Why 914's are not faster than 911's

[sammyg2]

I agree Howard, and i think that's why this thread started in the first place:
mid engine should be faster than rear engine based on physics, lighter should be faster than heavier.
Keeping that in mind, many people including myself have said that the 914 should be more capable on a race track than a 911 based purely on design.
My deviation or clarification stated that the 911 is already more refined as far as performance that the 914 in stock form, so it would take more modifications to make the 914 faster, that's all.

can a 914 be made faster than a 911? Sure if it is modified more.
can it be made faster if the same improvements that are made to the 914 are made to the 911?
That's what I was debating. At what ponit do the cars stop being a 914 or a 911? I can build a full tube framed race car and paste a 914 or 911 vin number on the frame, but does that make it a 911 or 914? nope. That is why i started reffering to the cars in totally stock trim, that is when they are pure.

if you make more improvements to a 914 than a 911, it will be definately be capable of outperforming a 911.
In theory, if both cars are modified as far as possible and the only limiting factor is technology, but the 911 remains rear engine and the 914 remains mid engine, and all dimensions except weight remain the same, the 914 should have the advantage due to the physics of better weight distribution.

Lots of folks tried to compare the performance of a highly modified 914 with a "911".
I stated that all things being equal, since the 911 started out as a more refined and capable car, it will remain a more capable car unless ther 914 is modified more. That of course is totally dependent on which 911 you are talking about. Some 911s are very high performance ('73 RS comes to mind) and some will perform much worse in stock trim just because of how they were designed and what the intended market was at the time. If you take the best performing 914 ever made and compare it to the worst performing 911 ever made it wouldn't even be close.

In general:
911s came stock with better brakes, more power, better sway bars and suspension but were heavier and had worse weight balance.
You can say that certain 914s were exceptions and came with more performance (914 GTs come to mind, all 40 or so of them?), and that certain 911s had less performance and you would not be wrong.
Comparing apples to apples, the factory limited the performance of the 914 on purpose and that has to be overcome to make them perform as they are capable.

I am not bashing the 914 at all. I love the cars. I've driven over 60,000 miles in a 914.
I'm just trying to be as realistic as my opinions allow.

[campbellcj]

Very well put Sam, as usual. I figure the only "meaningful" comparison of factory cars would be a 69 911T (2.0) vs a 70-71 914-6 (2.0). Given an equal driver on the same road or track, it would be a close call IMHO. Anything else is pure speculation as we're comparing apples and oranges; monster 914 racecars with 12" slicks vs stock 911 2.4's, 911's with factory 8's and 3.2L engines vs a 914/4 1.7, and so forth.

What I continue to find interesting is that in virtually any thread such as this one, you can substitute "Boxster" for "914" and it will still hold true -- like a 30-year time warp.

I'm no automotive marketing expert by any means, but it seems like Porsche could offer multiple lines with "flagship" performance variations while still occupying unique market positions by virtue of seating capacity (2 vs 2+2) or engine position or whatnot.

To make a long story short, what I'm saying is why the heck SHOULDN'T we have a "987 GT3"? Any car of this nature is a niche product and clearly such a 2-seat mid-engined open-top beast would help compete against the F360 Spyder among others.

[Howard Agency]

Some of the 914/6's running at POC events have as much in common with a stock 914 as a NASCAR stocker has with that beater you get from Hertz, so you're right, no good comparisons there, and I have left out 914/6's for that reason. Stock ones never seem to make it to the track.

I looked at POC lap records in the various classes on both Willow tracks. As you might imagine, the lighter cars did better at the short track, horsepower guys at the bigger. I used the 'improved' class; street cars with minor upgrades to tires, suspension and brakes but almost no engine mods. Streets first, big track second.

C: 914/4 2.0 1:18.164 1:41.764
G: Early 911's 1:19.940 1:40.370
L: 911Turbo 3.3 1:21.090 1:38.152

I would love to factor in a fairly stock 914/6 if I could find one, but believe the 6's extra 25hp is all it would need to beat the 911's of that vintage. I'd still rather drive a 911 to the track

[Jim Smolka]

Yes, 914's can be made to go fast. One of the fastest cars in the SE is a 914-6 Turbo car driven by Andy M. Wicked car, but over $400K in the beast.

