1990 944 UK Car Alarm

[Guest]

[FONT=arial unicode ms"]Hi
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]I'm looking to purchase a 944 turbo from 1990 that has a standard Porsche car alarm fitted. My insurance company would like a Cat 1 alarm fitted. Does anyone here have any more info on the standard car alarm? The Cobra alarm I may have fitted will lock and unlock the doors via a keyfob. However I don't want the Porsche Alarm getting upset by this. I'd also like full closure of the car but the fitting company say they can provide full closure, including the sunroof, only if a full closure wire was fitted by Porsche, so a relay output from the alarm can trigger full closure. Do you know if the 1990 944 is fitted with a full closure input? If not can full closure be installed in any other way? I've ordered a workshop manual for the car but it has not arrived yet.
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]Alternatively what alarm and fitting company would you recommend for the following features:
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]1) Remote boot release
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]2) Remote closure of windows and sunroof
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]3) Turbo timer (optional)
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]4) Remote lock/unlock
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]5) Cat 1, including certificate
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]6) Quality installation
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]Thanks.
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]

 

[Guest]

I faced the same problem when taking out insurance on my '90 turbo. NU actually mis-sold me a policy; not insisting on Cat1 over the phone when taking the policy out, then trying to force me to fit one at a later date. They have since given me a stay of execution until next year, so i would be interested in your Cat1 findings for a later date.

I did talk to Porsche about the present system, they told me that if you take the car into one of their main dealers, they will identify what alarm/immoboliser system you have and give you a certificate to that effect. I would guess that you probably have a cat 2

Matt

 

[hotblack944]

Welcome to the forum []

Here's what Jon Mitchell had to say about alarms on the http://www.titanic.co.uk/944/ email list:

When I decided we would start fitting alarms, I had a choice of going with Clifford, Toad or Sigma..
In the workshop I have had to deal with lots of problems with Sigma alarms, so decided to ditch them..
I did a search in Russian on some Russian search engines on the net, and found that its possible to buy lots of boxes of tricks to bypass Clifford alarms.... So I decided to avoid Clifford.
But the main reason I went with Toad, was because if you do a search of the internet with the words "Toad alarm" or "toad security" you can find nothing but praise from people who have them... I don't think I actually found anyone who was unhappy with them.
The other reason was that Toad alarms are not as popular as the Clifford's, partly because Clifford invest a lot of money in advertising to boy racers.... Now it may seem a bit daft, but from experience, you can often tell which alarm is fitted from the way the led flashes, the way it flashes or chirps on arming, and the way that it sounds when it goes off.. Being not so popular, it "hopefully" makes it more tricky for potential car criminals to work out what you have, and how to get around it. Which is why I always advise that customers do not fit any stickers saying what car alarm you have, as your only making it easier for the criminals to know what they are up against.
The last thing, I spoke to the local police crime prevention officer, the traffic police and some reformed car criminals (who the police arranged a meeting with), and it turned out that the police all said that Toads were the best, and the car criminals said that whenever they were up against a Toad, they would give up before they even started.
On the subject of car alarms though... I just have to make one thing clear... CAT-1 means thatcham approved alarm and immobiliser as a package together... Immobilisers on their own are referred to as CAT-2...
Many people on this list need an alarm and immobiliser for their insurance or piece of mind.. But I can not stress strongly enough, that the Hamilton and Palmer immobilisers fitted to UK spec Porsche's with an immobiliser fitted (the ones with the Porsche tag and a slot) are NOT cat2 or cat anything, and not even fitted within thatcham recommended standards... Also the factory alarm fitted to some of your models, is NOT cat1 or cat anything.
So if your insurance insists on cat1 or cat2 security, and all you have is the factory or PorscheGB security, in the event of a theft, you car is NOT insured against theft.
Also, the PorscheGB (Hamilton and Palmer) immobilisers are now failing at a drastic rate, and often leave the owner stranded at the worst possible times.
If anyone is interested, I can supply and fit a TOAD PowerKey Thatcham cat2 immobiliser to any 944 for just £99 and can do it while you wait.
I can also fit a Thatcham CAT1 Ai606 (which is what Nick had fitted) for just £299 for 944 models.
As standard, 944's have wacky electric window motor wiring, so as standard I can not set the Ai606 to automatically close the windows... However, I have developed a system to do this and interface with the Ai606 without breaking thatcham rules, the alarm warranty, or doing any wiring "butchering"... but this feature would cost about £150 extra as it involves having to take the door cards off as well as adding circuits to the doors.
Jon Mitchell
Independent Porsche Specialists
Bournemouth, UK
01202 462951
www.9xx.co.uk
Technical advisors to the independent Porsche enthusiasts club (www.tipec.org.uk)

HTH,

Jim.

