https://jalopnik.com/its-time-for-some-real...sche-1832534488

The comments are interesting.... usual hate and a little love.

Someone said that the 914 was "the last real Porsche introduced" being air cooled and all.

I think by the time the 2L /4 came out, it was too late as the 914 was already cast as a turd especially in the USA where muscle cars could smoke the tires in 1st and 2nd gears.

If the 2L /4 was the only /4 available starting in 1970, the 914 would have had a better future and reputation.

That Porsche kept increasing the displacement and HP of the /6 for many years shows that Porsche woefully underestimated the importance of HP. The 1.7/1.8L /4 914's bore the brunt of turdism.

The article was a little soft.. that said, yes, the 2.0/4 of 73-74 was a great engine for the car at the time and a reasonable substitute for the 2.0/6

Also consider the cars in-period competition. A 240Z was cheaper than a 914 and had near 911T/E performance. Performance wise, the 914 sat in the middle.. british roadsters at the bottom (Sprite, Midget, MGB, TR-6, Saab Sonnet, VW Karman Ghia etc) and then Z car, Corvette and 911's above.

240Z was the nail in the coffin.

Having driven a 914/6 I kept for a couple of years for a friend and owning a 914 2.0 I can say without hesitation that the stock 6 wasn't worth the extra money BITD.
The cars that will put a smile on your face have more hp through displacement which of course the factory never supplied.

Even a 4 banger with displacement increase is better balanced. 000 Magazine (thank you Pete Stout) had an article last year where the author did a "what if" build of a 914. The choice of engine? A 4 cylinder of course. Weight matters. Ask Alois Ruf.

I think it’s a fair enough article. I love VW fours (just last night I drove next to a ratty Karmann Ghia in traffic and marveled at the unique sound) and the 2.0 was pretty much the best version. But I’ve driven enough sixes to know it’s just a different animal with smooth power, thoroughbred engineering and provenance, and with the right exhaust, an absolutely ripping sound. I’d take one of each!

I agree that the 2.0 four and 2.0 stock six were somewhat of a a toss up. The four had (has) a marvelous balance of sport and Teutonic efficiency that was truly a delight. I think the heart of that balance was the fuel injected motor and lightweight.

The stock six upset that balance. A snarling carbureted small beast that promised something special but did not quite deliver. But what this article does not touch on is the potential that the six represented - in proper tune (even at 2 liters) the six can deliver a visceral experience that borders on pure Porsche and pure sex - something that the four can just not do.

Have owned all three - stock 73 two liter, stock six and an S built 2.4 six. I would call the two liter 4 a great car. The 2.4 six hotrod is a great car. The stock six - way Cool but not great.

All IMHO of course.

I’ve been fortunate enough to have had all types (1.7, 2.0, 2.0 -6, and hot rod 2.7 -6). I’d agree that the 2.0 914 was great, the sound of a -6 can’t be dismissed and I wouldn’t trade that away. However, 200 rear wheel horsepower in a modified -6 is pure heaven. Luckily, there’s a seat for every behind!

I bought my 6 in 1973 and I can tell you I was never, EVER
chased down by any 4 cylinder 914 in that era...
I guess the 1969 911 T Was a total dog also and
not worth the money, or name of Porsche either..
since it had the same engine as a 6..
When I pulled my stock motor out in 1977, and replaced
It with a 2.5 ss, I badged the car as a 2.0 and confused
a lot of people..
Just saying....

The great thing about our 914's is we can build them the way we want them. From a stock 1.7 to Clay's monster 4.0 - It's all possible. The only mod I made to my 3.2 conversion was to cut some holes for the oil tank and a couple smaller holes to run the lines to the front cooler. It could all be put back to stock in an afternoon. It never will but it just shows how versatile these cars are.

So if porsche would have put the 2.0 /6 from a 911 (s ) model

That would be the perfect small motor for these cars.

A real screamer that would satisfy and beat a 240z

But i guess they would have beat 911 too .

