Yeah, back to looking at 2.2 and 2.4 engines while day dreaming. Not sure it is relational...

Just curious If there are any significant handling/weight advantages. I don’t think so, so does it come down to aesthetics of how the engine spin and sound?

I will duck and cover now...

Less low end tq, same if not more cost to rebuild. Peakier usable range, advantage easier and cheaper total cost for a conversion because oil cooler, and flywheel setup is a standard cup style used on all early 911s and work up to 2.7 engines..

If money was no option for me it would be 3.2 or 3.6 for the stock fuel injection..

the advantages for a small bore -6 are really dependent on the owners personal preferences.

less torque, so less transmission requirements
the same weight
better sound, and better induction noise
a 66 mm crank on the 2.0 and 2.2 so revs faster and higher

the short stroke crank and subsequent free revving motor is really the only advantage of any significance... and only for a discerning owner who wants a short stroke. (SS made famous in early 911 racing)

Mag cases are lighter
Smaller engines have a different sound
No oil cooler needed on the mild builds
Easier on the trans and less conversion parts needed.

I drove a narrow body 6 with a 160ish hp engine and custom gears. It had some glass lids, bumpers, some other light weight stuff and sticky tires. It was a blast!

x 2

914's are all about light weight, low Center of Gravity, vintage engine sounds, and nimble handling. If you seek fast in a straight line, there are many cheaper not to mention faster alternatives than a 914.

I'm biased though - currently working on a 2.4L six.

x10

Have driven all sorts of conversions over the years, and a really well done 3.2 or 3.6 (or 3.8) can be really nice, but there's something about a mag case 2.0 or 2.2. Sounds, the way it spins, all that. I've got a 2.2 making 169 hp at the wheels, or 160~ at the wheels with the factory airbox in place, and have little interest in more power. 190-200 is a pretty nice sweet spot in a narrow 914—not fast by modern standards but not slow, either, and more importantly satisfyingly powerful and fun. The little 2.2 is surprisingly torquey, too, as it has Solex cams. Sometimes, it's hard to believe the midrange torque is from just 2.2 liters. Has 2.7/3.0 driveability with 2.2 revviness and sounds. Downside is no 911S 2.2 rush from 6000-7200 rpm—it pulls "just okay" up there. I'd have a tough time trading the midrange drivability for the top-end rush, but I do think about it from time to time. So far, no need for an external cooler, though I am thinking about one mounted at the back of the car for "that time I needed an oil cooler after all."

If I was going to go longer stroke, I'd probably want to have something bigger than a 2.4 but the most fun 914 I ever drove was a GT-bodied car with a 2.2S w/MFI, short gears, and a diff. It was a hoot—everything felt "right."

To each their own...I can see where a 3.2 Motronic is deeply appealing, too.

I've had many 911 engined cars... the most boring were a 3.2 and a 964 3.6. The most fun were a 2.2S MFI and a 2.7RS with Webers. Lightweight, the sound, the smell, the feel!

It's not that much lighter, I forget but it's only 20 or so pounds.
The cost is about the same, case work costs more for a mag case, but the 3.0 up need a adaptor clutch, etc. so in the end it's likely a wash.

Any /6 build will cost way more than a /4, but end of the day a 914 with a six (conversion) will be worth more than a hot rodded /4.

Mine is a 2.4 S heads, Weber’s with mod Solex cams which I built about three years ago.

First of all I built it from the 2.4 T motor that was already in the car, so there was no thought of buying another motor. Probably true for many people.

Second I just love the nature of the smaller displacement motors - the way they sound, the way they rev. I think that it just fits the nature of the car. These are vintage Porsche’s after all.

I run a stock 914-4 side shifter, and again a real nice match up.

I have tracked the car once, just to see how it ran. It did fine vs a variety of Caymans, boxster, SC vintage 911’s.

How freakin fast do you want to go anyway? This thing is a pretty quick little street car that is just a blast to drive on the street. And it has plenty of torque.

No oil cooler necessary

I drive it a lot - two or three times a week, that probably equates to 1500 miles a year. Even if I built a crap motor and the mag cases shit the bed after 20,000 miles (neither seems likely) I will be long gone by then.

So why NOT build a nice quick, vintage small displacement motor? For our use, nothing wrong with them at all. In fact it is the essence of what made Porsche so viscerally desirable and mythical back in the day. Yes it does feel just right for me too.

