Hi all,
Back in college (15+ years YIKES!), I used to have a 75 1.8 L. A fellow 914 friend of mine at the time used to refer to it as a 1.8 L boat anchor. Anyway now that I am interested in getting a 914 again I would like to know just how big a difference there is between the 2.0 and the 1.7 and 1.8. I am aware of the HP specs for each engine size and what not, but since I never got to ride in a 2.0 I don't know how big a difference those extra HP actually make. Any input would be appreciated in helping me make a decision on just how much influence engine size should play on my 914 shopping.

By the way this is a great web site, just wish it was around when I had my first one. I probably would have never got rid of it!

Thanks Bert

QUOTE (Bertus @ Jun 23 2005, 08:02 PM)

how big a difference those extra HP actually make.

IMHO, the difference is significant ...

i have had a tired old 1.8L in my car when i bought it, now it's a warmed over 2.1L and the difference is huge.

i have driven many different 914s, and even a stock 2.0L is much peppier than a 1.7/1.8L ...

having said that, i don't think the engine size should be a main factor in deciding on which 914 to buy.
buy the best BODY you can afford, meaning the least RUST. look for good working mechanicals and electrical.
a well cared for car (again, if you can afford it) will give you the most fun from the get go.
you can always upgrade the engine later ...

just my $0.02 cents ...
Andy

PS: oh, and welcome to the club!

Andy said it all... even a small 5hp difference seems big in these cars because they are so light... and the HP ratings are when the engine is FRESH, not 30 years old... they tend to lose "UMPH"

QUOTE (Bertus @ Jun 23 2005, 08:02 PM)

I never got to ride in a 2.0 I don't know how big a difference those extra HP actually make.

Whatever you do, don't go for a ride in a /6 or you will change your shopping plans.

Early 1.7L cars that weigh only 1900lbs and have 80hp are fun.
75 1.8l with all that weight and only 73hp are sloowww.
73-74 2.0L cars are pretty damn quick but if you take off the heavy rubber bumpers and switch the Heat Exchangers, the 75-76 are quick too.

Thanks for the info everybody. Next question, how much rust is acceptable, since there is probably no such thing as a totally rust free 914, at least in my spending range. My previous 914 had severe issues with the area under the battery, and it was only 12 years old at the time. I know bad rust under the battery tray and in the jack holes are red flags. However, if there is a little rust under the battery tray is it worth taking a risk on if it isn't too bad, or would you just steer clear.

Andy how do you end up with a 2.1 L, and how is that working out for you? Is that an expensive venture like converting to a 914/6.


Thanks
Bert

QUOTE (Bertus @ Jun 24 2005, 08:34 AM)

Thanks for the info everybody. Next question, how much rust is acceptable, since there is probably no such thing as a totally rust free 914, at least in my spending range. My previous 914 had severe issues with the area under the battery, and it was only 12 years old at the time. I know bad rust under the battery tray and in the jack holes are red flags. However, if there is a little rust under the battery tray is it worth taking a risk on if it isn't too bad, or would you just steer clear. Andy how do you end up with a 2.1 L, and how is that working out for you? Is that an expensive venture like converting to a 914/6. Thanks Bert

how much rust? how much do you feel confident in fixing... some cars have been saved from the brink of being rust-dust, and some were cut up that were considered fixable by some... it's all in what you feel confident in... myself, I dunno if I would take on much fixing on my first project... there are *ALMOST* rust-free cars. under the battery tray is definitely fixable, if it hasn't gotten too DEEP!


2.1 is really 2056cc, which is 72mm stroke(stock 2L crank) with 96mm pistons(instead of 94mm on a stock 2L) the 2L(or 1.8, 93mm) cylinders are opened up to accept the bigger pistons... it's probably cheaper than even doing a euro-spec 2L (flat top pistons, higher compression) it's NOWHERE NEAR as much as converting to a /6! in fact I bought a fully built 2056 for my car for 2k, you can find engines for 2-4k often... 4k won't get you 1/2 the stuff you need for a /6... but a 2056 ISN't a /6 either or you can do it yourself for about a grand...

btw, 4k-5k can also get you an AMAZING engine KIT from Jake Raby, the TIV god which will probably be in the 2270cc range(78.4x96mm) and will get you up in the 150hp range+ which IS comprable to a /6(more than the stock 2.0L /6 and less weight)

Thanks Wayne,

Are there other expenses associated with this conversion (e.g. different clutch, bigger brakes), or is it simply a matter of putting in the new engine? Are there any reliability issues associated with these engines?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, I just want to try to make a good decision when I go to purchase a car instead of making a knee jerk decision and regretting it later!

