher exhaust pressure thus to much duration can be a bad thing but "too much" duration is realtive. The stock cam is cut on a 108 centerline, where most turbo cams will run 112-120+. Excessive overlap can result in poor running. The stock cam has something in the neighborhood of .242 lift with 192-210 deg @.020. Not enough duration for a good turbo cam, nor lift. Yes you can boost with the stock cam, that is not what I am saying. I am saying it is far from "optimized" for the boost situation. ON an aircooled motor running wide lobe centers tends to make the exhaust valves run very hot, not good on a motor that already has problems.

Never driven a turbo 914.

A type four is not an engine that is good for boost. The stock cooling system is pretty taxed in stock form, the heads are way to weak, thus the need for 5-6 stud arrangements, in addition to the shitty ports. In order to make it acceptable for boost it would take a major chunk of cash. It can be made into a really good NA motor.

If you want to boost your 914 go ahead. I have yet to see one that was done "right". I mean intercooled, standalone or programmable fuel injection , proper cooling system (not having the turbo up in the engine bay where all of the heat is preheating intake and cooling air), proper oil cooling to cope with the extra heat generated.

Ed's car was the closest but most people won't go to the trouble to do it all out. They want to throw a junkyard turbo kit on there and call it good.

Sammy,
That book was written for the Type I engine...

Totally different animal, than the Type IV....

Very little of it pertains other than some genaral rules of Turbo charging...

The 270 duration rul is dependant upon boost levels and static CR.

I set up one Turbo TIV with 8.8:1 and 14 PSI.. The guy made 230ish HP with it on a chassis dyno!

BTW, Oil temps are just onme portion of engine temp.... A Turbo car without a head temp gauge is being driven very far on the edge...

Well, um okay. Intercooled? Working on it. Ask again next spring. Standalone programable injection? Check. You forgot programable ignition for boost retard. Check. Not having the turbo in the cold side of the engine bay? Check. Extra oil cooling? Working on it. Cheap doesn't always mean poorly engineered or executed.

I'm not trying to fool anyone. I did not put together my turbo setup with the idea of it being able to run wide-open for extended periods. I need it to run wide-open exactly long enough to run a 2/3 mile autocross course, pass a semi, or spank a Honda. This fall I data-logged a 0-130mph run @85 degrees ambient and neither the head or oil temps got in the red. Would they if I'd driven another 30 miles at that speed? Sure they would. I doubt I'd have made it 10 miles at that speed before I cooked everything. It doesn't matter. That's not what I made it for. Could I put together a motor with nickies, big oil cooler, DTM or 911 cooling, special heads, & big intercooler? Sure I could. And then it would be a $6,000 project instead of a $675 project.

-Ben M.

Speaking of "special heads..." What exactly IS available out there? The head is the weak link in the cooling system. I know that one of the aviation companies now makes water cooled heads for a Type I.

Which brings up another point- how 'bout a turbo waterboxer? (just a thought) I mean the VW one, not the scooby.

Ok, back to the point. Nickies are getting a good reputation with the aviation guys- but they still don't address head cooling. Yes, they will draw more heat out and dissipate more, but the areas that get hot would be the exhaust valve and exhaust port. Are there aftermarket heads that cool better? Also it seems I've heard of someone using Carrera heads- what's the deal with that? (Pricey, and I'm sure it would require some serious modification as well... but does it COOL better with those heads?) If you want a motor that can put out 150+ hp for an extended period, how do you cool it?

Dont get caught up in all the technical hype just turbo the damn thing and have a blast doing it and driving it.
I put a turbo on my 79 sc cis 3.0 engined 914 and got the same hype about this and that way to do it, I have no problems with my install runs cool, no predetonation, rich a/f under boost.
I certainly didnt build my engine to run at full boost all day long. Mine is a daily driver with a few spirted blasts now and then.
Like I said in my earlier posts, keep it simple.
And listen to the guys that have already done it.

Special heads?? Like these?
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/heads.htm
Those will be available in late 2005. Turbocharging will have a whole new meaning with these puppies, since they use a far superior exhaust port design- from a Type I!

The cooling issues are heavily dependant upon the engine combination as much as the cooling system.

I will tell you now that I have done ALL the R&D work on the Nickies cylinders and used more than anyone on this planet. These engines run super cool for many reasons including the fact that due to drastically reduced friction from the Nikisil that not as much heat is generated. The cylinders also act as huge heat sinks and actually suck the heat right out of the heads!

I have done back to back Nickies/ Cast iron testing on the same engine and saw drastic differences in temperatures, almost 75 degrees at full load for a 40 minute test at 4800 RPM. With the cast iron cylinders that test could not even be completed due to heat soak and what I'm sure would have ended up as a dead engine if I would have kept the throttle pinned.

