nditiz1
Jul 23 2017, 04:09 PM
If you were to choose between 2 914s which would you choose?
Option 1 73 1.7 Blue plate CA car with no rust, have not heard engine run
Option 2 75 1.8 CA car non original motor, minor hell hole rust, runs good.
The 73 is 2 grand less but needs to be shipped for 1 grand.
Is the 1.7 better than the 1.8? What's the value of a running car vs a non runner?
Larmo63
Jul 23 2017, 04:11 PM
Go with the '73.
Better year car, same general displacement.
BeatNavy
Jul 23 2017, 04:21 PM
Go with the car that has the least rust. In the long run, the engines are all swappable and, relative to major rust repair, not that expensive. "Minor" hell hole rust can become major longitude repair once you start digging.
In your example I go Option 1 all the way, for a variety of reasons (but mostly rust).
Mikey914
Jul 23 2017, 04:22 PM
73 not knowing any more than specified.
BTW there is no such thing as a rust free 914.
My 914
Jul 23 2017, 04:34 PM
The less rust, the better.
mepstein
Jul 23 2017, 05:19 PM
QUOTE(BeatNavy @ Jul 23 2017, 06:21 PM)
Go with the car that has the least rust. In the long run, the engines are all swappable and, relative to major rust repair, not that expensive. "Minor" hell hole rust can become major longitude repair once you start digging.
In your example I go Option 1 all the way, for a variety of reasons (but mostly rust).
X 10
nditiz1
Jul 23 2017, 05:21 PM
Also option 2 is in the classifieds on 914world posted by the grump if that makes a difference.
nditiz1
Jul 23 2017, 05:28 PM
Option 2 also has new interior and PMB brakes all done, option 1 has been sitting for some time.
TheCabinetmaker
Jul 23 2017, 05:35 PM
There's always option # 3
rgalla9146
Jul 23 2017, 06:01 PM
# 3
by boff
arne
Jul 23 2017, 06:21 PM
QUOTE(nditiz1 @ Jul 23 2017, 04:28 PM)
Option 2 also has new interior and PMB brakes all done, option 1 has been sitting for some time.
I still buy the one with the least rust. I can do brakes and interior myself, and probably for far less than it would cost me to pay someone to fix the rust.
My 914
Jul 23 2017, 07:42 PM
Or, maybe as per option #3 (which I hadn't considered but do like), neither of these is the best choice right now.
kgruen2
Jul 23 2017, 11:16 PM
If you're in California, go with the '73. You won't need any smog checks and you can do to the engine what you want. I'm pretty sure the '75 will need to be smogged, limiting your choices for future engine improvements. Back in the day, when I was Service Adviser for Merlin Olsen Porsche/Audi, the 74 and 75 1.8's were a big problem with the fuel injection (which now days I'm sure the problems are better understood and worked out). Check with your State re. the smog rules.
steuspeed
Jul 24 2017, 02:28 AM
73 no brainer.
somd914
Jul 24 2017, 03:49 AM
If both cars were equal in condition, the '73 is a more desirable car.
But when considering two cars that are not equal in condition, I agree, rust is the major concern - gets expensive quickly and the amount of rust is always greater than originally thought.
As for engines, plan on at least $6k for a full rebuild if you are considering a car that needs a rebuild unless you do the work yourself.
Be willing to spend more up front as a few thousand more upfront might save you several times that amount in repairs/upgrades.
JeffBowlsby
Jul 24 2017, 05:14 AM
No smog checks for 1975 MY cars in CA.
iwanta914-6
Jul 24 2017, 07:36 AM
With the information given, the 73 should be the choice every time.
I just followed an Olympic Blue 73 1.7L on my way to work this morning. Just seeing one on the road made me smile.
iwanta914-6
Jul 24 2017, 07:48 AM
QUOTE(nditiz1 @ Jul 23 2017, 05:09 PM)
If you were to choose between 2 914s which would you choose?
Option 1 73 1.7 Blue plate CA car with no rust, have not heard engine run
Option 2 75 1.8 CA car non original motor, minor hell hole rust, runs good.
The 73 is 2 grand less but needs to be shipped for 1 grand.
Is the 1.7 better than the 1.8? What's the value of a running car vs a non runner?
Okay, you mentioned that Grump's car is "option #2". Last update to that thread was over a month ago and price was $5K. The other car is 2 grand less? Honestly, if your budget is honestly $10K, look at cars that are $10K - $12K and use some negotiation skills to get it in your budget. $5K cars are going to cost way more in the long run.
kgruen2
Jul 26 2017, 03:02 AM
QUOTE(Jeff Bowlsby @ Jul 24 2017, 04:14 AM)
No smog checks for 1975 MY cars in CA.
Maybe the cutoff is '76.
Mark Henry
Jul 26 2017, 06:11 AM
QUOTE(iwanta914-6 @ Jul 24 2017, 09:48 AM)
Honestly, if your budget is honestly $10K, look at cars that are $10K - $12K and use some negotiation skills to get it in your budget. $5K cars are going to cost way more in the long run.
QUOTE(mepstein @ Jul 23 2017, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE(BeatNavy @ Jul 23 2017, 06:21 PM)
Go with the car that has the least rust. In the long run, the engines are all swappable and, relative to major rust repair, not that expensive. "Minor" hell hole rust can become major longitude repair once you start digging.
In your example I go Option 1 all the way, for a variety of reasons (but mostly rust).
X 10
I tell my customers to buy the best car they can, even if they have to get a loan.
A well sorted car you can drive now and in the end the interest costs will be far less than the cost of restoration , not to mention the seat time lost to jackstand time.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.