So I get why they didn't

They did - sort of. They put in their lowest hp six. They had a 2.0S that made 180hp but the 914 was an “intro” Porsche. We did however get the mid engine option that the tail draggers could only dream about.

The 914-6GT had a 2.0 six with around 225-230hp.

Keeping it relative, the slices of pie are still the same (and if memory still works) ..

1970 914/4 1.7 - 80hp
1970 914/6 2.0/6 - 110hp
* 1973 914 2.0/4 - 95hp * Euro rated at 100?, by '75-76 down to 86hp us)
1970 911T (2.2) 125hp
1970 911E (2.2) 155hp
1970 911S (2.2) 180hp

*1997 Boxster 2.5- 201hp
2000 Boxster 2.7 - 217hp
2000 Boxster S 3.2- 252hp
2000 911 3.4 - 296hp

2018 718 (Boxster/Cayman) 2.0 - 300hp
2018 718S (Boxster/Cayman) 2.5 - 350hp
2018 911 3.0- 370hp

Porsche has always been good about preserving the 911s status.

Recall as well, the 1970 911T came with a 4spd (vs the -6's 5spd) as standard. And while the 911 had 15 more hp, it also weighed 100+ lbs more.. so it wasn't really that much faster.

As for the -6, I kinda wish it had the '69E motor (2.0, 140hp) as its starting point, but I guess why it couldn't. Then again, sport muffler and larger venturies and you are right close to the 140 number with the 2.0t motor.

"s" motor would be nice on the track. The "e" and "t" motors were much more tractable. Who wants fouled plugs just cause you only drove to the grocery store!

I think one could also argue, Porsche could have bolstered the 914/6 status/pricing if it had the 2.2T with 125hp as its engine and made the BASE 911 the 155hp 911E. At least they didn't keep the 912 in the line up

Have always viewed the stock 914-6 as +15hp to +25~hp, but less advantageous in terms of torque and its arrival—particularly once the -6's extra weight is factored in.

But…as someone stated here…the door opened once a six is in the car is a mighty one. I wonder how many 914-6s have been rebuilt to 110 hp, and how many remain 110 hp. The number can't be many, so I suspect the real advantage in the used 914-6 and six conversion market is something more like +40 to +120 hp over a stock four, with thinner and thicker deltas out there on the margins.

Having owned all 3 versions of the 914 (/4, factory /6, modified /6), I have to say that the /4, when properly setup, is way faster and better handling than a factory /6.
Porsche could have done a better job with the /6, as shown by the LeMans winning 914/6 GT. But it would mean that the 911 would lose face, and no one at Porsche wanted that.

Buy a factory six for the historical value. It is fun to drive, and is a conversation piece. But don't expect it to be a 911 killer in bone stock form. It was never meant to be one.

Buy a /4 and hot rod the hell out of it to YOUR tastes. They are still cheap enough to customize any way you want. Do like I am doing and put in a motor that will let you tear up Corvettes. Or put in a 2056 /4 and go out and tear up corners with it. Or put in a Subaru and get a more reliable driver. Or put in an electric motor. Or put in a Mercedes 240d motor, and become a hypermiler. Or just sit in it and make vroom vroom noises. But do what makes YOU happy.

But ignore the ignorant writers out there. They have probably never driven a 914, but they are 'serious journalists" who think their opinion matters more than the people who really know and love the 914.

That is my $.02. Getting off my soap box and returning you to your regularly scheduled mayhem.

It's an interesting list to see all at once. But it's also lists like this that encourage the Porsche-centric tendency to dismiss the lesser models throughout the history of the marque. If any of those "low level" cars had been produced in limited number by any other company, they'd be legends. But I guess they are legends anyway, just to the right people.

Back to the six, it's remarkable how much the horsepower jumps going from T to E to S spec with the same displacement.

It would be interesting to also work out the power to weight ratios of these different model Porsches. That’s the real determinant of performance, with a lighter car of the same ratio having an edge.

However, Porsche will not do anything to tarnish the 911s reputation.

