Asking for a friend, this is a kind of ridiculous question given what’s going on in the world ....

Let’s imagine that this person had a civilized 3.2 L build, good manners and not high strong or overly jittery. Let us further imagine that this person also had a similarly civilized to your car and 1.7 L car, and just to make this a bit more apples to apples that those were also decent street cars that had good manners and we’re not overly tuned or jittery. Basically let’s assume that all three have stock interiors and shift decently and compliance suspensions etc. last assumption is that they all have a similar body condition so basically removing the variables except engine.

I know that a couple people here have multiple cars so there may be some first-hand experience with this question, but yes, trying to figure out if my 1973 1.7l and/or 2.0L car will end up sitting idle once the 3.2L is up and running.

Thanks in advance for the thoughts and hope everybody had a good week .

Your going to get lots of options on this, personally I could never go back. In fact I am already looking for more power........Must be the Hot Rodder in me.

I own a 74 2.0 & a 70 six w/ a 77 2.7 911S engine. The six is faster but the four is very noticeably lighter

Type 4 sale

Well, there is a good chance that one will always be broken. Having two ensures you have a good one to go! Maybe My 2.3 four cylinder has been rock solid for years and years, knock on wood. My street legal 3.0 six track car (250 hp) has required quite a bit more tinkering. I can't make a direct comparison since my track car does not have the ability to roll up windows, nor a spare tire. So I don't like going far in the car, or being too far away from it when parked. I will have to say in a narrow body car with 205s you do not want too much horsepower. At some point it will likely get away from you. My six has always been flared with sticky 225s on 8" rims on the rear. Maybe around 200 horsepower is a good target.

Thanks for the thoughts.

I do really like the lightness of the 1.7 but I’m thinking the soon to be usable 912 may cover that. They do remind me of each other to drive.

Never... 200hp minimum for me.

While I am about to start the journey from a 4 to a 6, I did have a 4 in my 77 911 and I could not wait to get a flat 6 back into it. Maybe if the 4 was a big HP then I would have to think about it, but the 6 vs the 4 in my 911 I would never go back. Now, in the same token I did have a 2.0 in my 74 and had it not been overheating and me not have a spare 6 cyl I probably would have just fixed and reinstalled the 2.0 or even a 2056 and left it as is.

I have both (see below) with the 2.0L and 3.2L motors not far from stock. Both are narrow bodied 1974s, look basically stock, and neither are daily drivers. I have no particular preference and drive and work on both about equally. Different personalities and joys to them. The "sleeper" 3.2 with a 915/916 transaxle definitely has more power and makes music in my ears (no radio) but the 2.0L does have a more nimble go-kart like feel to it. I call it "slingability". If I had to sell one, the 3.2L would probably go first.

Think about it . circa 1970s daily commute , grocery getter the 1.7

Modern day same truth still applies . if you want the car for pleasure ... A 3.2 with that 11blade fan spinning is more for pleasure ( no replacement for displacement) . but you dont really need all that for going to walgreens or a breakfeast joint .

1.7 is the most user friendly platform in a mid engine cars . does just about everything well . 1st timers can handle its quirkyness and good drivers can make it hum



3.2 . you always need to be prepared to stop quickly and its just a hassel constantly trying to stay under 100mph 3.2 in the wrong hands = widow maker
1.7 in the wrong hands ....pretty harmless


And maintence cost /6 vs 4 i think you already know how that turns out

Drove my 1.8l for 4 years before I put a 3.2l in it....would never go back. The power and quickness just always makes me smile.

Variety is the spice of life.

Motorcyle analogy.

I have a 1998 Superhawk996 (obsolete by modern standards) that is 100 HP. More than enough to get me in trouble with the law. Fun wheelie machine. Handles reasonably well. Comfortable to ride on the street unlike my 600 CBR that I used to race.

I also have a 1964 Honda Dream 250cc that maybe makes 20HP on a good day. Riding it takes lots of advance thinking (drum brakes suck!) but it takes you back to a different time when life seemed simpler.

Both are a joy to ride but for completely different reasons.

I've found the same to be true of cars.

Performance EV's have their merits. You can't touch that kind brutal acceleration with an ICE engine (short of track only drag cars) but they lack soul.

A flat six screaming with fan noises, induction, and exhaust has soul but can't touch a modern performance EV for raw acceleration.

Which one you drive depends entirely on what sort of mood you're in and what the task at hand is; Grocery getting vs. performance driving.

So although I'm not lucky enough to have both a 3.2L teener and a 1.7L in the garage - I can honestly say I would drive both and could enjoy each for what it is.

I had a 3.2..... the very vest..... until something would go wrong with it. Then, it's like performing brain surgery to fix it.

Had a stock 1.7...... weaker than anything on earth, but I miss it. It puuuurrrrred.

Now drive a 2056, and it's perfect for me.

