I have recently rebuilt my mother's 72 1.7L 914 engine. She bought it in 1976 and it sat unused in her garage from 1998 until she passed in 2013. I decided on the Weber/Redline single two barrel kit for three reasons.

1. My mother kept all of the receipts of work done and most of the last ones involved fixing the fuel injection and injectors.
2. I already have a full complement of cars and motorcycles so I gave the car to my son who has very little mechanical knowledge and a simple fuel system fit the need.
3. The guy that let me use his car lift to pull the drive train has 5 914s, 3-73,1-74 and one 76. He has put the same single carb system on all of his and has had no problems.

My first impression? The car starts easily and idles smoothly. It accelerates from a light easily and cruises at speed on the freeway with very little pedal. How is the power? Climbing from 4000 feet to over 7000 ft on interstate 80 in less than 10 miles was effortless. This is a system that will run well and be simple to work on in the future. The added bonus is that the engine compartment isn't cluttered with all of the wires and hoses involved with the FI.

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Glad it works for you, I will take FI over a single carb setup anyday

HERESY!!!!!

You won't get much love for carbs around here. Lots of people have them but they aren't the best system out there. I have dual Webers on mine currently so I am another heretic.
I may convert to a megasquirt system in the future.

If you are happy with it, that is all that matters. It is cool that your son gets to drive something passed down from his grandmother.(Which could be the source of endless "grandma car" jokes if he has a sense of humor)

Man, I do admire that neat engine compartment and tin .. the silver looks awesome. I think I'm gonna do that too.

My first 914 was 1.7L with a single weber carb, served me well too. I honestly don't remember fussing with it too much at all. Drove it for 2.5 years daily. Don't be surprised though if some evolution come about though, it may even be inevitable - that's what we teeners do! Great Looking Car BTW!!


.

When I was a teenager at my first job I bought a 1976 (or 1975?) 2.0 with the single carb conversion. I remember experiencing mediocre performance driving from Tempe AZ (elevation 1100') to Flagstaff (almost 7000'). But now I'm not sure I had the car tuned properly for Tempe. No electronic ignition and stuff then.

Nice tidy engine compartment! I'm glad it's working well for you.

Also congratulations on keeping the car in the family.

If it is good for you, that's what matters.

I drove my 74 with a Bus motor and a single carb on it and never messed with it until I sold it. I got to do the other fun and easy things like radio, speakers, carpeting, brakes.

No one knew I had a bus motor in it until I told them.

Id rather have something to drive then to have it on jackstands....

I've had single webers on a 914 and a bus and wound up ripping them out of both. They were OK for the most part but top end was a bit lagging on the 914 and I also had the dreaded acceleration bog from the 009 dizzy. The problem came when running them in cold weather. These were DDs so driven year round and when the temps dipped, the carbs and intake runners would freeze up about 10 miles from home and leave me stranded at the side of the road. The carbs and runners would be covered in a thick coat of frost. You obviously live where temps can dip so just be aware if you plan to drive on cold days.

I replaced the carbs with dual 34 ICTs which worked better but would still freeze up in the bus on very cold days. The difference was that it only took a few minutes for heat from the heads to conduct up the short throttle bodies and thaw the carbs enough to get me back on my way. I don't recall having any trouble with the 914 but I also wasn't driving it as much then.

I was 24 when I got mine, great car for a young dude. Those long tubes are fine for just air, but air/fuel mixed in the carb starts to unmix on that hay ride. But I had one too, in 1982. Webers in 83.

I had the Weber Progressive when I bought my 2.0 about eleven years ago.

Now I'm running 2056 with dual EMPI HMPX 40s.

Neither was perfect. In a lot of ways -- especially electronic choke -- the Progressive was easier to live with. It ran rich to compensate for the long intake tubes.

My current setup is a cold-hearted bitch for cold starts. Lots of spits and carb popping. Probably need to rebuild and tweak both carbs.


The moral of the story is: If you're lucky enough to own a fuel-injected 914, try to keep it that way.

I'm amused at a couple of things I read here. First of all is talking about performance. The 914 is a nice little car to putt around in and is a lot of fun but it will never fit my needs for speed so that is not on the table for me,. The second is the blind hate for the carbs even though there is a definite place for them in certain applications. Just refer to my conversion and car as "Bad orange car"

Hahaha, well thanks for playing.

I'm with you to a point. A 1.7 has just enough performance to be fun. If a carb shaves performance off an already mediocre performance engine, it is worth noting.

I really don't think there is that much "blind hate" for carbs on the forum. I have carbs on mine for much the same reason as you. Back in the 80s I got tired of delays and roadside repairs caused by an aging FI. No mechanics in my area knew anything about these systems and the Internet wasn't a thing then so I didn't have access the DIY info out there now. The sensible thing was to carb the engine.

When judging reactions on this forum to carbs, we should remember there is a lot of hype out there about carbs being an "upgrade" to FI and a lot of people want to bolt them on to improve performance. They aren't an upgrade but they may be the right choice when various tradeoffs are considered. I have no problem at all with the single progressive carbs but as was already mentioned, those long intakes can be a problem. They made my car about as unreliable as the FI it replaced during certain times of the year, but they may work fine for other folks. Just enjoy your car. It looks nice!