My 914-6 with a stock 3.2 is faster than most 911's (SC's and Carreras)on the track even when I only had 205 Hoosiers (Unless the Carrera was a well prepaired F-Class car). Now that there is 10.5 in the front and 12's in the back on Goodyear slicks, things are much faster

The problem is that if one puts in the Carrera's front susupension, 4 Carrera brakes, and 3.2 motor, the 914 is now in PCA GT-3. To be front runner in GT-3 takes BIG Bucks.

So bang for the buck at the track, F-Class or G-Class 911's are a great way to go. Now if you have $$$ and what to be one of the fastest guys out there, then a heavlily modified 914 is a great option.

Just my $0.015 worth (all I have since the rest is in the 914)

[Superman]

I'll add this observation: At the vintage and historic races, those rear-engined 356 things are FAST.

Still, I'm not sure why a prepped 914 would not clobber a 911. It sounds like maybe it would. Clobber a 911.

[Superman]

I think I'd like to have a beasty 914. I've driven several, and they're just a hoot to throw around. Pretty hard to spin, really. Very much of a go-cart feel. I think these characteristics, combined with something like 300 hp, might be somewhat exhilarating, to say the least.

[iamchappy]

ombined with something like 300 hp, might be somewhat exhilarating, to say the least.

It is, to say the least - 914 3.0 turbo.

[Zeke]

Originally posted by campbellcj
Very well put Sam, as usual. I figure the only "meaningful" comparison of factory cars would be a 69 911T (2.0) vs a 70-71 914-6 (2.0). Given an equal driver on the same road or track, it would be a close call IMHO. Anything else is pure speculation as we're comparing apples and oranges; monster 914 racecars with 12" slicks vs stock 911 2.4's, 911's with factory 8's and 3.2L engines vs a 914/4 1.7, and so forth.

What I continue to find interesting is that in virtually any thread such as this one, you can substitute "Boxster" for "914" and it will still hold true -- like a 30-year time warp.

I'm no automotive marketing expert by any means, but it seems like Porsche could offer multiple lines with "flagship" performance variations while still occupying unique market positions by virtue of seating capacity (2 vs 2+2) or engine position or whatnot.

To make a long story short, what I'm saying is why the heck SHOULDN'T we have a "987 GT3"? Any car of this nature is a niche product and clearly such a 2-seat mid-engined open-top beast would help compete against the F360 Spyder among others.

Chris, in 2006, Porsche plans to release a 987 lightweight coupe. Lightweight is relative, as the car is street legal with all the airbags, etc. However, it is sans AC and radio, if that helps. As a racecar, it show serious promise to me.

No, I won't buy one. I'm happy with what I have, although, I sometimes miss the 914 I built. Everyone is right about the handling of the car. That is what I wanted in a race car as I have no serious track experience in a tail dragger. I have years of experience in a kart and the comparison drew me in. Now, I start over. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 914, but the classifications in SCCA and POC for the 914 suck. It was only recently that I found out about HSR and such. That is the place for a 914 race car.

[BigD9146gt]

Sammy, the GT-3RS totally dominates the GT class becuase...

A: The 911 is a great handling car, and as Vic Elford said, is the hardest car to drive at the limit, but one of the most rewarding due to the physics of being able to go deaper into a corner for breaking and come out faster carrying more momentum.

B:The Porsche GT3RS is the best Wiesachs engineered peice of machinery for $130K you can get your hands on. No Ferrari, Dodge, Or GM product offers as much bang for the buck (although the Corvett is a close second)

C: If there was a purpose built homologenized mid engine Boxster for the GT class, that would get the same money that gets thrown at it as the GT3RS, then Porsche would purposely kill the 911. Why would they even give the Boxster the chance? Porsche has been proven wrong multipul times that the 911 was here to stay (remember the 928? that was suppose to replace the 911). So now that the 911 has made it this far, why would they get the idea to kill it now? Besides the Bug, the 911 is the most recognizable car in history with respect to manufacturer, AND is still produced. Porsche would be stupid to beat it with a lower class car. The 911's winning heritage is what Porsche is banking most of its 911 sales on. Its not like they're making purpose built race cars to win enduros, they're using the long standing 911 which is a great car, hands down. But the fastest race cars in the world are mid engine.

