Want to be

Is a 912 a good donor for a 2.0-2.4 flat 6 ?

Does the 912 have the same transmission ?

Besides engine , what is the difference ?

I realize it was originally the Poor man Porsche.
(good looking though)

I am wanting an older 911 (1965-1973) but have considered a 912 with a flat 6 installed, maybe.

I have owned 4 Porsche's <911's>88,89,93,89> , so i know they all are money pits such as maint, goodies , etc.

I am Porsche-less now , i need one !

Thanks for any help

jpc <img src="graemlins/drink.gif" border="0" alt="[cherrsagai]" />

JackOlsen

There are many differences between the 912 and the 911. Swapping a 6-cylinder into a 912 is a long, difficult and expensive process. It makes much more sense to start with a 69-73 911 tub.

The exterior styling is the one thing that is the same.

Want to be

Jack,

Thanks for the reply !

As you been told before , you have an extremely nice looking car!

Question though , what do you think the going price is on a 1965-73 911T.

I would believe a good (decent) coupe T would be worth around $4K-7500 , is that close?

Thanks for any info

jpc

<img src="graemlins/drink.gif" border="0" alt="[cherrsagai]" />

Stuttgart

I'm looking at buying an 72-73 E or S in the future, and there are tons of T's (in comparison to the E and S). You should be able to find an extremely nice T for around $9500 and good T with a couple flaws around $8000. But there are so many of them, a really nice cheap T can be found easily.

Roland Kunz

Hello

I realize it was originally the Poor man Porsche.
(good looking though)

You donīt understand a 912 if you think it is a poor mans Porsche.

If you compare nowerdays a Porsche 996 and a 996 TT then the 996 must be a poor mans Porsche

It is poor that people rate a car performance by the ponys.

Grüsse

Want to be

Roland Kunz:

Sorry maybe i choosen the wrong word to say but
that is how i felt.

Its Kind'ia like owning a Mustang with a 4 or 6 cylinder but i don't think a regular aspirated
911 is in those same terms.

Everybody has a opinion and besides i said it was
a good looking car! (i like it)

I want an older Porsche for a decent price so i know the performance will not be there for me.

I merly like the sound of the FLAT 6 , enough said.

Cheers

jpc


<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

Stephen Masraum

Not to start an argument, but wasn't that the purpose of the 912... to be the poor man's Porsche? Maybe "entry level" would be a better description. I understand that the new 911 was much more expensive than the old 356 so they decided to drop the 4 cyl into the 911 to make a cheaper model. The price ended up not being low enough so they replaced the 912 with the 914, then back to the 912, then the 924, then 944.

Just my understanding of things. I think it would be cool to have a 912 and if I had more money would probably have put my stepson in one.

Roland Kunz

Hello

Sorry my misstake didnīt wantet sound that harsh.

Porsche never made poor cars.

The poor mans Porsche is called a VW bug ( Käfer ) yet even those cars arenīt poor constructet.

The 912 was in his time the true Porsche and the 911 the follow up from the 356 Carrera.

Most buyers didnīt needed a fast car, they wantet to drive a Porsche. Porsches are made for traveling at high speeds and have some fun with a light car. The racing aspect didnīt bordered to much costumers and back in 1965 a car geting over 100 mph Topspeed and accelerate under 11 secounds to 100 plus having All disc brakes was something very fast compared to the average sold cars.

The 912 competition was the Glas 1700 or the BMW 2000, the MGB, Fiat Spider, Alfa Romeos and well the 6 cylinder Mustang or the 6 bang Camaro.
In european real world driving even V8 live axle american ponys couldnīt keep up. If they tried they had to give up the timeadvantage at the next guzzler station.

Most 912 owners where previous 356 owners and didnīt trustet the new 6 banger ( Well the Fuhrmann Carreras had been very expensive in the money department and are still today, spark plugs at 200 $ ) and didnīt needed to be some 10 mph faster and some 2 secounds faster to 100 km/h.

( High average travelspeeds are not only achived by high topspeeds, especialy if you have speed limits )

They liked the idear to travel to every place worldwide and have done the service at Volkswagen Mechanics for Volkswagen like prices and quality.

Now those people donīt needed to do that becourse they had been poor and couldnīt afford the 6 bang car. They just had been practical ground to earth people whop donīt needed a status symbol to impress the neigborhood ( If then they would have bought a other car with more power for the same money )

So the poor mans Porsche was never built, did never exist and you always needed ( and still need ) some income or other compensative skills to afford runing a Porsche. Yet Porsche where built as long period used cars and not throw away fashion objects.
Some people donīt understand it and are so poor that they only see the status symbol Porsche without understanding the roots from the company.
( OK maybe this is to much for average costumers )

Now the 911 pulled new costumers and the new Porsche engeneering generation had other goals
( Look what Piech made with Audi and later with VW )

Finally the 911 engine was etablished and out from the troublezone so they made the 911 T to replace the 912 ( Godd runing 912 outperformed the 911 Tīs ) and had later the 914 as beginner 4 cyl Porsche ( followed by the 924, 944, 968 and maybe the boxster ? )

( OK not now but wait some years when the new model arrives ).

And today Porsche has still the problem that people think the boxster is a poor mans Porsche.

If you compare 1965 to 2002 you will find two different engines in one body again. Now the old approved engine is the topversion while the new poor mans engine ( boxster ) sits in the normal 911. The driving expirience isnīt that much different despite some 25% difference in poweroutput. If you compare the generations you will find that history repeats and many people think the normal 996 is a slow car compared to the competitiors for the same or lesser price yet those mostly have a V8 and not a poor flat 6.
Now the point is if you like to have a 911 then get a 911.

Geting a 912 and convert it into a 911 costs finally the same or even more and it always will be a 912 bastard with even lower value then a 912 ( OK not as worse as with a V8 or a rotary ).

Every 912 used up that way is lost and will finally be scraped in some years ( wich lowers the 912 pool and rises there value on the long run )

Why not just get a good 912 and drive it for a while untill a correct 911 shows up ?
Maybe it grows on you and you find a new driving style ?
Or just compare it with other cars from 1965 and find out why people had been grazy buying such a slow car

Grüsse

Want to be

Roland Kunz:

Ok maybe i should have said entry level!
I have owned 4 Porsche's and they were all money pits so i guess you are right. &lt;daily drivers&gt;

I do undertand that the 912 was around whenever die hard 356'er only like the 4 cylinder engine.

You could say we are going through the same problem again with AIR cooled and Water cooled.

I personally think Porsche is going in the wrong direction for me atleast. Porsche meant to me a racing company but it is changing into a luxury car.

I am starting to like the new design of the 996 but it taking some time. I do like the boxster but then again its water cooled too.

Back to the 912 issue again , I aggree it would depreciate the value of the car with an engine swap but i am looking at the cheapest way to get back in a 911 with the FLAT 6 sound. I not worried about speed but just a nice looking car that i would drive less than 3-5k a year.

Oh and I agree the 912 was and is a stable car @ high speeds but saying the american muscle cars could not keep up <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" /> ? Maybe in Europe but not in the US!


cheers

jpc
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />