I am new to 914s and have a chance to purchase my first 914, which is a 1.7. I know the 2.0s are faster and better, but is 1.7 good enough for me????

Please help me decide!

I've had both 1.7 and 2.0
I guess you could say the 2.0 has a little more "pull" off the line (best I could describe), but please if you've found a nice solid 1.7 that's mechanically sound, get it....better than a rusty 2.0!

a friend has a '71 1.7, and when I drive it I get the same "yahhoooo" feeling when I hit the gas.....

Okay the "Buy It" meter just moved up one notch. Thanks, and yes it looks structurally and mechanically sound. And it's pretty too

Don't know if this matters, but it is a 1973 1.7

That one looks like a nice 914, but you'll need a knowledgeable 914 person/mechanic to do a PPI.

1.7L's had 80 HP 70-72 MY's - in 73 it dropped to 76 HP & a very "doggy" 69 HP for CA sold cars!

...vs 95 HP for the 73-74 2L - which you will notice the difference IMHO having driven 70-72 & 73 1.7s & my own 73 2L.

Then the 75-76 dropped the 2L to only 86 HP IIRC, so maybe Ray drove a later GC engined 2L, which wasn't much different than a 70-72 1.7 at 80 HP?

However, I agree that a nice rust free 1.7 is better than a rusty 2.0.

Try driving a few of both & see what YOU like or don't, then make your decision. Also the 73-74 2.0 will be a bit more pricey than a 1.7, so your budget may determine which works for you.

.... as you'll see comparing here:
http://www.nadaguides.com/Classic-Cars/197...arga-2-0/Values

http://www.hagerty.com/valuationtools/HVT/...eport?vc=879762
^ - back track to select different years & 1.7, 1.8, etc. on these two links

Also use this to evaluate all you look at seriously:
http://bowlsby.net/914/Classic/zTN_Gen_914CAF.pdf

Also read up here & these links to "edumacate" yourself on 914s -
http://bowlsby.net/914/Classic/
http://bowlsby.net/914/CanAm/
914club.com
p914.com

Good Luck!
Tom
///////

Porsche put the 1.7 in their 70 thru 73 914's. It is a well-tested engine. The 914 is fun car to drive regardless if it has a 1.7 or 2.0.

Lol, You know I will want a 2.0 if I drive one, which I haven't yet. This is the reason why I want to hear from owners from their experience. In fact, I have only drove one 914 for like 500 yards, don't remember which model, but it could have been a 75 or 76.

In other words, I am trying to find justifications to buy this particular car.

Thanks for info Tom!

I like my little 1.7. Early cars are lighter. Always go for the least rusty car possible.

Beautiful 914, looks like the one I am interested in.

Thanks everyone, this is really helping me decide.

Thank you so much for your kind words about my 914. I am blessed.

And rusty cars are even lighter!

Seriously engine swaps/upgrades are easier and cheaper to deal with than rust.

My 73 started as a 1.7, PO swapped to a 2.0, I recently swapped in a 2056 with a mid_RPM cam and daul Webers (hope this doesn't spark the never ending FI/Carb religion battle). My 2056 has quite a bit more right foot response, but still not fast by any stretch of the imagination. I'm glad I swapped, but others are content with a 1.7 or 2.0, and then others go for sixes and V-8's. It all boils down to what you like, but avoid rust...

Like the others have said, HP is the easy part. Rust repair is much harder and could be more costly.

I'm putting a driven hard 1.7 in my restoration project when its finished. Going to paint the tin and clean up the fins and drive it till it gets too tired.

never buy a car without pulling the rockers
I would recommend always having a 914 knowledgeable person look it over too...

I guess this has to be done!

A well tuned four 1.7 is a blast. Do not let that size stop you from buying a car thats clean or fits your needs in every other way. GL

Go for the 2L. I've owned both and the 2L is a lot more fun than the 1.7L

You said it was a 73? That is great because that the first year of Porsche changing to side shift tranny! Much better tranny!

My first ride in a 914 was one with a 2.0 bus motor rated at 68 HP or something like that. I thought it was awesome. LOL shows how many rides I've had in a 914. As long as you're not expecting it to accelerate like a modern large displacement sports car, you'll be fine.