D: Most 911 diehards hate getting beat by the entry level car. So the rules are made by those who have the money to win.

I was once told that the POC V-3 class used to be a great race between drivers, untill some higher up class guy who wasn't all that talented built a $300,000 V-3 class 911 and killed the competition just to get points. If you've got the money, you make the rules. 911's have always costed more than the 914, so the rich whinners are the winners and make the rules. No matter what class i'm in, i like hearing the untalented rich guys whine. They don't get it.

[Grady Clay]

Guys,

Great thread! I agree with everything posted. Sorry, I have been out of town or would have contributed earlier.

The difficulty in comparing a 914 to a 911 is the degree of development of each. Porsche had about 2 ½ years with the Porsche 914-6 before the bean counters axed the 916 progression. The 911 now has 40+ years of refinements. Set a 997S or GT3 next to a ’65 911 and offer a comparison.

Probably the most valid comparison would be a ’71 911 to a ’71 914-6. This could be as originally delivered or as currently prepped for the track. As originally delivered, the ‘71T had a larger engine (2195 cc) but was heavier than the smaller engine (1991 cc) 914-6. They had comparable performance (to the demise of the similarly priced 914-6.)
As currently prepped track cars, the 914-6 has slightly better performance (IMHO) because of the weight distribution, longer wheel base, lower center of gravity, and greater polar moment about the vertical axis making it easier to drive at the limit (and recover from beyond the limit.) This is given the same level of preparation, same engine, tires, gears, track and driver.

An advantage that a severely modded 914 has is you can install a 400 cid or turbocharged engine and still maintain proper weight distribution.

Just like a ’69-’73 LWB 911, a 914-6 can accept any reasonably lightweight engine and still appear stock while having outrages performance. Just ask some of the Pelicans.



What is my idea of a stock appearing “close to original” modification to an original 914-6?
First, don’t do anything that can’t be un-done.
Engine; MFI 2.8S, twin plug, 11.5:1, 225 mm clutch, black painted FG tin.
Transmission; ’70-’71 911 with ’72-> 914 shift and electronic speedometer sensor.
Front suspension from a ’73 RSR. Rear appropriately similar and reinforced.
Hidden in trunk front oil cooler and 916 oil plumbing.
A safety fuel cell hidden in a 914 gas tank.
Gauges with fuel & oil level on left, oil temp & pressure on right, and an inconspicuous digital speedometer in the 8000+ RPM tach.
The 914-6GT chassis reinforcements and more. An aluminum roof structure glued/riveted/bolted to the chassis and stock appearing. As original 914-6GT FG bumpers, hood, and deck lid. Light weight interior and plastic windows.
I would add steel doors from ’72 and later (side beams) for safety.
Original steel fenders not noticeably pooched and relatively skinny tires to just barely fit.
Subtle gray, blue or green paint. Black center 6&7x16 Fuchs.
SO …. You have a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” 250+ HP, <1700# original 914-6.


Of course you can take a 914 and make all sorts of cool improvements using the 30+ year knowledge we have. The exact same is true for our 911s.

Best,
Grady

[RSBob]

Perhaps what is missing is a more even playing field. If you have a 2 '72 911Es and a 914, strip the mechanicals, engine, suspension, etc out of 1 E and place it in the 914, then run the 911E against the 914E, then you would have apples to apples.

[Howard Agency]

We don't need no estinking apples, 914 would win (at track) even with its lousy brakes, rigidity, etc. Look at the lap times in my previous post. Stock(ish) 95 hp 914/4's are running similar times and often beating the early 911's and 930's. Add a moderate 6 to the 914 and, well, you know..

