One of the guys at work has a 76 912 that he offered to sell me. I personally don't have much of an interest in a 912, but then I started thinking... can I use any of the parts off the 912 for my 914? What, if anything could I take out of the car? axels? brakes? 5 bolt wheels (or are they 4 bolt?)????

Or is it a 912 worthwhile "investment"???

What are those worth anyway? I'm sure it's only a 4 cylinder engine, so I can't imagine that it would hold its value as well as a 911.

Please let

I think the early ones are worth more but I would personal like the 76 better because I feel comfortable with the t4 and the t4 prices

A '76 is a 912E, meaning it has a Type IV engine in it. Aside from tin, the engine mount, and a few other odds-and-ends, this is identical to the 2.0 engine found in the '76 914.

The major downside to this car is that it weighs a lot more than a 914, yet makes the same power. However, by forking out the money to Jake, et al, you can make just as much power as any 914. The gearbox is unique to the car (only made for that one year). It's basically a 915 with a 901 input shaft and different gearing. The stock exhaust, at least in CA form, has thermal reactors that cook the engine double quick.

If you're in CA, you're beyond the smog cutoff, alas.

The rest of the car is the same as the '76 911. Front suspension, brakes, and wheels will swap to the 914 if you change out the rear hubs.

The early 912s are totally different beasts. Different engine, different gearbox, much lighter body. The early cars are rising in price. I don't know about the 912E, though. I've seen people ask pretty silly prices for them ($10K).

is the car junk or what?

nothing wrong with a 912 at all, only "issue" is that for a '76 it has to be smogged

the transmissions are highly sought after since it's a 915 transmission with a type IV input shaft, only made that one year

the front suspension would fit a 914 to give you a 5 lug suspension....

I'd hate to see the car get parted out just to put a few parts onto a 914

I'm supposed to take a look at the car this weekend. I'll decide if it's worth salvaging for/by me. Otherwise, I might just pick it up and offer it on evilbay for sale. Maybe I can get some $$$ for my 914 upgrades that way.

The '76s where at least partly galvanised (can't remember when they went from the lower-half only to the whole car), so it's unlikely to be a rust bucket. Chances are, it won't pass smog, which is why said friend is willing to unload it.

It would form the basis for a killer track car for any CA owner. You might even be able to sneak past the smog police w/o the thermal reactors, as I believe they don't really care if you're running a header if you don't have a cat, which this car won't. If you could get 110hp or thereabouts with small mods, it would make a great daily driver. A LOT quieter than a 914.

The 912e is great. I like the look of the early 912s, but if you want a 911 look go for it. Remember you can always put a bigger Type IV in there. Is the L-Jet more forgiving to high performance/bigger cammed motors? A 912e with a hot cam 2056 would be a blast to drive without spending a ton.

L-Jet can be reasonably forgiving of engine mods, as long as you don't go too wild. A really wild cam with mess with the airflow meter. Eventually, the meter itself becomes the bottleneck. However, I'm told that using meters from other cars with bigger engines will work with any analog L-Jet ECU. Back in my Alfa days, people regularly talked about using a 3L BMW airflow meter on a hot 2.5 Alfa V6 and it just worked. Even the factory tuning arm, Autodelta, did this. I don't know if you could go so wild as to put a 2270 in there and have it work. However, swapping to aftermarket EFI can be done basically invisibly, and you'd solve that problem pretty easily. If the exhaust could be sorted, you'd have a 130hp 912E, which only puts it about 30hp down on the 911 of the day (the 2.7 was a pretty awful engine in stock trim).

don't forget, with the lighter engine than a 911, the 912 would be a great auto-x car, much more neutral

The '77 was first for the full galvanized body IIRC. '76 was half as you said.

You can't turbo a 912.


I crack me up.

76's were the first full galvanized cars.
71-75's were pan only.

76 912E's ROCK. It's a 76 911 with a T4 914 motor in it (gee Hans, what do we do with all these left over T4's now that we ditched the 914 project?). Excellent 915 tranny (923 I think is the model designation). Great autocross car. Great drive around town car that will net you some decent fuel mileage.

Me would go fur it.

Is this actually more "desireable" than the 914? Or am I going to get bood and hissed at for even mentioning this?

C.

you must show me the reference for '71 pans being galvanised.
mine shows no evidence of any rust inhibitor anywhere...

just saw a 912e having sold for a tick under $16k.
i don't get it - but if the buyer is happy at that price who am i to complain ...

I think I saw a reference to galvanizing on the bird board... but I didn't pay CLOSE attention to it. There was some mention of SOME cars being galvanized and galvanization at different levels... If I decide to act on this, I'll let you guys know... plus... might be worth a few pics.

C.

Rich, 71.5 actually. Check with Bruce A. he referrences it in his fine little publication. Mine's perfect (and I always wondered why).

Carlos, they're totally different cars and that's the best way to look at it. No boos. No hisses. I've got a soft spot for the 76 912E (probably the T4)

(page 19, Second Edition, 4th paragraph)

"The company's second choice was to galvanize the exposed portions of the car's underbody sheetmetal, which it started to do to the 911s in the summer of 1970 for the 1971 2.2-liter models..."

