There were two 914's made with 908 engines...one for Ferry ( with silencers and such. slightly detuned...the other for Piech closer to racing 908 HP tune, and a bit more raw.....

..but mid-engine...not an 8 hung out way past the back axle !!

100K is a lot to pay for a car that comes with leaf spring suspension and shares parts with a malibu. Your forgetting people buy a Porsche for more reasons then just HP.

Hell, people are already swapping Chevy V8's into them. Great straight line cars but handle like a cow.

EarlyPorsche if you want a v8 so bad go buy a camaro/vette.

Exactly.

Even the Carrera GT/Enzo are overweight pigs (McLaren F1 did something right with CF)

Alot of you guys are doing as much weight reduction as possible.... what do you think the heaviest item (other then frame) is in your car? It's time for smaller turbo motors :)

There is a reason Lotus Elise/Exige are very fast track cars, and it's not cause they have 600hp

All depends on what you want I guess....

Sorry, if Im going to pay $ for a car that has every gear PRESSED onto the mainshaft and that any sign of problem leads to replacing either the transmission or engine (hopefully under warranty), for $70K you can pick up a Nissan GTR (7:38 on the ring) which is faster than any of today's Porsche street offerings except the GT (same can be said for the Z06 for those menationing Corvette) which does in the ring in 7:36.

The Nissan GTR is a 3.8L 6cyl TT V6. This is apples to apples, if Porsche has their ***** together, they should be able to do the same with a flat 6 3.8L TT

GT is CF monocoque & panels. weighs approx 1300kg/3000lb...about the same as a Mazda 3 hatchback. Thats darn light in my book.

granted its almost 400lb heavier than the F1 (il capo di tutti capi) but there is a lot more safety equipment etc that has to be built in these days

Hmmm, not sure where you got that quote from, I never wrote that.

To note: a V8 does not have the low slung weight of the flat 8. Keeping the cylinders and heads lower makes the handling work like it does.

Never mentioned wanting a V8. That would not be Porschesque. I am looking for the low slung weight of the flat engine with the grunt of the 8. I guess another consideration is that a bit more torque could really help out these cars for the day to day drive as well as on the track. Not needing to run around at 3,000-4,000 all day would add some longevity. I mean I can't be alone on this am I? If I am then I know that my flat-8 dream is just wrong. Although a side of me is hoping Porsche is reading this.

The GT2 went faster around the 'ring. I'd also be more willing to believe that GT2 that Rohrl drove is closer to what rolls off the showroom floor than the GTR that held the record for a couple months. Only time will tell.

I agree that today's cars are too heavy. The M3 is 3600 pounds!:eek: Who cares if it has 400 hp and a V8. It needs it to lug its massive bulk around. Same for almost all other "performance" cars, except for things like Lotus (Loti?). My car is stripped of all non-essentials and weighs 2000 pounds. It does just fine with a 2.7 liter flat 6 with 210 hp and 188 lb/ft of torque.

EarlyPorsche, I think you are alone in wanting a flat 8 in a 911.

I fail to see the reason behind your beef with turbochargers, furthermore.

I don't mean to be too harsh- don't take this post in the wrong way.

I wasn't quoting you. That was my comment. :confused:

These days, all high performance cars deliver essentially equivalent quantifiable performance. Some appeal to cost accountants, others to quality engineers & drivers.

I think the last thing you would want is a longer engine with more rear weight basis =

Now - a flat eight cayman - 3" more wheelbase - Now you are talking.

Still though modern turbos - DI, variable vane - that's where it's going. And I too cringe at some of these "heavyweight" sports cars - the Nissan is 3900 lbs - the M3 is 3600 lbs. At least the Z06 is closer to 3000 - Keep the power - lose the weight - that's what I would do.

If you are looking for more low-end torque from the flat-six, you need to either upgrade to a bigger displacement six and/or up the compression ratio.

I'm sure others with more engine experience can chime in as which flat-six engine solution would provide maximum low-end torque. There is always a trade-off between high rpm horsepower and low-end torque. Perhaps the 3.6 Varioram engine would be your best option.

911 & 930's are a mind set, they are flat 6 and there is no substitute.

If you want something different go for it. I would NOT change the handling and performance of our "flat 6" cars. My2c.

Good luck actually finding a GTR for 70K. Nissian isn't bring that many over and the ones that are comeing will have big premiums added to them. Plus at the end of the day it's still a nissan.

Agreed, we longhood guys have it made. Just install a 3.6L (250-300HP). If that isn't good enough, go for excess; gut and 'glass it down to 2000#.

That's the answer. How many decades ago was Porsche making 1500 hp cars? Everyone knows they can do it. That's not the issue.

On the flip side, I remember maybe 20 years ago reading the chart about cars in the back of Road & Track - the one that is a summary of all their tests of the various cars. There was one car that was faster than any car on the list, both 0-60 and through the slalom. It was the one that was bolded on those figures - and some others too. Then at the end of that car, where they had comments, it said "a bit pricey for a 4 cylinder." I was flabbergasted. Here the car was, best of the heap, yet they criticize it. Maybe they should have said "did with 4 what others couldn't do with 6, 8 or 12."

it seems everyone is busy justifying 6 cyl.

Just one question, tho, what great good are 8 cyl. going to bring? Why would you need 8 cyl?