There is a Bumblebee for sale on Ebay. The ad says: ".....expect to get between 35-40 miles per gallon......"

I would expect a tuned 2.0 to get in the high 20's.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Porsche-914-LE-197...=US_Cars_Trucks

I agree that is a stretch. 28-32 mpg is probably on the high end.

I've gotten high 20's in a Flared 914-2.5 Six Cylinder.

I can see Mid 30's in a 914 2.0 in the "Right" Conditions!

I have gotten 30 mpg a few times

I consistently ran 33 MPG in my 2.0.

I consistently run 28 MPG in my 2.7L six.

This is at 80+ MPH.

Highway speeds in 5th gear in a stock 2.0 will get you well into the 30's.

My tired 73 2.0 litre got crazy good mileage, when I due the U.S. gallon conversion I was in the mid 30's. When we would go on tours I was always surprised when the 911 guys or other Porsche's had to fuel up.

Ian Stott
Moncton
Canada

Even my webber carbed 2.0 got 32 on the highway. My 1.7 fi gets 40.

maybe on flat ground and 55mph.

but that's no fun!

remember this is a open loop analog f/I design that is no where near as sophisticated as modern f/I, but these cars know down pretty impressive mpg for the era that they were built.

I do a 3 hr top off run at 70+ mph with a "1.8" maybe 1911cc and get 30ish mpg.

I have a 1975 2.0 d-jet. On my trip to tail of the dragon I got exactly 33.9 for the whole trip of 1100 miles. I am averaging 29 to and from work. But I have a transmission that has 3 and 4 gears changed with ha flipped and x. So I àm running 6-700 lower on freeway .

I used to drive from Hollywood to Santa Cruz every other week in the early 80's and would regularly get 38 MPG. I would pull up to the back of at big truck going 70 and draft it from the bottom of The Grape Vine (Hwy 5) to Hwy 152! Of course the roads were in much better condition than they are now and the trucks were not restricted to 55 MPH so I don't think you could do it now without a broken windshield and chips in your paint!

I measured 31 mpg at 70 mph in my '76 912E with stock 2.0 L-jet. A 914 should do a little better due to its lighter weight.

I am going to assume everyone is running stock tires?

nope

I'm running big giant 205/65/15.

not aerodynamic or low rolling resistant.

I ran 205.60.15 on the 2.0 and now 195.65.15 on the 1.7