 

[Guest]

[FONT=arial unicode ms"]Hi
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]That's interesting, I didn't realise 944 electric window was anything 'special'. I have spoken to a few suppliers and there seems to be a wide variety of vendors, some of which I have some confidence in, some just say "everything you want s possible mate".
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]As Matt has suggested, I think I'll take the car to an OPC and see what is actually fitted first.
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]
[FONT=arial unicode ms"]Thanks

 

[Fen]

Honestly I would look for a new insurer. I haven't read Jon's comments yet (though I probably did when he originally posted them), but my take on alarms is they are a pain; they flatten the battery if the car is left unused, they go off when not required and people ignore them anyway. Most insurers just want a Cat 2 immobiliser, which is something I'd still rather do without personally, but at least it's passive and not too intrusive. In terms of the 1990 standard alarm it was Walt Disney and there is no way on earth it will meet Thatcham Cat 1. The immobiliser of the period on the other hand is still available and meets Cat 2. Seriously, look how much it will cost for the Cat 1 alarm and spend some of that insuring with a company that was a bit dearer but only asked for Cat 2. You're no less likely to lose the car by having a siren in it.

 

[hotblack944]

Fen,

ORIGINAL: Fen
The immobiliser of the period on the other hand is still available and meets Cat 2

Jon thinks not:

the Hamilton and Palmer immobilisers fitted to UK spec Porsche's with an immobiliser fitted (the ones with the Porsche tag and a slot) are NOT cat2

Cheers,

Jim.

 

[danmason]

I'd also like full closure of the car but the fitting company say they can provide full closure, including the sunroof, only if a full closure wire was fitted by Porsche, so a relay output from the alarm can trigger full closure. Do you know if the 1990 944 is fitted with a full closure input?

There should be no problems getting a new alarm system to work like this with your car - mine has the OEM system (Hamilton & Palmer) with remote, and one squeeze of the fob locks the doors and shuts windows & sunroof. If it's a hot day and I want to leave the roof open, the leftmost switch on the centre console disables the window/roof locking.

 

[danmason]

[blockquote]

the Hamilton and Palmer immobilisers fitted to UK spec Porsche's with an immobiliser fitted (the ones with the Porsche tag and a slot) are NOT cat2

[/blockquote]
The way my insurer put it was that Thatcham categorisation didn't exist at the time the car/alarm was made, therefore it could not qualify for a Thatcham rating. But as per Matt's post it may be possible that your OPC could issue a certificate. I guess you could always try Hamilton & Palmer too on 01732 760022.

I have to agree with Fen though that you should try and find a new insurer - e.g. neither Lancaster or Adrian Flux demand Cat1 (or even Cat2).

 

[Fen]

It depends with Adrian Flux (they are a broker, not an insurer proper); I need an immobiliser for them. I'm afraid I think Jon is wrong. I had to get an OPC to confirm the installation of a Porsche Immobiliser back in 1995, which was the Hamilton and Palmer one, and it was insurance qualifying. I'm pretty sure Thatcham categorisation was around then. I also believe than once a model achieves Thatcham categorisation it cannot be withdrawn even if it would no longer meet the requirement if retested (otherwise people could end up having to fit a new system every year). Possibly the last statement is correct and so is Jon's, because it wouldn't get Cat 2 certification now.

 

[Diver944]

Whatever you do, make sure you get the old Hamilton and Palmer removed totally first. Not bypassed, not disabled, but taken out. We hear lots of stories of the H&P gradually breaking down now they are over 10 years old. You don't want them interfering with the new system and if you do have problems, then its far easier to track down whats causing it if there is only one alarm in there.

 

[sawood12]

I've had problems with insurers accepting Cat 2 immobilisers as most seem to be shifting to demanding Cat 1 alarms.

I too have been told that systems can slip off the Thatcham listing. I've been warned by my insurer that my Cat 2 immobiliser is due to slip off the Thatcham listing so I will need to replace at some point. I suspect it's something to do with the manufacturers having to pay Thatcham something to include their products on their lists so they don't want to pay for their older systems - a nice way of generating new business!! Having said that I think my immobiliser is a good 10 years old now so things (especially technology) move on.

You can get premium brand Cat 1 alarms for around £300. Unfortunaltely in my experiance it's a case of you ether have one or the insurers wont insure you so Fens sensible cost/benefit anaylsys might not apply.

 

[Diver944]

Ooooh I forgot to mention something really cool [8D]........ last week I was working on a customers 996 and he owns an alarm company here in Northampton. When I'd finished I asked him about modern alarms on 944s (thinking of replacing the S2s) and he gave me a run down of the one fitted to his 996.

