2.0 rebuild options

siverson · siverson's Garage

Hi everyone,

I have a 1970 914-6 with 100% stock 2.0 motor, that hasn't been driven much in 10+ years and now likely needs a rebuild.

I've received some quotes and advice from different shops on how to rebuild it, but everyone has their own recipe for the best configuration.

It's a matching #s 914 so I'd definitely like to keep the appearance 100% stock. And possibly any changes 100% reversible in case a serious collector really cared about the car being 100% stock in the future. I'm not trying to create a rocket ship (I have a 3.6 liter 914 for that), but would like to get the best value out of the rebuild and have a fun car to drive. And it's actually surprisingly fun to drive with the 110 hp or so it has now.

Do I:

1. keep it 100% stock and 2.0 config
OR
2. slightly large P&C, cams, ports, etc?

If #2, do you have any suggestions on how to slightly warm over a stock 2.0 motor?

Thanks,
Steve

gsjohnson · 04:49 PM

I went with 2.2E PCs and heads for my 2.0 rebuild. I also went with Dougherty DC-30 Mod-Solex cams. I wanted more umph, but wanted to retain the original matching numbers aluminum case without modification. The car runs very strong. Make sure you check valve to piston clearance/deck height.
Dougherty Racing Cams

docrodg · 08-28-2013, 06:08 PM

Imho it depends on what you want and what you find when you dig in. If p&c are bad then a 2.2 may be a better option financially due to cost and availability of 2.0. Compression and cams are important for driveability and pump gas. Cooling of course, and mods for reliability like oil bypass and case savers. Lots can be done without obvious changes, but a daily driver is not happy with some items.

I would consider stock and only change if certain parts are dead. Truth is these cars are quite well powered even with a 2.0

Jack Stands · Jack Stands's Garage

I am facing somewhat of the same dilemma as my 914-6 still has it's original engine. As it has 83,000 miles on the engine and has never been apart, it's probably a good idea to refresh the valves, valve guides, and rings at least. When communicating with Henry at Supertec, he doubts that the ring lands will still be in spec and will need replacement. Pricing new 2.0 P/C sets make the project take on a whole different set of numbers.

As usual, until it's all torn down and measured, it's all speculation. However, with the prices of 914-6s going up all the time, a fresh engine is never a bad investment if needed.

gsjohnson · 08-28-2013, 06:29 PM

Mine was a smoker and in my case I found a broken ring that damaged a piston and a cylinder.

burtm5 · 08-29-2013, 08:50 AM

I'd suggest as others to take it apart and measure to see what you need. If either p/c are worn out. I would suggest you go to 90 mm p/c from 2.7. The nickies are better for cooling you can get stock rs at 8.5 or JE in any CR. This makes a 2.515 engine. E cams or Solex cams on 2.5 L at 9.5 would look stock and run very well. I did this on my 71 T 30 years ago and it worked very well. best Henry

Spenny_b · Spenny_b's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by siverson

Hi everyone,

I have a 1970 914-6 with 100% stock 2.0 motor, that hasn't been driven much in 10+ years and now likely needs a rebuild.

Hi Steve, just curious, but what leads you to believe it needs a rebuild? Is it leaking badly? Leak down numbers low/uneven?

....or are we using "man maths" to self justify some tinkering

(btw nothing wrong with that)

What sort of mileage has the engine done?

Cheers
Spencer

rsscotty · 08-29-2013, 09:49 AM

We have done a number of these in the past few years, and with owners requests have gone to the 2.2 displacement. You can call Jeff for specific build details from the crank up to the carbs.

Rothsport..... 503 885 9626

gsjohnson · 08-29-2013, 12:21 PM

FYI: Going to a 2.7 requires modifying your original case.

siverson · siverson's Garage

Thanks for the input.

I recently purchased the car and suspected it needed engine work (original PPI leakdown #s) plus on the drive home it developed a major oil leak behind the pulley (something about crank seal, o rings, really common problem). European Motorsports in San Diego/Vista has confirmed the only way to fix this is splitting the case.

Until recently, the car has basically sat since 1984.

It is likely to be a big pile of cash, but the purchase price was adjusted somewhat to accommodate this.

-Steve

burtm5 · 08-30-2013, 09:56 AM

GSJ I know that you have to bore the case from 2.0 to put in 90 mm 2.7 p/c. I thought you would have to bore 2.0 to get in the 2.2s? since they both have the 66 mm crank. so if your going to bore it why not bore it more? best

docrodg · 08-30-2013, 10:25 AM

IIRC the spigot bores are same up to 2.4 but I may be wrong. I don't have a spec book handy right now.

gsjohnson · 08-30-2013, 04:58 PM

A 2.0 case needs no spigot boring or modifying to install 2.2 PCs and heads. 2.4 heads will work with the 2.2 PCs as well.

AV8TOR · 08-31-2013, 05:30 PM

I too am restoring a '70 914-6, #2463. The tub went to Chicago to be dipped in an alkaline dip. Brought it back to Colorado straight to the powder coaters. The whole tub has been powdercoated and under going minor body repair and paint at Foggs auto in Colorado Springs. Suspension has been powdercoated in the Porsche 60/40 black. Engine is about 70% complete, I am reassembling heads now. Going to use "E" cam grind from John Dougherty. Biggest challenge is going to be finding/building new exhaust and heater boxes.
Tom/AV8TOR