The 1967-911R was 1760lbs and 210hp. Porsche only built 4 since they didn't feel the public would buy a 911 that cost multiples of the base model. The public did when it came to the 73RS but Porsche was small in 67 and couldn't take the risk.

I figured out how to get my 914-4 down to 1695lbs as a bare bones driver. With a 15% weight reduction, acceleration, cornering and braking should all be improved.

[/quote]

Even a 4 banger with displacement increase is better balanced. 000 Magazine (thank you Pete Stout) had an article last year where the author did a "what if" build of a 914. The choice of engine? A 4 cylinder of course. Weight matters. Ask Alois Ruf.
[/quote]

I think I've said it before, but this is the /4 I'd like to have in a 914. The POLO motor.

To each, his or her own. There is indeed a butt for every seat.
But, as someone who bought a brand new 1970 4 and traded it a year later for a brand new 914-6 I truly feel sorry for anyone who can't appreciate the difference. It was apparent from the first test drive in our -6 after a year and nearly 25,000 miles in the 1.7 and remained true through many years as a owner and former PCA driver ed instructor.
In a dozen years of track events, out mostly stock -6 (larger venturis/front sway bar/heavier rear springs and adjusted ride height) never had a bit of trouble staying ahead of any similarly equipped stock 1.7, 1.8 or 2.0 four cylinder. Nor did we have any trouble with stock class 911 Ts. I have a dozen years of timed results to prove the point and it didn't make any difference whether it was me or my wife behind the wheel.
Sure, all the well built but fragile high-dollar big 4s and the larger displacement 6s are very enjoyable and impressive. I appreciate the skill and dedication that goes into those types of builds but they're an entirely different animal. I've enjoyed and sometimes built everything from old Corvettes, Jeeps, Land Cruisers, Karmann Ghias and Model As. But after nearly 50 years of continuous 914 ownership, apples to apples, there's a marked difference between VW power and Porsche power, not to mention other build differences that go beyond just horsepower.

The sound of the six is worth the price of admission...IMHO

Porsche did the same thing in 2006... I know cause I have one.

987 CS 3.4 at 296 HP. Lighter than a 911 and quicker...AND the motor is in the right place, and a flat six.

After the 981 they are back to a 4 banger but turbo-ed.

Also, think the author of the article totally mis-characterizes the Type 4 that went into a 914 by likening it to a BUS motor.

It is nothing like a bus motor. I agree. A properly set up stock 2.0 is a whole heck of a lot of fun, and in those days just as good if not better then the stock six that first went in it, at least the 110 BHP motor.

The flat six sound is iconic. I hear the flat four sound every time I mow the grass.

I like my lawn mower.... it's air cooled too.

I absolutely agree.
I could never buy or drive a 4 cylinder just because of the sound it makes.
The exact same reason I would never buy a Subaru. Just yuck!
An early flat six on the other hand is just pure heaven to me.

The six delivers the power in a much more sophisticated way as well.

No question the flat six transforms the car, and I have no regrets in converting, but I sure had a lot of fun over the first 24~ of the last 30 years with a four, and a tired one at that.

To me, the 914 is chassis > engine. And, after 25 years of testing all sorts of Porsches, the 914 still stands up. It was, and is, a very special stop along the Porsche story. Nothing else since has offered its mix of intelligent packaging, balance, and light weight. And I am not sure we'll ever see anything get near 2000 pounds again…

Four, six…they're all great in my book.

Nah- Price is too high. I purchased a very nice low mileage 73 2.0 a year ago and have 6 grand total in it after completely sorting it out. A 6 in the same condition would have cost me 10 times as much and been slightly faster maybe, depending on the road and driver. Maybe even less fun to drive. I guess I could drop some cash on a louder exhaust but just not that important to the driving experience to me.

Then again, in period results don't lie (1974 Porsche Parade) - 914/6 is 6 seconds quicker than a 914/4 2.0

A stock 2.0/6 and a stock 2.0/4 shouldn't be 6 seconds apart.