Thanks,

Bert

no sweat!

no other expenses unless you WANT to...

you can even do a /6 conversion without bigger brakes, but I would recommend it being on the list eventually... and the clutch is the same on all /4s.... it's a 911 6-spring clutch...

a 2056 is just as reliable as stock,if done right. but a 2270 MAY need a bit of freshening of the heads every so often... still not bad though... Jake would know more about Freshen schedules of his kits. I'm not even 100% sure it would need anything...

beetle guys rebuild every 10k for their performance engines... with any type 4(except HUGE ones) done right, you'll get 50-100k between freshens... more if you are mainly on the street...

one more thing... if you go bigger than 2056, you can't keep the STOCK FI... after market FI or carbs are your choices, and that will add another grand. I forgot to mention that earlier

a 2056 can be done cheaply and still be fine. I already had weber carbs though...

If I understand your previous email, if I want to try this myself I would need either a 1.8 or a 2.OL to begin with. Or if you just buy one already done it would usually involve trading in the old engine block, correct?

Thanks,

Bert

Wayne must have hit a wrong key, the stock crank on a 2 liter is 71mm. If you do go to build a larger motor, talk to Jake, he can tell you what would be your best option for what you want and what you have to spend. Good luck and welcome to the club.

Of course, you could always go the way some of us have, "There's no replacement for displacement" V8 Power!!!

Thanks Scott.

V8 in a 914 sounds pretty fun, but pretty damn scary too! Plus I am on the married, 2 kids, and a mortgage budget, which means I'll be lucky to be able to afford a car that isn't a complete rust bucket.

This club is definetly responsible for me wanting to get another 914. I found it while surfing, and just couldn't believe all the info and techincal tips that were available on 914s. I have only seen 1 in Lexington over the past 5 years, so I thought they were pretty much fading out. This website has definetly proved that assumption to be wrong.

Bert

QUOTE (skline @ Jun 24 2005, 10:03 AM)

Wayne must have hit a wrong key, the stock crank on a 2 liter is 71mm. If you do go to build a larger motor, talk to Jake, he can tell you what would be your best option for what you want and what you have to spend. Good luck and welcome to the club. Of course, you could always go the way some of us have, "There's no replacement for displacement" V8 Power!!!

yea, thanks Scott... mis typed. and scott is right... Jake can tell you 1000x more than I can.


if you can, get a 2L to start with, that will give you the crank and heads that you will want...

Here's my two cents I have owned a 1.7, a 2.0 and currently own a 74 1.8. All cars were and continue to be fun. 73-74 2.0 car is the best to find, but shouldnt be the only factor in finding the car.

Spend more up front on a car then you plan. Its always better to buy a clean car that has either been restored or has low milage and stored properly. Bargin hunting for a poorly maintained car that has rust isnt adviseable if your trying to do this on a budget.

Early 1.7's in good shape can often be a bargin if they have been well maintained. 1.8 prior to 1975 are lighter and that engine isnt as bad as people say. While HP was down on the 1.8 the torque it produces is higher than the 1.7. A few tweaks on the 1.8 and you have a car that is fairly quick. Dont avoid a clean 1.8 they can be every bit as fun as the other cars. 2.0 cars just have more low and mid range power that is noticable.

My car had no rust when I bought it 4 years ago - sat in a garage in Las Vegas for 15 years. Learn the difference between surface rust and terminal rust in critical structures on the car. Do some searches on this forum to learn more.

If you can do basic body work look past body damage. Sometimes clean cars get a dent etc and sellers lower their prices too much.

Look into your states smog laws. If the state imposes certification you will want to make sure the car still has fuel injection and the critical emissions pieces. Or if its like California the year of the car can be important my 74 is exempt.

While your looking consult with this board. You'll get a variety of opinions and some good information. If the car is in another state ask if an expereinced board member can get out and look at the car before you buy.

Good luck!

grant is totally right... spend more on a GREAT body... it's worth much more in the long run

angines are not the expensive part on these cars... unless you have a 3.2 /6...

Appreciate the info, I am sure that I will have more questions once I start looking at vehicles. Thanks.

QUOTE (Bertus @ Jun 24 2005, 11:59 AM)

Appreciate the info, I am sure that I will have more questions once I start looking at vehicles. Thanks.

we're always here... welcome to the club!