I’ve got a “spare” mag motor with everything I need to build a 2.2 S motor and will do that long before I search out a “more durable, stronger” 3 liter. These things are toys, not long haul diesel semi trucks.

This Discussion makes me want to go out in the garage and start the thing just for grins.

Lifted from Pelican or somewhere else along the line. Can't vouch for 100% accuracy but it generally seems like a plausible weight progression. Like people, cars and engines put on weight as they age. Don't forget these are supposedly engine weights and don't include things like auxillary coolers, lines, etc.


lbs-- models-- Source
400 lbs - 2.4L E, S, RS 1972-73 - Tech. Spec. book
403 lbs - 2.4L T 1972-73 - Tech. Spec. book
440 lbs - 2.7L 1975-1977 - Aichle - 911 Engines
419 lbs - 78-83 930/09,19,10 78-81 78-81 & 82-83 - Tech Spec. book
441 lbs - 78-83 930/03-08,13-17 78-81 & 82-83 - Tech Spec. book
462 lbs - 3.0L 1980-82 - Aichle - 911 Engines
483 lbs - 84-87 930/20,26 84-87 - Tech Spec. book
485 lbs - 84-87 930/21,25 84-87 - Tech Spec. book
482 lbs - 3.2L 1987 - 1988 - Aichle - 911 Engines
524 lbs - 964 89-94 M64/01,02 ROW &US 964 - Tech Spec. book
497 lbs - M64/03 RS 964 - Tech Spec. book
605 lbs - M30/69 3.3L 964 - Tech Spec. book
608 lbs - M64/50 3.6L 964 - Tech Spec. book
510 lbs - M64/05-08 993 - Tech Spec. book
487 lbs - M64/20 993RS v-ram w/o ZMS 993 - Tech Spec. book
507 lbs - M64/20 993RS v-ram w/ ZMS 993 - Tech Spec. book

Thanks for the weight specs @superhawk996

Looks like 80+/- pounds for the 2.4 vs 3.2 then excluding any other related weight light flywheel difference etc.

So maybe 100 to 110 pounds in total with front cooler and lines?

For me, the 3.2's make sense because I like the Motronic fuel injection over carbs, the aluminum cases, while heavier, are much stronger, it's more than enough horsepower in a 914 and if you compare small and large engines with 100K miles, the small engine (at least the ones I see) are usually used up and need a complete rebuild while the larger engines are usually still running strong. Since most sixes from 2.0 to 3.2 end up costing around the same money to buy used or to rebuild, The larger engine win out for me.

But, I still dream of a aluminum case, hot rodded 2.0 in a light narrow body.

^

I cannot tell you how many smiles per mile I get from my 3.2 conversion. Plus, I wouldn’t hesitate to drive it anywhere. It is dead-on reliable.

Other things can effect those numbers as well, my 3.0 doesn't have the CIS and related gear as I have carbs.

Many have the opinion that the /4 handles better than a /6 because there's a significant weight difference between the two engines.

Gotta said I really had a blast with my car in mag case 2.2 "S" spec narrow body form. The weight, balance, sound and overall experience are "right".

It had/has short gears and a built trans which are a must for this sort of conversion. You need the right gearing to not be slow and miserable in 2nd-4th gears with a relatively low-torque -6.

Still kicking myself as well - I bought that complete running engine including nice Webers for either $3000 or $3500 - few years later could not sell it to save my life and I think took $2500. F*** now just the Webers are worth... And of course then I spent 10X as much building the next engine which for sure is not 10X as fun...

Putting more weight in the rear is directionally incorrect and will degrade handling, especially the 914's tendency for on-throttle understeer.

Personally, I think that by putting on weight as I've aged from my 20's probably offsets things enough to call it a wash.

I'll end up moving the battery to front trunk, down low, and along center line as a further offset to the weight and inertia add of the six, and the associated oil tank+oil.

2.0/6 with twin plugs and 906 cams...

the sound:
hallet race

Yeah, that sounds insane.

A lot of people love the sound of the 2.2, and I am one of them (and was long before I became biased...), but there is just something about the even smaller 2.0 six. I noticed it even in a dead stock 1965 911 driven spiritedly by Peter Falk. Just elegant and luxurious and sporting and cool....

And then you have the race versions.

best answer yet,makes you think more about power to weight when you compare say a 2.2 against a 3.2 with front cooler .
Anyone ever weighed the cooler and all the other parts needed I wonder.

