I always thought that the 2.0L six only made 110 hp SAE net

[Alfred1]

It actually makes 125 SAE hp.

[skline]

It did only make 110 HP, lots of magazines will print different figures, if it didnt come from the factory manual, then its just more information that was just printed without verification. I was always told to never believe everything you read. But the factory HP rating was in DIN HP, that says SAE

[bd1308]

does anybody know if the sixer had twin cams?

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

Um, the sixer was SOHC, not DOHC. I believe the cams were the same on each bank (but too lazy to check), so in one respect you could say it had "twin cams"... But the term is more often used to denote a DOHC engine.

Alfred, the 110 HP is DIN-spec, the 125 HP is SAE Gross. SAE Net ratings came in somewhere around 1972. SAE Gross specs called for open intake and exhaust, no accessories running, maybe not even the cooling system running... In other words, the test was set up specifically to produce the highest possible numbers. SAE Net ratings are usually a little lower than DIN ratings, which in turn are much lower than SAE Gross ratings.

--DD

[Alfred1]

That information is from the Factory manual and it probably could be gross hp - I think they starting using net hp in '71. So, I take it that DIN hp was always measured with the engine accessories in place?

[lapuwali]

Yes. DIN is very close to SAE net, within 2% usually. That 125hp figure is SAE gross.

[sean_V8_914]

WOW, not much bang for teh extra buck they commanded for teh 914/6

[mskala]

Remember the original -4's in production at that time only
had 80, so you're talking almost 40% more power. That
actually IS a lot.

[BigD9146gt]

Accually, there were a few twin cam 911 engines. The 67 911R (very rare at 20 produced, had a twin overhead cam setup (4 cams total), along with the 906 race cars and some other rally/racing 911's. It wasn't untill the 959 that the dual overhead cam could be utilized because of the water cooled heads. Just too much giong on with air-cooled setup i would guess.

Sean, its funny you say that. I've done quite a bit of research as to the demize of the 914-6, and what i've consitantly come up with was that Porsche had an under-the-table-handshake deal with the head of VW as to the cost of the 914 chassis. Then the VW CEO died of health problems, and the new VW CEO came in and knew nothing of the deal, and told Porsche that they will pay top doller for the chassis (he must have been bitter for some other reason). Thats why you could pick up the 911T for 500 more bucks. Among many other reasons, thats one major reason it failed.

But the 911 motor is far superior due to the longevity of life and amount of power it can produce. I've been driving a '69 911E for about 2 weeks now. Its a 2.0L with Bosch mechanical fuel injection, rated at 140hp (don't know if thats SAE or DN) but MAN does it pull! Absolute blast to drive. And i also got to drive a 66 911 2.0L with solex carbs, basically the same as the #'s posted above. What a great little motor, the power band is A LOT different than a 4. You really just need to drive one to know, thats all i can say.

[lapuwali]

The original 914/6 engine was the 2.0 911T engine, the lowest power of that line. The 2.0 911S made 160hp (DIN). The highest figure from the Six prior to smog stopping the party was 190hp from the 2.4S. The 2.4 911T only made 140hp (which was still enough to light up the tires on a 914 with this engine).

I think Porsche was concerned that the 914/6 might be faster than the 911 if they used a better engine than the bottom of the line T. The 1970 911 used the 2.2 engine, so year for year it was never a fair test. I'll bet the '70 914/6 was faster than the '69 911T, however.

[BigD9146gt]

Lapuwali, your absolutly 100% right. Porsche was terrified that the 914 would kill the 911's success if they gave it what they could have. Tomorrow, i will post a pic of a book i'm reading, "Porsche, Forever Young", with a forward by Ferry Porsche supporting the contents and accuracy of the book. In it, the writer posted a small thing about hte 914-6gt's, which were developed to be more successful than the 911 on the track. Who knows what Porsche was thinking, they were a small, scared company driven by success image of the 911 and 356 in the USA. whats really funny is that they thought the 928 was going to take over the 911.

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

Originally posted by BigD9146gt
Accually, there were a few twin cam 911 engines. The 67 911R (very rare at 20 produced, had a twin overhead cam setup (4 cams total), along with the 906 race cars and some other rally/racing 911's.

OK, but none of those were street cars. The four-cam 911 engines were a race-only development of the motor.

... the new VW CEO came in and knew nothing of the deal, and told Porsche that they will pay top doller for the chassis (he must have been bitter for some other reason).