My advice? Don't ever..... EVER drive a 3.2. Once you do, nothing will be the same.

Just like dont ever date a pliates instructor
( paul gasol )
Something go's wrong . its hard to fill the void

Great discussion gentlemen, appreciate the feedback.

How many people are unhappy with a six and go back to a four?

The sixes take a fun car and add an iconic engine. It's a match made in heaven.

I wish I had this problem to worry about!

We have a /4, a stock /6 and a big /6 with mega HP.

Each has it's quirks and strengths. The big six is great for hauling @ss, but it has a heavy clutch, so rush hour traffic is a bitch. The factory six is a mellow car, it doesn't compare with the /4 for drivability or comfort (AC vs no AC on the six). I like the /4 when running to the store, and we use it for the grocery runs. (I miss the little orange monster.... I hope he is back home soon.)


Each is different, and each is fun in its own way. They are all 914s, but they are all different. And I love driving them all!

Clay

Haha! I had to wait till retirement. Now wondering when I'll no longer be able to get into them.

That’s good perspective.

Yeah, I honestly wrestled a bit with even asking because I didn’t want to be obnoxious.

I do realize that I am very lucky to be in a position to even think about this sort of thing...

Most modern cars are faster than a 3.2 914. Are you driving a Prius? Most modern cars have over 200hp. A 3.2 is not that fast. A modern BMW or Mustang is faster and more dangerous power wise. I do all my own maintenance work, so maintenance on my 3.2 is cheap. 3.2 DME injection is much easier to troubleshoot than 914 fuel injection. I have Boxster brakes on all four corners, so stopping is not a problem, but a modern car will stop better with Anti Lock Brakes. I also have no problems staying under a 100. The main benefit of a 3.2 is getting there quicker and more torque. My 3.2 engine is a 1984 engine, never overhauled and has over 300,000 miles on it. I think I am getting my moneys worth out of it. If you want exotic car performance you need at least a 3.6.

Hey . lets get something stright i dont drive no prius. Its a ( scion xb) so slower

And if i had /6 conversion i would want it long gearing not quick acceleration

And of course a new m3 s faster but still not many out there faster then a 3.2 conversion that are rear or mid engine

Ive seen 1 new alfa ? I think it was a alfa 4c .
( pos )basically
The guy had to really work to pass me .

And then he had to adjust his rear view from all the reflections of his gold chains

You are correct, I am running a stock 3.2 915 gear box, so my gears are taller. A 914 gear box is much quicker, but you shift more often. That is better on the track but sucks on the street. My daily driver is a Toyota GT86

Gotta agree with Steve, 200HP is just about standard for everything coming off the car lots these days and there automatics which shift faster. It’s when the 3.2 power curve hooks up in 2 to 3 gear when you can say good bye to the Mercedes E300 but certainly not from red light to red light.........I should know. Been there done that.

Let's see now. I drove my '76 type 4 every chance I got. Took it to two RRC's in CO, multiple "Dawn Patrol" rides and God knows how many local 914 events. Then that damned Mike @MoveQik gave me a ride in his six. I was hooked. Since converting the '73, albeit a Subaru 6, the '76 has been driven less than 300 miles in 6 yr's. And those were by people that I loaned the car to. In essence, my first love is now the proverbial "red headed step child" and is only started every 2 weeks. Why I keep it licensed and insured is beyond me.

I appreciate the idea of variety, although it is imaginary for me until I get done restoring my 73 2.0. I look forward to driving that and enjoying the classic (i.e. slow) speed but light, minimalist chassis. When I want more absolute performance, I have my 2017 991 C2.

I wonder if slow vs fast 914 is enough variety.

Time to settle this .

Anyone with a 3.2 still put 2 full size golf bags in the back trunk ? ( not sunday bags ) or would even take it to the driving range

Advantage /4

I keep golf bags in my trunk . not the front seat

I don't have a 4cyl car but if I did I would like the economy of the FI 2.0 against the consumption of a carbed six,they drink like a sailor in home port and that to me is the only downside ,they are a bunch of fun besides,you will never go back.

I’m not putting down the stock 4 cars. There just not for me. I have seen some really nice stock 914-4’s, bugs, Karman Gia’s, Bus’s, 356’s etc. People take them to cars&coffee and have a huge Following. It is sad though... when I built my six back in 87, my car was very rare and a total sleeper. Now the conversions are dime a dozen.

What’s a 3.2 got to do with rear trunk space.......,

If I had a 4cyl setting next to my 3.2 I would sell it and punch my motor out to a 3.4......

Jeez man go out and drive a six powered car and come back with a better reply...no one mentioned golf bags as far as I remember...…
My daily driver handles the larger cargo jobs for me.
Stop making statements basing on nothing really,cheers.

:headbanger:your clubs must be short ..frunk is way more useful for me..