I didn't weigh mine but I bet the 22' of braided line, cooler, fittings and extras don't add more than 15lbs. Add some weight for oil but there's also a little more oil capacity. There are lots of ways to save some weight; lids and bumpers, lightweight batteries and high torque starters. Early doors, light carpet and sound deadening material, lighter muffler and headers etc. With the right suspension and alignment, these cars shouldn't feel heavy, even with a big engine. They can be driven differently. With a strong engine, you can steer with the throttle.

Once while waiting on a plane at the airport, I played around with weight reduction on my stock '71. I came up with 300lbs on paper. Less than $3K in cost. That would be a 15% reduction and change the power to weight ratio of the 2000lb, 75 hp car. Add a very easy to build 120hp 4 cylinder and you have a pretty fun car for not much money. There's many ways to skin this cat.

10 pounds per horsepower is a pretty quick car and that is fairly easy to achieve with a 914 and a good running 2.4

@mepstein - did those items you listed off come up to the +/-300 pounds?

People are getting lost in modern horsepower wars that have warped our view of what is possible. A weight to power ratio of 7-8 is about where 1970's and early 1980's supercars like a Lambo were at.

Now look at the size of the rear tires on a Lambo. They couldn't even ground all the power on those tires without spinning them up. Don't even get me started about what tires that wide are like in the rain or worse yet, snow! You can't get enough tire under a 914 without resorting to GT1 style flares and/or running sticky Autocross type tires. IMHO HP without the ability to ground it is just wasted power.

What most don't realize is that modern cars are doing torque limiting in 1st and often 2nd gear. Yeah, the advertised HP numbers are huge but that is not what you're getting off the line in 1st and 2nd gear.

In the case of vintage machines like a 914 with a manual transmission, the transmission has to handle ALL the power or break the tires loose as the "fuse" to keep from breaking things like a ring or pinion. Now we're right back to wasted power.

Sure you can put in a 915 or G50 trans but here comes more weight in the rear of the car where it isn't needed.

At some threshold it becomes a viscious circle of HP begets more weight which then requires more HP (and tire grip) to accelerate it.

There is no easy or universal answer. . . . each person must choose thier own sweet spot.

Here are some of the things I came up with to remove 250-300 lbs. not all of the items are practical, reasonable or cost effective but it was just spitballing while waiting on a flight home. A 300lb / 15% weight reduction would make a pretty good difference in acceleration, braking and handling without changing the brakes, engine or suspension.

10 - Firewall pad
10 - floor tar
60 - lids
10 - engine lid
5 - rockers
20 - glass bumpers
20 - targa top
5 - carpet
15 - exhaust
10 - Backpad
20 - air control
5 - door hardware
185
10 - Seat sliders
5 - interior padding
20 - headlights
10 - steel crossbar
10 - Heat flappers & lever
30 - battery and
5 - battery tray
265
20- Headers

310

Additional items-
Pedal board
Targa latches
Vent window & trim
Shortened sub dash
Sun visors
Glove box & ashtray
Trunk locks F & R
Glove box lock
Windshield wipers
Windshield washer
Trunk heat shield ?
Brake caliper shields
Radio & speakers
Engine lid latch & cable
Front trunk latch & cable
Front carpet board
Spare tire
Center tunnel covers
Shift knob
Antenna

Pretty good list, but I can add to that.

Shorten all bolts - Free
Drill lots of holes in stuff - Free
Thin down things - Free
Acid dip the car and take a few thousands off everything
Carbon fiber will help you - but more $$$$
Magnesium Wheels - $$$
Remove all the gauges - Free Bike Speedo or your phone works - Free
lightest tires you can find - not free $$$ depends on what you wish to spend
Remove all glass - wear a helmet
Ditch the top, and all the trunk top related stuff - Free
Gun drill everything you can - Free
Replace everything you can with Titanium - not free, but can be fun in a fun way - Lathe Time
Remove the passenger seat - Free
Make a 911 engine into a -4 - not free, but lighter
Carry less fuel - Free
Aluminum any where you can - Free to $$$
Aluminum door skins - $$$
Did I mention drilling lots of holes

Carbon Fiber chassis - too many dollars to make this happen but we can dream.


Or just drive a really rusty 914 - they get lighter each and every day.

I figured if I took off 200-250lbs, the weight of a six is almost a wash.