Originally posted by RSBob
Perhaps what is missing is a more even playing field. If you have a 2 '72 911Es and a 914, strip the mechanicals, engine, suspension, etc out of 1 E and place it in the 914, then run the 911E against the 914E, then you would have apples to apples.

[Grady Clay]

WELL,

My old lame little original CP 914-6 that I raced in the early ‘80s had a 2.5. While it was a challenge, I managed to hold the SCCA GT2 track records at all the Colorado tracks and more. I even managed to take the GT1 track records at several tracks where I had to run as a GT1 (lack of GT2 entrants.)

Boy did I pi$$ some GT1 racers off. Corvettes, Cobras, Fire Birds, Cameos, and more.

There was a race where I was girded on the pole and someone pretended to drop something on the ground. He spent 10 minutes under the back of my 914 “looking” for the object. I would have lent him a jack and creeper – no secrets.

The difficult part was the start of races with five-liter GT1 racers behind me. While I could turn faster lap times and out qualify them, I used every trick in the book to try and keep them behind me on the starts. The tricks were the finesse of the start speed, keeping the brake lights on while accelerating, and forcing my way breaking into the first turn after they had passed me. There are still marks on the side of the 914-6 from some of these encounters.
A 5-liter GT1 is difficult to pass with a 2.5 GT2 unless you dog their rear bumper. No nurfing, just intimidation and sure enough they make enough of a mistake for you to get buy.

Best,
Grady

[724doorE]

Cool Grady, cool.

[TimT]

hehehe I have an auxilliary brake light switch it can be on, or off in the most unexpected spots LOL

[iamchappy]

Wow it's been a long time since this thread was first started, my 914 sure has come a long way since then.
914 racing history is well documented from 1970 -72 when it was in it's glory.

[RSBob]

A common misconception, hence part the bewilderment about performance differences, is that the 914 is a light weight car. There is nothing light weight about a stock '71 914 compared to a stock '71 911 - unless you consider a 176 lb difference between a 4 cyl 914 and a 6 cyl 911 truly light weight. If you pulled the motors and compared weights, they might be pretty comparable.

71 914 = 4 cyl: 940 kg (2072 lb).
71 911 = 1020 kg (2248 lb).

If we were talking 300 or 400 lbs there might be an argument.

So please factor weights into your analysis.

As for my 914, like it was said above - it is a completely different animal from my 911. Where the 911 is refined and has tons of power, the 914 corners like there's no tomorrow. If I transplanted the 2.7 RS spec motor and suspension from the 911 to the 914, (like a friend of mine did) there is no doubt in my mind which would be the faster all around car (at a comparable weight).

[Dan (almaden)]

even a well prepared 914-4 can and does out run a well prepped 911.

The car in this pic is a '65 911 with a Jerry Woods 2.0L 6 putting 170HP to the ground.
I regularly showed him my tail lights at Laguna and Thunderhill.

Well prepped, well driven 914-4 out ran a well prepped well driven 911.
His car was completely gutted with cage, mine with full interior and roll bar with Petty bar.

He was on Hoosiers, I was on year old V710s. Weight and suspension wise we were probably equal. On the main straights he could pull me, once we got to turn 2 at Laguna I was on him and by turn 3 I was passing....never to look back...

I have had and driven 911s and 914s on track...914 is easier to drive quick...

[petevb]

Originally Posted by Dan (almaden)

even a well prepared 914-4 can and does out run a well prepped 911.

Bring it Dan

I agree the 914 has many advantages. The semi-trailing arm rear suspension on the 911 is a bit better and can likely be modified to be significantly better. The 911 also puts power down better, and thus handles higher hp more easily than a 914. I suspect if Dan had been comparing a 400 hp 911 to a 400 hp 914 at Laguna the results might have been a bit different? In the end it's tough to argue with putting the motor in the middle, though...

[TVRLOTUSTR3]

What about LeMans? Didn't the factory enter 3 914's in the early seventies. All three came in before any 911 and there were umteen of those.