It had all the usual features, remote locking, window closing, beeps when you get within a foot of the car etc but it also had a really clever remote starting facility (which is apparently impossible with 996 according to Porsche - he says).

From sitting inside his house, he could press a button and the immobiliser would disable, the car would start but the car was still locked and alarmed. A few minutes later you can come out of your house and get into a nice warm car.

I did wonder afterwards what would happen if you'd left the car in gear, but I suppose it must have safeguards. Anyway the worst that could happen would be you scrape, scratch or dent your bumper - which I think is excellent news anyway []

I urge everyone to buy one []

 

[Fen]

Of course remote staring is technically illegal if the car is on a public road, and it does a modern engine no good at all to warm up at idle... I also detest with a passion normally reserved for P6000's those alarms that have proximity sensors. Just last week I was at PC World and parked next to some chavvy scrapper Corsa/Saxo (they are the same, no?) with horns on the top of the tailgate. Despite me having unlocked my car remotely when walking up to it and just getting straight into it as quickly as I normally would this thing sqawked at me for standing near it's driver's door. It was all I could do to stop myself giving it a "playful" pat with my foot or car door... Actually my hearse has an auxiliary heater which kicks in when it's started if the engine temp is below 10 degrees. I have a remote turn on kit for that on order. Part of the blurb from Webasto (who make it) is that you get a warm and defrosted car to drive, but also that it warms the engine coolant thus aiding the engine to warm up faster and reducing wear and fuel use. I doubt it saves as much fuel as the thing burns to warm up on the drive though... In terms of alarms I have never needed one in any car, only ever cat 2 at most. I thought they were getting less popular because everyone ignores them, hence they are not so prevalent as OE fitment now as they used to be.

 

[hotblack944]

ORIGINAL: Fen
I'm afraid I think Jon is wrong.

Unlikely []

ORIGINAL: Fen
I had to get an OPC to confirm the installation of a Porsche Immobiliser back in 1995, which was the Hamilton and Palmer one, and it was insurance qualifying.

Me too, although in 1998. Nowhere on the letter does it state that the immobiliser is Cat 2 though.

Reading http://www.thatcham.org/security/pdfs/categories/PassengerCarCAT2.pdf, it's as clear as mud, unless you're talking '93 onwards.

Cheers,

Jim.

 

[Fen]

How I read that list (which is the current Cat 2 approved products?) is that the O/R (optional/retrofit) Porsche immobiliser TE2 (73-0494 whatever that means) is Cat 2 approved when fitted to all vehicles (implication being Porsche vehicles, but not stated explicitly), as was the standard fit of the same model on the 911, 968 and 928GTS from '93-. I have no idea what feature code C 4 means, but I imagine that to relate back to exactly what it does to qualify for approval. Now that says to me that the TE2 was Cat 2 approved and as it is not greyed out then it still is. And therefore Jon is wrong. Not having a go at him, but good as he may be he's still entitled not to be right about something sometimes. In terms of devices becoming uncertified it looks like they had a purge in October 1998, but otherwise things stay on the list.

 

[Fen]

Actually, check the link again and scroll down to the aftermarket systems section. Listed as Hamilton & Palmer Matrix III TE2 72/0494 (so probably an H&P model number) is another device of feature code C 3, this time that is approved for universal fitment, again not greyed out.

 

[hotblack944]

ORIGINAL: Fen
How I read that list (which is the current Cat 2 approved products?) is that the O/R (optional/retrofit) Porsche immobiliser TE2 (73-0494 whatever that means) is Cat 2 approved when fitted to all vehicles (implication being Porsche vehicles, but not stated explicitly), as was the standard fit of the same model on the 911, 968 and 928GTS from '93-.

Agreed, so the question is, is the immobiliser fitted to the 968 et al from '93 onwards the SAME as the one fitted to 944s upto '91? If not, the above has no relevance to 944s.

ORIGINAL: Fen
I have no idea what feature code C 4 means

Key: Contact, Circuits Isolated: 4.

ORIGINAL: Fen
And therefore Jon is wrong.

Unlikely. []

ORIGINAL: Fen
Not having a go at him

Never said you were. []

ORIGINAL: Fen
but good as he may be he's still entitled not to be right about something sometimes.

As indeed are you. And me. [][][]

Cheers,

Jim.