Bobby Smith's 914/4 beat all comers at the 2008 Parade. It wasn't stock nor was the competition.

His best time was 67.8 seconds. The closest 914 was a "6" in Mod-4 driven by Alan Kendall came in at 73.5 seconds.

FWIW, Bobby still believes the 4 to be the best balanced car. Who am I to argue with his successes?

This is so much fun

Well...I'm not an expert but after 35 years driving and racing all of the variations of 914's including 2.0 4 cyl, 2.8 4 cyl., stock 914/6's and 914/6 3.2ltr conversions I can give a fair and honest opinion. Take it for what it's worth. If all other things being equal (suspension, wheels, tires, alignment etc. etc.) I feel that a 73, 74 2.0 4 cyl. would be a faster auto-x car than a 914/6 stock 2.0 ltr. It's balance and physics. The 4 cyl. car is so much more nimble. (Forest Gump voice) That's all I've got to say about that!

^ Bobby is exactly right. And so long as horsepower doesn't come too far into it, a very light four with strong torque is going to be hard to beat on a autocross course.

Still think the "ultimate" execution of the 914 concept—if balance, weight, and power are the objectives—probably has a STi 2.5 or 718 2.5 mounted in the middle with a water-to-air intercooler system up front. But it won't sound or drive like a six…

This data does not include suspension modifications, wheels/tires, alignment specs, driver skill etc. Those things could easily be 6 or more sec.

True it does not. But they were the "stock" classes for the cars at the parade. And yes, Parade is not SCCA Runoffs per se in quality of car/driver/tire choice made for a multiday event comprising AX, Rally, Concours etc.

That said, I didn't have much access to any other "in period" result data of what would be "stock" class cars.

Even if you exclude my fathers phenomenal time that day, the next quickest -6 was still 3 seconds quicker than the fastest of the -4cyl cars.

Bob Garretson in a -4 ? This guy was (or was on his way) to being a pro racer for pete's sake!

Some things to weigh:
*This was a long 90 sec. course which means time differences are magnified.
*What tire was each racer on and what was the quick tire at that time (tires alone
could be 4-5 secs. or more on a 90 sec. course).
*What were the weather conditions? Was it raining? Damp?
*What was Bob Garretson's skill level at that time?
The point is, there are many variables to take into consideration.
I'm not here to argue. I gave my "opinion" based on a lot of experience autocrossing these 914 models. This would actually make a great real world test. If we could only get 2 identical set up 914's. One with a stock 6 and one with a 2.0 four. Driven by the same guy. Yeah right, that ain't gonna happen.

My best friend in high school had a 70s era combi.
it was in Florida and it always smelled like mold, beer, and cigarettes
inside.
The type 4 sound is connected to that smell in my head somehow—and accelerating slowly

I remember about 30+ years ago when I started auto crossing SCCA. 914-6's were in A stock and there was a guy...I think John Havranak (sp?) that really had a very fast "stock" 914-6. He beat most of the early 911's to my recollection. No way a "stock" four cylinder would have ever been able to keep up with him.

On the opposite side of the coin.
Do you remember Garrettson's big wide black E mod 914? Well that was powered by a big four and he was super fast in his class. Gary Walton drove that car. Doubt if any 6 cylinder could have kept up with that car. It was that light and developed.

I built my 914/4 modeled after the Garrettson car.

I would imagine the 550 spyder
Takes the whole perfectly balanced
Concept of the 914-4 to the next level
(Compact ,lightweight )
They were all 4 cyclinder right .

Sorry cant help it.

Last known photograph

Maybe but the replicas ride like crap. I would trade it all for a real 904.

Nothing was ever prettier. A buddy has one "mit 6". What a bark she has. A little small on me but I could still stare at it for a week non-stop.

So except for an aerial atom
No one is building real light (550/904/914)weight sports cars anymore

Another light weight 4 banger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y25dYXbr5M

not the same car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FC9sdZZH5g