Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Aaron Cox Aug 19 2003, 09:00 PM

i know i would smoke 'im on the turns... but a 2002 (4 cyl - non turbo- has about 140 hp ). will he spank me on the 0-60? braking, 60 - 0?
what are the good points of a 2002?

Posted by: anthony Aug 19 2003, 09:15 PM

A stock 2002 engine has more like 110hp unless he has a 2002tii.

Posted by: ChrisReale Aug 19 2003, 09:42 PM

Plus, I think the 914 has a torque advantage

Posted by: airsix Aug 19 2003, 09:49 PM

Your car: 2,400lb and 80-95hp
His car: 2,400lb and 113-140hp depending on model

Yes, he will smoke you in a straight line.

-Ben M.

Posted by: fronkensteen1999 Aug 19 2003, 10:42 PM

The tii is a great car too but I much prefer a real sports car to a "sports" sedan. Here are a couple of pages from the July 1983 issue of Road & Track. It was an article titled "Our selection of the ten best used car buys for under $5000". There was no mention of the 914.

F

Posted by: SirAndy Aug 19 2003, 11:06 PM

smaller (radius) tires. the 2002 has 14" (or even 13" ???) ...
different gear ratio. more HP. about the same weight.

Andy

Posted by: Brad Roberts Aug 19 2003, 11:10 PM

Why does Fronkenstein remind me of Alfred ??

Alfred was the only person who scanned MotorTrend stuff.


Call me crazy.


B

Posted by: ChrisReale Aug 19 2003, 11:11 PM

You read my mind Brad

Posted by: SirAndy Aug 19 2003, 11:12 PM

CRAZY B.

Posted by: SirAndy Aug 19 2003, 11:15 PM

if it is alfred, at least this time he was somewhat creative with his name:

http://www.hollywoodspoofies.net/fronk.htm

Posted by: SirAndy Aug 19 2003, 11:19 PM

this is quite a interesting trace route

Tracing route to 202.110.220.14 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 10 ms 14 ms 14 ms dsl081-051-001.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.51.1]
2 11 ms 13 ms 11 ms border5.g3-4.speakeasy-29.sfo.pnap.net [63.251.53.219]
3 27 ms 30 ms 27 ms core2.ge0-0-bbnet1.sfo.pnap.net [63.251.63.2]
4 15 ms 15 ms 14 ms POS2-3.GW4.SFO4.ALTER.NET [157.130.205.201]
5 20 ms 18 ms 18 ms 162.ATM3-0.XR2.SFO4.ALTER.NET [152.63.48.190]
6 31 ms 31 ms 30 ms 0.so-0-0-0.XL2.SFO4.ALTER.NET [152.63.55.69]
7 15 ms 15 ms 17 ms 0.so-2-3-0.XL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET [152.63.50.161]
8 40 ms 39 ms 45 ms 0.so-3-0-0.XR2.SAC1.ALTER.NET [152.63.54.2]
9 23 ms 28 ms 28 ms POS7-0.IG3.SAC1.ALTER.NET [152.63.54.125]
10 161 ms 177 ms 176 ms cncgroup-gw.customer.alter.net [208.214.140.94]
11 176 ms 181 ms 167 ms 219.158.3.25
12 177 ms 180 ms 185 ms 219.158.6.158
13 171 ms 165 ms 164 ms 202.102.129.250
14 188 ms 179 ms 177 ms 61.179.255.18
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 172 ms 181 ms 182 ms 218.56.160.246
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19 * * * Request timed out.
20 170 ms 165 ms * 202.110.220.14
21 167 ms * 166 ms 202.110.220.14

Trace complete.

Posted by: fronkensteen1999 Aug 19 2003, 11:21 PM

Um, this is Road & Track. And, that Alfred guy was a total jerk ... he liked facts and numbers waaay too much. Besides, you banned him because he didn't play well with others.

F

Posted by: rick 918-S Aug 19 2003, 11:47 PM

Dude... The 2002 will Spank you. I used to run down 5.0 Mustangs on the freeway with my stock motor ( in another life..I don't street race anymore) My modified 2002 motor has 12:1 compression,turbo valves, Schrick double valve springs, Paco 7800 series cam, custom manual chain tensioner, header, twin 40mm Weber side drafts.


Attached image(s)

Posted by: SirAndy Aug 20 2003, 12:18 AM

i used to have a 2002 (without the tii) and i was pretty fast
a friend of mine had a 2002tii with the wide body kit. what a beautiful car ...