 

[hotblack944]

More from Jon:

The problem with the standard immoby, is that as far as it immobilises 2 or more circuits, it conforms with that aspect of thatcham standards.
But because one of the circuits immobilised is via the back of the key switch, it breaks thatcham standards for installation. So even though it meets thatcham criteria, your car isnt protected to thatcham criteria because its not been installed to thatcham standards of installation.
Even a toad power key thatcham cat 2 immobiliser, if fitted in a way that breaks the thatcham rules (as with the H&P system does on 80's and early 90's Porsche models) would no longer be regarded as a Thatcham cat 2 approved system.
The interesting thing, is that I would say that many people are driving around in cars protected by expensive alarms, but because even they have not been installed to thatcham standards, they do not realise that the system is no longer cat-anything.
I think many insurance companies have put "porsche factory fit" as an approved security device, but that happened because of the later immobilisers, so though a loop hole in their thinking, the 80's design from H&P slipped through the net.. This is because the first "factory fit immobiliser" from Porsche is very good and exceeds the thatcham standards in design and installation... unfortunately, the H&P (slot and fob) system isnt factory fit, and not the system that the insurance company is expecting that you told them you have.
Unfortunately, if your car is stolen and then recovered, if the loss adjuster (the person who the insurance company uses to find ways to avoid paying out) checks the immobiliser he will invalidate your claim on the grounds of impropper installation!
The other problem, is that the H&P immobiliser isnt "factory fit" because they were fitted by the dealers, as a way of them adding an extra option to the order form, and turning it into cash that didnt go to the factory. Which means that those of you who have insurance that is expecting your immobiliser to be "factory fit" will be upset when they realise your system isnt factory fitted.
Add to all this, the fact that they are now going up the swany on a regular basis, means that even if they were factory items to cat2 standard, they really are not worth the trouble.
Its a mine field..

 

[Fen]

My '90 car didn't have an immobiliser at all until September when a brand new Porsche TE2 was fitted (it had an aftermarket alarm of some sort). My '92 registered cab had a non-Porsche immobiliser fitted. Neither of the '89 944s I owned had an immobiliser and nor did the '86. '87 & '88 are the only years of oval dash 944 I haven't owned. I therefore don't believe any 944 had a Porsche immobiliser as a standard UK dealer fit item. In fact I imagine the TE2 device wasn't available until 1993, hence the date in the list. That would mean all the cars that have one have been retro-fitted since 1993 which means the list has every relevance to 944s. In any case the list only specifies '93- for the standard fit and no date for the optional/retrofit one which could simply reflect that it became a standard feature (probably still dealer fit) from Porsche across the range in 1993. According to the Thatcham list they are all the same model regardless of what they are fitted to, otherwise they'd be broken out into different models of device I would expect. In terms of fitting then of course that may not be up to standard. If Jon is saying that they need 2 circuits to meet Cat 2 and by connecting one to the back of the ignition barrel that breaks approval that is fine, but you are saying these things have 4 circuits. Are 3 of them connected in such a way as to fail approval leaving only one sufficiently covered and hence not enough to satisfy Cat 2? In any event the requirement for proper installation almost goes without saying, but with proper fitting the device IS Cat 2 compliant. I'm at a bit of a loss really as to why we're still discussing this. It looks pretty black and white to me that the Porsche immobiliser is on the current Thatcham Cat 2 list, which is what I said earlier. The suggestion that it is not has been disproved. That incorrect fitting nullifies the classification of the device in an individual application is also beyond question, but that is hardly the device's fault and the same thing could be said of the latest whizzy security device of the type Paul mentioned above. Lastly they might be old and sometimes going dicky by now - OK, but anything can go dicky and until it does it by definition still works, then it breaks and is U/S - same goes for the whizzy alarm etc. In any event they are still available brand new and Hamilton & Palmer are very good with spares for them, too. My personal opinion is I don't like alarms and I don't believe they keep your car more secure than an immobiliser. Further it is quite acceptable for someone who needs to have Cat 2 immobilisation for insurance purposes to use their Porsche immobiliser (we assume correctly fitted, but even if not who is going to know? The car will be gone before anyone will check) if they already have one. Right or wrong (and I still think he's wrong) it looks to me like Jon also has an opinion here in that he doesn't like the Porsche immobiliser. Fair enough. Consider though that I'm not in the business of making money out of people keeping their Porsche immobilisers, Jon however is in the business of making money out of replacing them.

 

[Paul Fraser]

I've been looking into this as I might have to get one fitted on a 928. If you want to know if the Porsche immobiliser fitted is CAT2 take it to the OPC and get a inspection/certificate. This is what Hamilton & Palmer advised another driver when he phoned them. They were quite helpful when I called too, explaining the four-cut requirement that Porsche do and the systems they offer. Because of the complexity of the 928 I'd go to them, but as they are in Sevenoaks, it's a bit of a way. If you look at the CAT2/1 list you can find out what you need to add (PA2000?, I can't remember) to upgrade the immobiliser to CAT1.
PS I think Fen is right BTW re whether or not the Porsche immobiliser is CAT2.