Yes, I don't expect it to accelerate like a 280ZX, as long as I can go through freeway speeds comfortably.

I am migrating from MGBs to Porsches, and I thought the MGs we fine as far as speed. I am an island cruiser and just want to look cool in a cool car, but would like to get to 90 mph once in awhile on the freeway.

Thanks again folks, looks like I will give an offer on this car.

I disagree.

If by fast you mean straight line drag racing, the yes, they're not fast.
However, i had plenty of fun with my lowly 1.7L and later 2056 and there were many, many times when i scared the crap out of my passengers with both of those engines.

Once you put a bunch of curves and tight corners into the equation, a 1.7L can become an exceptionally fast car.

Yes, I likely

I've added a 4->1 "racing" header to my stock 1.7 D-Jet, lightened flywheel, and made mods to drop weight of the car overall and am a very happy camper attending local autocross races (lately not as often as I want to!). Beating a stock 914 2.0 TIV is not a problem w a 1.7, tuned driving, and good tires.

I am always advising folks "just drop a 1.7 into your 914 project get out and drive!"

Doable with a 1.7L depending on how long you are on the highway and how long the road goes downhill.

aaawwwww, that's a little harsh!

I'm running a 1.7L in NorCal and having a blast - I'm a bhp junkie but this thing is pretty fun and you don't really need to slow down for corners - just point and go. Of course, having 10" rims and ~11" of rubber on the rears does not hurt any!

The plan for this 1.7L is to lighten her up as much as possible, get some seat time in AX, and then move up to a 3.0L engine. Getting any rust free tub and moving along as budget allows is the ticket! And how many cars can you do that with?

You will not be sorry - great fun per $$ spent, perhaps the best value/$$ of all options under $10k?

just do it!

td

Never had a problem doing 90+ with a 1.7L ... I paid enough in fines to know.

2.0L is a little more grunty ... and on the long hill described it did 126 by GPS.

...a 1.7 in a twisty situation, BIG FUN!!

With 40 years between manufacture and now, how do you _know_ it's still a 1,7? Just because it started life as a 1,7 doesn't mean something might not have been updated at one of its presumptive rebuilds.

The only way to _know_ is to open it and measure stuff - which I wouldn't arbitrarily do to a running car. Especially since the temptation to update stuff 'As Long As' is very hard to resist...

If you want it to be bigger some day, that's easy. Engine size is _not_ a factor for these cars. Rust _is_.

There is much to be said for starting off in performance cars with a slow(er) specimen. You have more time between 'events' to learn smoothness, car control of a mid-engine vehicle, and conservation of momentum. IOW - the secret to being fast (as opposed to just going fast) is - don't slow down...

Funny you mentioned that, I just found out that the 1.7 may have been replaced with an 1.8

Yes, when I say fast I mean out of the hole, throw you in the back of your seat acceleration.

Guys, again I just found out its a 1.8 instead of a 1.7.

And it is a 73?

Yes, that's what the seller told me and has advertised. He said it was swapped out back in the 90s. Just when I was psyching myself out for the 1.7 then this news comes along.

So I am disappointed, but the car really looks goods. What do you think????

The VIN tells you model year, so it's easy to find out what it is really.
Don't know why you'd be disappointed it's a 1,8.

But I will say again: ENGINE SIZE DOES NOT MATTER!
(Did you have your heart set on a numbers-matching car? Why?)

Actually, you still don't know what engine it has, other than a seller's statement and possibly looking at the engine case code.

There are lots of "pre-2,0" engines that have been rebuilt to 2,0.
I'd guess many of them don't even have 2,0 914 heads.

LOTS of things don't matter in a 40-year-old-car. Tires? Brakes? Shocks? You're going to replace those anyway, sooner or later.

Even color is a MINOR factor. If the body is structurally sound, you can make it any color you like and spend as much as you want. Ask anyone here if they'd turn down a solid chassis in a color they hated over a rustbucket in a nice color...

Don't care for matching numbers, but I was originally looking for a 2.0, but was willing to settle for a 1.7 since the consensus was that the 1.7 is better than the 1.8.

So now I find out it has the least desirable engine, which I assume is even slower.

'Better' has many flavors...