Andy

Posted by: 914zim Aug 20 2003, 07:19 AM

Gentlemen:
I have both of these cars.
I've only owned the 2002 (non tii) sine last Novemeber and it is a peppy little car. All stock except Crane ignition.
I've only owned the 914 for 2 weeks and I have not even got it started yet!
I'll be working on it tonight.
I am very interested in finding out more about the comparison of these 2 cars.
Hopefully, I can let you know my thoughts in the next few weeks after I get the 914 going!!!
Thanks guys!
Andy...

Posted by: airsix Aug 20 2003, 08:10 PM

But... The 914-6 made R&T's list of "Best used sprortscars under $15,000" I forget when it ran. Sometime between 1989 and 1993. The editors all had to actually choose the make/model and then find a car for sale for $15,000 or less, take pictures, and do a writeup on the car. I've got it around here somewhere, but the cars chosen were as I remember:
911SC
911SC again
914-6 (with bigger motor, steel flares,etc.)
Miata
Lotus Esprit (first gen. The other edtors thought he was nuts)

Posted by: TimT Aug 20 2003, 08:28 PM

The Bmw 2002 will offer you a spanking as mentioned above.. For a sedan they handle great...... they have smooth powerful engines happy to live at high RPMs

Of course alot comes down to the driver.....

Ive owned 2 bimmer 2002's.. Id love to get my hands on a clean unmolested example again

Posted by: Aaron Cox Aug 20 2003, 09:18 PM

is is a four speed.... mine is a five speed. oh well.... i get spanked

we will go to a canyon road then!

Posted by: Aaron Cox Aug 20 2003, 09:19 PM

here is a 914 and 911 and some alpha's getting spanked by a "built" 2002:


Attached image(s)

Posted by: airsix Aug 20 2003, 09:58 PM

All else being equal, a car with a lower power to weight ratio will be faster. In theory a car with 100hp weighing 2000lb will be exactly as fast as a car with 200hp weighing 4000lb. (ignoring rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, etc.)

A 914 and a BMW 2002 weigh almost exactly the same (I've weighed mine and it's within 100lb of the published weight for the BMW). It really starts to make sense when you convert the horsepower numbert to percetages. The BMW has from 16% to as much as 33% more power than a 914 2.0. (95hp 914 vs. 113-140hp BMW 2002 depending on model)

Now twisties are another thing alltogether. You will have the upper hand in that area. Just don't end up in a ditch or in the grill of a truck.

-Ben M.

Apendix A.
Regarding your comment about having 5 gears vs. his 4.... Well, gears are just for keeping your engine in the meaty part of the torque curve. The broader an engine's torque curve the fewer gears it needs to be effective. As long as you always have a gear the puts you in the fat of the torque curve you have enough. For some cars that means 4. For others it means 5 or even 6. Some get by with as few as 2.


-Ben M.

Posted by: Aaron Cox Aug 20 2003, 10:01 PM

understood....

he will be rebuiklding the stock 2.0 in it. it has one weber downdraft on it currently. so maybe this is as high perf as it will get- itll be fun having a similar age auto to chase and be chased with

Posted by: Steve Aug 25 2003, 06:58 PM

It's time for the 3.2 conversion!!
If you win the lottery go with the 3.6.

Steve

Posted by: Aaron Cox Aug 25 2003, 07:03 PM

lol- im not old enuff to play the lottery yet (17)

Posted by: rick 918-S Aug 26 2003, 08:05 AM

[Apendix A.
Regarding your comment about having 5 gears vs. his 4.... Well, gears are just for keeping your engine in the meaty part of the torque curve. The broader an engine's torque curve the fewer gears it needs to be effective. As long as you always have a gear the puts you in the fat of the torque curve you have enough. For some cars that means 4. For others it means 5 or even 6. Some get by with as few as 2. ]
-Ben M. [/QUOTE]

Air six
Your right on with that. I lost twice to mustangs on the freeway slalom because I was out of my torque curve. Too fast to down shift, not fast enough for the revs to pull on the stang. If you stay in your power ban you will do well.

Posted by: Jeffs9146 Aug 26 2003, 09:03 AM

Yea, my tii was a blast! You could feel the pull all the way up the RPM range! But I still prefer driving the teen!


Attached image(s)

Posted by: -P- Aug 26 2003, 09:30 AM

That article reminded me of my dearly departed spider . Oh well. Interesting topic, I was deciding on a 914 or a 02 jsut a few months ago. I decided on the 914 obviously, but would still like a nice 02.

I don't think there is anything slower than my 914, except maybe a Chevy Sprint.