Almost every conversion eats into the rear trunk space some how

And my clubs are actually inch and a half over standard
They fit fine in the back trunk.
Front trunk . dont think so

And for the lolly gagger. from new Zealand
( meat )
I dont wanna drive a 6/ its way too fast sleek and expensive for me . Im happy as a big 4/


And since i think this is still america ... I'll make all the baseless claims i want and anyone with a problem can cry all they Want

Or slap me with a glove and challenge me to a dual .

That was your 1st lesson ( meat )

Dont think . you can only hurt the ball (club) / ( world)

And since im sure no one told you before
Strike outs are boring and besides that there fascist

Good morning.

Pretty sure we can discuss this while all remaining civil, or at least I hope so.

After some driving yesterday and this thread I’ve reached a decision that I am going to sell the ‘73 1.7 and finish a good mechanical build on one of the 2.0L cars (suspension and swaybars and refreshed engine) but skip the cosmetics on it so I’ll have it drive once it cools off here in SoCal.

That will free up some funds to push the 3.2L ahead, ideally having it to drive this fall as well.

I have a feeling, as you all have suggested, drive them back to back will tell me pretty quickly where my heart and interest is. If the 2.0L still soaks to me I’ll get the paint and interior work done.

Thank you all again for being patient with the somewhat ridiculous initial question, I appreciate the shared experiences.

My 2.7RS doesn't eat into the trunk space. But then I don't play golf, so I guess it's wasted on me.

Not exactly what you asked, because I don't have a 4, but I do have a straight 4 in my 2002tii. As other have noted, the one I drive tends to depend on which one is actually running, but in some imaginary utopia where at least one of them wasn't in pieces I'd probably pick the 914 nine times out of ten because 2nd gear up the on ramp will never cease to put a huge grin on my face.

Uh oh - almost have the engine back in the ‘74 Tii....

While I dont have a 3.2 I do have 4 other 914s built to various performance levels. Oddly enough its my stock 1.7 d-jet car that I have racked up the most miles on in the last few years. Its just a very enjoyable, balanced, relaxing ride.

If you think about it, in a 914 you dont need to slow down for much and when driving any car you can only accelerate so much before you are going faster than you should be anyways. So how often is that power usefull. Yeah power is fun but i find if I am not racing i really dont get to many opportunities to use it. In some ways having the power can even be frustrating, when I take my built (pulls to 7k) 2056 autocross car out on the street I always have the urge to wind it out but find myself quickly running out of road to the point of mild frustration.

Really depends on what you are using it for, but yes, i find myself putting a lot of time in with my 1.7

I used to enjoy driving my 1.7 around town but hated it on the highway. Too slow to accelerate with traffic. Once it was up to speed, it was fine.

[quote name='john77' date='Aug 2 2020, 05:45 PM' post='2839332']
My 2.7RS doesn't eat into the trunk space. But then I don't play golf, so I guess it's wasted on me.



I dont get to golf much but its something a 914 has over other cars of mid engine config

The reason i got my car was that its a 4 cyclinder
And still considered a volkswagen like my 1st car . Baja bug

Im into the whole n .a.r.p thing . its a little tougher to be n.a..r.p. When you have a /6


But people should post pics of their /6 conversions
As im a huge fan of porsche fans . not pancake cooling but you cant have it all

Hahaha... get ready for something to give on the 914.

Seriously, in 5 years they've barely been in my garage at the same time - maybe 2 months max. Like you said, it's a nice problem to have, although I wonder why sometimes

I have a 2.7l stroker with throttle bodies being built for a wide body 2002 I've been building. No doubt as soon as that fires up the 914 will spontaneously combust...

They don’t all have to be screamers, exactly.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Shhhhhh! Don’t let the cars hear you.

I am hoping the Tiii and 914 are very distinct, they should be.

Try telling that to some of the 911 guys

Haha.

Yeah, I think the tii is great for relaxed cruising. The 914 makes me want to drive it hard all the time.

Do you have a 5 speed in the tii? I found that helped a ton. When I got mine it had a 4 speed and by the time I hit 60 on the freeway it felt like I was driving with the handbrake on.

What do you expect ??? I'am now a homosexual and a racist,shi# man I have been called way more that that before,water off a ducks back to me.

Guys... you are rapidly moving into religion/politics territory. I let the first comment go thinking everyone would ignore it. So let's not start down this path. Nothing good will come of it.




Clay

Solves it.

Click to view attachment

It seemed like I was always working on my drivetrain when my car was a 2.0 - 2270 - 2.4 Type IV. Now, I change oil and adjust valves on the 3.2 twice a year and polish, lots of polish...

Completely reliable now...

Thanks for the response.

I have a Getrag 240 (with mechanical speedo) going in, seemed worth doing which your comments confirm.

BTW - are you on 2002Faq? I am tdskip there too....