The 1,8's get a bad rap due to its variety of injection, which although technically superior is more trouble-prone and some parts are hard to come by.

Does the engine have the original 1,7 D-Jet or the 1,8's L-Jet?
I don't care, but you must know.

But - stop staring at trees and see the forest!

If you believe the 1,8 is inferior, use it as a bargaining tool, if you can.
Find the original engine specs (they're prominantly posted) and compare. IIRC, the 1,7 might have had a little more peak HP but the 1,8 had a little more torque.

THE ENGINE IS NOT IMPORTANT!

You will learn way more about how to drive a conservation-of-momentum car with a couple HP less than a lot more.

And you can buy a couple of engines for what structural rust repair will cost you.

And anyway - all you really have to go on is the seller's recollection and statement, and case code.

You are not buying an engine, you are buying a car, and all its pre-existing issues. Engine issues are easy.

Thank you very much for all your input Rich!

Rocker panels were removed and were clean and rust free. And it was done by a 914 fanatic

the 1.8s can accept 96mm P&Cs as a drop in replacement, the 1.7s can't. Easier upgrade path to a hot 1911 starting with a 1.8

I've not seen so much love for the 1.7/1.8L before.

I still say go for a 2L.

However, if the chassis is in good shape, it may be worth starting with the 1.8L then upgrading to a larger displacement.

This of course, depends on your desire. Do you want to build/buy a bigger engine in a while? Or do you just want to drive the car?

If you just want to drive the car, then look for a 2L car.

If you would like to build a bigger engine, go for this one.

I rather not build because that means spending boat load of money. Remember this will be my first Porsche 914 so I have not been able to compare it with anything else, so I would not know the differences other than what has been said in this forum.

I know the 2.0s are faster but I just want to cruise and look cool. I'm am just about 50 yrs-old and as long as the car can get me to 70-80 on the the freeway.

That shouldn't be a problem even if running on 3 cylinders

I've owned a 1.7L, 1.8L, and 2.0L, all DJET. If I were looking for another 914, there is no way I would buy a 1.7L or 1.8L.

A 2L has about 40% more HP depending on your math. Again, if you want to drive the car, buy the best 2L you can find. If you want to build a nice engine, go for the best chassis.

You might like the 1.7L or 1.8L until you accelerate onto the freeway with your foot deep in the throttle making all kinds of noises behind you and you realize that you're holding up any run of the mill modern POS Kia or Cheby or Yugo behind you.

Sorry, not a fan of the 1.7L or 1.8L when you can have a 2L, or V8 .

Remember, there is no replacement for displacement.

just drive the damn thing and see if you can deal with it or not

While I agree that the engine isn't that important (compared to rust issues) I would always hold out for a legit 2.0 with little rust, simply because it's more desirable and easier to sell if and when you decide to resell it. That 2.0 on the back panel makes a big difference, driving experience notwithstanding!

If you're positive you're going to keep it, though, then get whichever one is free of rust and in fairly sound mechanical condition. You'll spend a lot of time and money restoring/modifying it and can make it anything you like.

I am positive that I am going to keep. I did promise the wife that this is the last toy I am buying

I could always just Put a 2.0 badge in the back

My suggestion based on having owned many different ones over the years, is to go with a solid chassis first, then make engine selection second. Repairing the Rust is much more costly than getting the stock engine replaced. A solid running 1.7 ltr. is lots of fun, and when tuned delivers great gas mileage. You can get as many tickets as you can afford in it, guaranteed.

Since you are dealing with a 1973 model year, you can shop around for a 2.0 ltr to swap out in the engine bay when it is time to rebuild. This will give you one of the most desirable 914 combinations. Having rebuild 1.7 to a 1.9, and having both F.I. and Carbs, it is best to keep things as stock as possible. If you want real power, contact Jake Raby, and follow his advice.

Enjoy the ride!

We took my wife's stock '71 1.7L on a Rt-66 run back in 2008. With over 100k on the odo, we still were able to peg the speedo with two people and a bunch of luggage in the car.

Engines are easy to find (or build). Good solid cars aren't as plentiful and sometimes the cost to repair rust will exceed the cost of an engine build.

A lot of guys on this forum will have a good 2.0L motor for sale after they do a 'six' conversion.

Very reassuring!