The original deal was that the development costs (and other "setup" type one-time costs) for the 914-4 and the 914-6 were to be amortized over the complete production run of all 914s. The new CEO told Porsche that the development costs would be associated with the specific models--that the Fours would each carry a part of the cost to develop them, and the Sixes would each carry a part of the cost to develop them. Since there were far fewer Sixes made than Fours, this meant that the price for them had to be much higher.

Porsche made less money on the 914-6 than on the 911T of the time. The chassis cost them more per car than the 911 ones (Karmann also made some of the 911 bodies) did, and they had to sell them for less than the 911T in order to be the "entry level" car.

Not a good recipie for a successful car....

--DD

[BigD9146gt]

Dave, where did you get that info? it doesn't make all that much sence to me because the 6's are i dentical to the 4's chassis wise. The only difference would be the engine mounting peices, which arn't that complex to install on either, and the holes for the oil tank.

The story i've read more times is that VW contracted Karmann stamped them out, and then Porsche was going to buy them from VW and assemble them at Porsche. Why would that cost more?

The cost of the chassis to VW was $x. Nothing substantial to the tune of thousands of dollars was added at that point. Take any modern car. Example; Toyota and Lexus. They both have the same chassis car, very few things different, the only difference is the interior and the name of the car. One is more luxurius. The cost is different, but that happens AT the factory where they put in all the final stuff, not at the mill where they make the chassis. Now a days, its most likely the same production all the way through. But NOTHING major was added to he 9146 chassis. AND, why were the costs so high? If Porsche was going to think that it would only last 3 year, they wouldn't have done it. They COULDN"T afford it. Granted they both aggred to sell it as a Porsche in the US, Porsche had finaly bought out those rights toward the end of production. Why, i don;t know. But it was supposed to be a mid-entry car. Why then was it $500 less than the T? Porsche didn't do that knowingly, and don't you think that a mid-entry level car would be a little larger in production nubers? The Boxster is there mid-entry car now, and those production numbers are pretty high. You don't design a mid-entry level car with only 3000 units to be sold!?!?

But, i will agree Porsche was partly to blame. Being that they didn't want to hurt the 911 image or performance, they intensionally didn't give the 914 what it could have had. Examples being hte 9146gt's and the 916's, both very amazing beasts, capable of killing the 911. Your entry level based car killing your top-o-da-line car is not a good image. For us it is, though.

[sean_V8_914]

I read that same story in a P book I own

[Dave at Pelican Parts]

I'm remembering the above from Ludvigsen's "Excellence".

Note that it wasn't the build cost I'm talking about, but the development cost.

Hmmm.... Perhaps I'm mis-remembering the wording from Ludvigsen? It could be that the original deal was that each car would carry an identical share of the development costs, while the new deal was that half the cost would be split up among the -4 models, and the other half be split among the -6es?

Anyway, it was a difference in accounting that caused a lot of the up-front costs to get amortized over a much smaller number of cars than anticipated. So VW (who by then owned Karmann) charged Porsche a whole lot more money for the -6 chassis than Porsche had anticipated. Which meant that they had to charge significantly more money for the -6 than they wanted to, which really killed its sales. And ultimately killed the Six altogether.

--DD

[BigD9146gt]

Hey Sean, whats the name of your book? I did a history report on Porsche for a speech class, and thats what i've found in several books, and online. Several German 914 websites had that info too. I'm curious if they're just copying eachother in truth or ignorance.


Dave, now that makes sence to me. But wouldn't that up-front cost be not as substantail because VW knew that Porsche wasn't going to make 100,000 units? THey wanted to make more than 3000, so why were they then dinged so badly? The purpose of the hand-shake deal was to keep the costs down. And VW did get a new CEO in about that time. It makes more sence that there was a downfall in there somewhere. We're not talking about a company that doesn't know the cost of production. Porsche knew what they were getting into, and that plan was changed along the way some how.

[sean_V8_914]

I moved 2 months ago and I dont know where it is right now

[balthazar]

sean_V8_914 wrote:
"WOW, not much bang for teh extra buck they commanded for teh 914/6"

The 914/4 2.0 will beat the 914/6 2.0 off the line. The four has more torque. The car is geared to utilize that torque. The difference between the two is that when both cars reach 90mph, the six REALLY starts to shine! The four hits a wall!