Porsche knew what the limit was before the cylinders heat soaked and that was around 18HP per cylinder. This is why they went to aluminum, nikisil cylinders themselves. The cylinders make a huge difference after the throtle is held wide open and load is held steady. When testing with cast iron cylinders the head temps and cylinder temps will soar and never really level off with high HP (over the 18HP per cylinder rule) With the Nickies this is a different story, especially after the point where the cast cylinders heat soak. Here is a link from one Type I engine I tested so you can read about some results and some heat soak. This was not the worlds best test because I goofed up the combo and the engine lacked power to really see the nickies do their best. I never really got high enough on the HP chart to max out the cast iron cylinders with my cooling system on this one, but it is interesting. More tests like this have been done, but I have not had time to post the information to the site..

http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/r_d_2332.htm

Here is a link from my site from a customer that has a 201BHP N/A engine of mine. These temps are 50 degrees cooler than that of a STOCK 2.0 engine! Its a 2563 TIV...

http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/custome...llon/index.html

Also here is another from a customer with a 2739cc, 240 BHP N/A engine with Nickies in his beetle. His head temps run in the neighborhood of 25 degrees hotter than the 2563 link above. This engine has 10.3:1 CR and runs on pump gas.

http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/custome...testimonial.doc

Here is a link to my "Super Hero" page for the 914 crowd.... It has some more Nickies information there.
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/type4/9...uper_heroes.htm

The other thing that both these engines have is my cooling system, which keeps all the cylinders very close in temperature compared to the stock arrangement. The 914 version of the cooling system is being developed as we speak.

5 words pertain here.
ITS ALL IN THE COMBO!

Trial and error is the only way to unlock these doors.

LOL,
much of the same arguments against turbocharging came up around 4 or 5 years ago when I anounced to the internet world I was going to turbocharge my type 4 engine.
You can't control head temps, the cylinders and inadequate, the cooling system isn't up to it, you can't put the turbo in the engine compartment (insulation works very well in that application) etc. Good thing I and others didn't pay attention to it then, we would have given up on the idea instead of following through and actually making it work

That is where the saying came from, "YOU CAN'T TURBOCHARGE A 914".
I still get a kick out of hearing that.

I agree that there are serious design limitations on a type 4 engine. that is why most folks agree that around 6 ot 7 psi is the safe limit unless you can do an efficient intercooler, then you can bump it up a little.
Running around 12 to 1 A/F ratio under boost does wonders to reduce combustion temperatures. Sure that uses extra fuel and costs efficiency and is in a way a band aid, but it works.

If increasing the horsepower and torque of a type 4 engine by 50 or 75% or more isn't worth it, so be it.
It was worth it to me and like others here I did not spend very much money on it at all.
Getting an extra 60 or 80 hp out of a 2 liter for $500 seems pretty attractive to lots of folks here.
I could have spend a fortune, but that was not the plan or intention.
With an unlimited budget of time and money I could build a 400 hp engine that resembles a type 4 and that would last for many, many years.
That isn't the point.
While some 914 owners think that spending 10 times what the car is worth to fix it up makes sense, most don't. Most of us are cost concious and part of the fun of owning a 914 is trying to fix them up without having to get a second mortgage.

If I had $25k to put into a sportscar it would not be a 914, it would be a used Honda S2000.

Most are just cheap asses period, thats why I have't really been developing any new 914 specific stuff for a while. I was very reserved when I started on the design for the 914 DTM because of this and had to get a bulk of interest before I started doing it...

My best customers are VW guys. They spend the most money and want the most performance from what I do..... Isn't that funny as hell??? Alot of them never even ask how much it costs until we do a proposal and they never question the money...

The 914 crowd generally is 100% opposite, they ask about price in the first email and try to cut any corner they can to save a buck!

This just started happening about 3 years ago, the 914 work fell off and the VW work took over.

I'm cheap too. I build all my own engines out of junk from other blown stuff and screw ups on the dyno.. But my labor is free and tools/equipment are a write off and that makes a big difference..

Yep, just like those. I can't wait to see the numbers (HP and flow) on these puppies, I've been waiting over a year for them. I've been saving my pennies and waiting to do any engine work till I see the numbers on these. Did I mention I can't wait.
I think if you did a turbo you'd need heads that flows really well, some nickies to better seal and dissipate heat, and a trick FI setup to make it REALLY work. If you were running a lot of boost an intercooler would be needed but not if you are running low boost. Then again I'm just an armchair QB.