Tdskip

What's the planned use for the 914...track/autox/street

Everyone please watch brant's video...it's what 914s are all about...
curves curves curves....see at about min 1:34 the old yellow mustang has just run out of grip as brant has been hunting it down..making up the time in the corners....and just listen to that 2.0L sing....I love it! (Nice Run Brant)

Also on the weight thing...
add in the weight of the oil for the front cooler/lines...about 1.7 lbs per qt.

Betty would say "This is cute, coming from the guy with the monster motor in his car..."

It's not all about the HP when it comes to track performance. Years ago, I was working a corner at Green Valley Raceway (sadly, it is a housing development now). I watched this Bugeye Sprite come out of the last corner and plant his foot on the floor for the long 1/2 mile straight that was also the drag strip. Within a few seconds behind him, a Big Block Vette came out of the same corner. The Vette blew by the Bugeye like he was standing still.

The next lap, I expected to see the Vette come out of the corner first. But the Bugeye came out of the corner, and the gap was bigger between it and the Vette. Same thing. The Vette blows by the Bugeye again.

Next lap, and the gap between the Bugeye and the Vette gets bigger coming out of the last corner. This happens consistently for enough laps that eventually the Bugeye was entering the hairpin at the end of the drag strip before the Vette cleared the last corner.

Seems the Bugeye was eating the Vette for lunch on the twisty parts of the circuit.


The moral of the story is that you need a chassis that handles as well as horsepower. So if you like a 2.0,2.2 or 2.4, go for it. Ultimately you have to drive the car, so build what makes you happy.



As for me, I built my car because it was, as the Theme from Smokey and the Bandit says, "We gonna do what they say can't be done."

Amen Clay.

I've seen different versions of that scenario play out all my life at different tracks.

My friends and I used to rent tracks to do our own track days. We ran 1 session of motorcyles and Go-Karts combined. I rode my race prepped CBR 600 race bike.

I could easily pull the Karts on the straights but there was no way to keep up with them in the corners. Since the bulk of any roadcourse track is corners. The Go-Karts eventually gap the bikes.

Sounds like my Morini sport. Underpowered compared to other bikes from the early 70's but light and fun. Was known to ride away from most other bikes, especially big ones, when it got to the twisties. Reminds me of a little sports car I like.

I’ve had four x sixes in my car over the 31 years of ownership. First was a 2.7 on webers that was great for about a week till it spun a main bearing and destroyed the case. Then came a 2.0 S that I got for $800 from a wreck that absolutely howled and sounded fantastic. I flogged the shit out of it and got 10 years of fun from it. Next was the 2.4 T motor which was underwhelming to say the least but all I could afford at the time. Currently running a 3.2 with nickies and 20/21 Web cam on motronic and love it.

3.2 is the best engine by far. Starts instantly, idles beautifully and totally tractable. Can doddle around town and get on it when required. 3.2 all the way!

I think the hot rod T4 engines def have an advantage with an engine weight of only ( from the internet) = 265 lbs. Some of those later 964/ 993 engines are getting up there. For comparison; early LT-1 series Chev sb v8 = 619, and Cayenne 4.7L v8 = 574 lbs.

OT but that's not Hallett. I've driven it many times

lexan windshield and rear window is big weight savings.
not to mention fiberglass front/rear fenders

You are correct

My mistake
MPH. Hastings.

1820# wet

418 pounds
GM 6.2-liter LS3 V8:
Length: 28.75 inches. Height: 28.25 inches. Width: 24.75 inches. Weight: 418 pounds (with accessories)

Not sure of any advantage other than fun. Last stages of my 2.2 E with S pistons, PMO 40 and DRC mod-solex 30 cams. Click to view attachment

Any size /6 while I'd agree it's stupid money, but when you blip the throttle that sound is total jizz in your pants orgasmic.

That engine looks fantastic

That looks great Mark H. thanks for the pics.

Thanks guys that's almost 8 years from start of buy, barter, trade, and then machine, assembly, mods, all the /6 conversion kit, did the 5-bolt conversion at the same time...way too much to list but you can see the build here .

And then...it's still not done, I have to do the front cooler, some more gauges to wire, collecting to do the 911 left hand key/ 911 turn switch mod ...it's a lot of work.
By the time all that is done I'll want to do a new paint job...it never ends

PLUS...I bought another 914, going to keep it stockish T4, my wifes summer DD or mine on rainy days.