Most drivability issues with the type 4 converted to carbs is the original cam is specifically for fuel injection. For it to run efficiently rebuilds must include the correct cam.
A 914 with the right cam and carbs can scream.

It's not blind hate, just some experience that isn't yours.

Glad it works for ya.

Like in Arizona or California in the Summer at 1,000 it may not work so well. Not ever going that route I wouldn't know. I kept my FI on the car....learned a lot and worked well for me in all kinds of weather and altitude.

I wonder though.....if the German engineers envisioned how good a single caraburated Type IV is, then why didn't they deliver it with one?

Realtive experiences may very.

They didn't deliver them with carbs because they had an eye on the smog regulations that were emerging.

I switched to dual Weber IDF 40s and appreciate the the reliability even in cold weather. My right foot has become the "brain" for my fuel system. Any start just requires the right amount of throttle priming.

The car came with D-jet fuel injection. When it ran, it was a work of beauty. But went it failed, it was a bitch to find the fault and repair it. In fact, each fault finding session took more time than it took to remove the FI and install the carbs.

The trade off for reliability was increased fuel consumption.

I'd love to have that 914, carbs or not. I once had an orange one that I dearly miss.




Wasn't there a bus that was delivered with a single carb Type IV? I thought I heard there was one made that way for Europe.... but I might be wrong.

A bit more context:

The majority of cars in the 1970's were carb equipped both Foreign and Domestic.

Although emissions standards were part of the Clean Air Act of 1963 and ammended in 1965, there wasn't any serious emissions regulation until 1968 model year. EPA didn't even come into existance until Dec 2, 1970.

The main issue with aircooled is high HC and NOx emissions. High HC at startup when things aren't yet fully expanded and sealing well, and high NOx when running from hot cylinder head temperatures (compared to water pumpers). IIRC VW Beetle did go to FI in 1975 but certainly the early 914's weren't as heavily emissions regulated and probably didn't require FI.

I drove several Mazda's, Datsuns, and Toyota's of that mid to late 70's era with carbs. But being watercooled, they didn't start from the emissions disadvantaged postion of air cooled boxer engines. IRRC all had air injection pumps to reduce unburned HC.

Not a carb hater -- had a 73' 1.7L (later rebuilt to 1911) that ran great on IDF's. But starting was quite a chore if the temperatures went single digit and below.

But at the end of the day . . . FI is superior from a mixture and emissions control perspective.

Glad OP's happy with car -- just drive & enjoy

Dual solex carbed engines were delivered to the US for a short time. I myself never saw a single double barreled Type IV or Type III from the factory.

Have fun with your car and glad you could save it. Don't throw the FI stuff away if you still have it be my advice.

I wouldn't say realiable and efficient for a singel carbed type IV in the same sentence next to the FI that came with the car.....at least that is my experience. I had problems with it but once it was restored it was very reliable and with a 123 Dizzy would pull like a mother.

It runs and drives, drive it and enjoy.

I don't know what you are driving to fit your need for speed, but you should have a look at a few of the outlaws here. Some of the modifieds are running Hellcat horsepower in a car that weighs half what the dodge weighs. Might want to check it out, there not all Moms 1.7 any more.

LOL!!!

Of course a 914 won't meet your need for speed if you do modifications that make it slower and you are bragging about it.

If you don't think the 914 is about performance, you haven't looked at enough of the member cars on this site.

The term "Blind hate" implies there isn't a reason for it. Carbs are easier to work on but they don't run as well as fuel injection. Carbs are inferior to fuel injection, end of story.
Yes, carbs can work but they aren't as good. That's not hate, that is facts.

There is a place/application for carbs; when you don't want to spend the time and money to have a better running car.

OTOH, maybe I, most of the people on this site, EVERY CAR MANUFACTURER ON EARTH, and every top level race team in the world are wrong and carbs ARE better than fuel injection...

VW started using the Bosch D-Jet in Fastbacks & Squarebacks in 1968 to meet US immersion standards. As said above air-cooled needed more help than water cooled

Similar experience here. The EFI left me stranded a few times (in the mid 70's), even after dealer troubleshooting. Upon complete exasperation, I switched to a carb....My room mate had a new Holley fuel pump, and the carburetor shop (Remember those?) down the street had a single barrel Ford/Holley carb for cheap. One afternoon, and installation done! Never left me stranded after that. And you know what, it ran pretty darned good, actually. Oh, it was a '72 2.0.
Andys

My Dellortos are running fine now, though I have a bit of a worry how they'd do if I took another drive up to Flagstaff.

I ran one in my bus for a while, 1911cc (1.7 w/ big bore kit). I modified this Air cleaner to seal the bottom and added the warm air set up to avoid icing. I got the CSP version of a 123 distributor. Cold and hot start was never a problem and 5K Lb bus got 18mpg.