"At the 1975 Frankfurt Auto Show, Porsche introduced a fully rust-proofed body to go with its galvanized chassis..."

"Beginning mid-year 1976 all of the 911s have been made of galvanized sheet metal. For the first few months after the introduction the roof section was not galvanized, but by the end of the production year the roof was galvanized as well."

So it was actually 71 and 76.5

As always, it depends on what you desire in a car. Are they worth more on the open market? No, not really. There are a lot fewer of them than the 914 (something like 2000 made). Some of the parts on the car are unique to it, and thus scarce and getting more so every day. They're NOT the raw sports car the 914 is. They're a very nice daily driver that handles like a lighter, better balanced mid-70s 911 (which is to say, not as well as a sorted 914). Bone stock, they're slow in a straight line (no faster, and probably slower, than a stock 1.7 914). They're underappreciated. This may change (and, indeed, it seems to be changing), much like it is changing for the 914.

I personally wouldn't have one in California only because of the smog problem. If the smog cutoff was '76 instead of '75, well, I'd still probably have an earlier 912, because I think they look nicer and they're a lot lighter (and a Type 4 will go in there relatively easily for big power).

I think it was more like, "We just killed the 914 and the 924 won't be
around till next model year, are we going to have a showroom with
only 1 car in it?"

I know you're joking, but...

The 930 came out in '76, too, so they would have had at least three (911, 914, 930). Since they didn't actually make any 914s in '76, just cleared out inventory, the 912E ended up not being required at all, really.

I've always held this "theory" that they developed 912 models (all of them) around left-over engines. I say it rather tongue-in-cheek, however...

It seeems like they were in fairly short supply of T4's for the 76 run but check out how long the leftover 356 motors lasted.

(now ask yourself about a 914-6... 1970 is the year 911s went to 2.2. Was that just another "leftover engine" project? )

I think the deal is you gotta have an entry model- or else people show up at the dealer and say "What Else You Got?". AND get rid of the old stuff, gauges, seats, engines..
If you notice they run the entry level model and then come up with a new one when they run out of old parts-!
912 turned into 914, 914 turned into 924, 924 turned into...I forget.
Muy .02 is the 912E is a GREAT car- great balance between durability, economics, styling and performance. It's got "some" of everything. The 914 has more of one than another, the 911 same- the 914-6 HOWEVER- should have replaced the 911 dammit!- or at least been sold right next to it. Either way we're right where we would have been- The Boxter is the new 914 (complete with early model run defficiencies!) and the Carrera GT is the new 914-6 - which EVERYBODY WANTS!!
The Type 4 engine is "better" than the 616 (912) engine- but that's the way things go - you make a better version later. If the car is a good deal you can't lose- it wont ever be worth less in the future- well, not until 2008 when we run out of oil.


I have a 68' 912 totally stock and a 70' 914 (1.8L carb'd)- and I'm dirt poor, but can't bring myself to sell either one!! I honestly couldn't tell you one is better overall than the other- they both rock!
I have a feeling that I'd pick the 914 if it was as nice as my 912 though.

Bob O

Well, I hate to bring this thread to a sad conclusion, but I went to see the car....

and it's not a 912... it's not a 914... or a 911....

It's a 924!!!!

I lost all desire to deal with it... the tires have bad rubber... engine wouldn't crank, needs a new interior... maybe it would make a good race car for someone who is going to strip the interior... Body is fairly straight, silver color. Looks like original paint, but the car has been sitting too long for me to even THINK about reviving it.

Any 924 fans???

Per the owner of the car, it passed smog "with flying colors" the last time he had it smogged (2001) but the car hasn't been cranked or moved since then. It is currently registered as non-op.

C.

The down side to a '76 912E is if you've ever got to replace the exhaust system, they are unobtainium.

I've heard mostly positive comments about these cars, ie not enought power to get you in trouble.

I've always thought that if you wanted a type four powered car the 914 would be a better choice, as it's much lighter than the 911 body.

My personal feelings are, although the car seems to have a loyal following, why would you want a 911 with a 914-4 engine? The same engine works so much better in the lighter (more fun) chassis, why not get a six powered tail-dragger?

Again, just my .02

LOL a 924 that doesn't run? you spent more in gas money going to see it than the car is worth

Yeah... lucky for me it's within walking distance... (but of course, this being California, I still DROVE to see it).

C.

Quite true of the 912E, which was relatively heavy. The early 912s, however, were pretty light. With the 912 engine, they're 2200lbs. A Type IV weighs a tad more than the 912 engine (like 20-30lbs), can be made into a 2.0 to 2.2L engine relatively easily for as much power as a 2.0 911 engine, and is a lot cheaper to rebuild than the 912 or 911 engines. So, a Type IV in an early 912 makes sense. It's not the same thing as a 914 in terms of handling, but it's a much more comfortable touring car. Having both (914 and 912) is the ideal combination.

Gut the interior and put a 924GT body kit on it

Autocross the piss out of it.

M