]
A good point. In fact, a lot of the cars did large mileages in their early life: that's what Porsche engineered and designed them for, wasn't it? If you look more closely, many of them have done a much lower mileage per year over the last 10 or 15 years. Perhaps 20K in years one to three, then reduced when they were no longer company cars, reducing further as they became second or third cars.
Paul, To bear that out I have just dug out my service book. Del 01/03/90 Mileage after that: 4/91 16851 4/92 49462 5/93 74518 ... 7/95 110918 10/96 130651 ..... 10/01 192450 ... 10/14 250952 This was all by the same person as a company car (his co, his car so it got well maintained) They did get well used when new! David
Its never cooled down........[
] For me, its great to see them being used like that. George 944tI'm saying (notes Forum Name asking question) that the 944 model is so well engineered and constructed that it is difficult to think of what I would be happy to drive as an alternative. Porsches include the 964 and 996 GT models which asre similarly engineered, outside that I have to admit to a deep respect for the Nissan GTR product. An admiration which started with the R33, extended back to the R32, never quite hit with the R34 but has matured with the current transaxle & 4wd machine. I really consider it is what the 968 could have evolved into had Porsche been openminded enough to wholeheartedly develop a second chassis outside the Beetle range. Now, that Forum Name of yours Sir, lets have an explanation some time [8|] George 944t
I'm intrigued by this statement, by my understanding the Turbo S is exactly the same as the late model Turbo ( wasn't the 's' designation only used for a year or so ) if that is the case why it be more desirable, when to all intents and purposes they are exactly the same ? Totally agree with the 'just drive it' comment, never understood why folks would buy a sports car (or any other car for that matter) only to drive it during the months which don't contain an 'r' (thats May June and July [
] ) and never doing more that 500 miles, wheres the fun in that ?
There are quite a lot of differences between the 88 Turbo S and the later 89MY cars. Here are a few : No Sunroof Larger 12" Discs and Calipers off the 928S4 Lightweight CS Forged Alloy Wheels M030 Suspension as standard Bigger Anti Roll Bars Different Engine Internals with larger exhaust valves Hardened 1st & 2nd Gear with a revised clutch Plus the first 1000 produced were in the unique Silver Rose colour scheme [
]Yours had done almost as much mileage by July 1995 as mind had done by 2013! (113,000 miles now). Having said that, my mileage will rise a bit quicker now as I no longer have the second car option... Good to be using the 944 more I must say, I just don't like parking it in small spaces, leaving it in car parks etc.
Hi Martin I'm no expert but was under the impression my added notes above were accurate? In my case I have a MY90 turbo, no sunroof, M030 package, CS wheels standard. From what I can gather the only difference between my car and a MY88 turbo s is mine had a bridge spoiler as standard, as all 90 turbos did. Other than that I know of no differences? Happy to be enlightend! Cheers StuartORIGINAL: MartinRS2KThere are quite a lot of differences between the 88 Turbo S and the later 89MY cars. Here are a few : No Sunroof - Was an option Larger 12" Discs and Calipers off the 928S4 - Did all 250 turbos not have this? Lightweight CS Forged Alloy Wheels - Standard on MY89 250 turbo? Option on very early MY90's if you were quick. M030 Suspension as standard - Was an option Bigger Anti Roll Bars - Came with M030 option Different Engine Internals with larger exhaust valves - Is the engine not the same on all 250's? Hardened 1st & 2nd Gear with a revised clutch - All 250 turbo's have this along with trans cooler and lsd? Plus the first 1000 produced were in the unique Silver Rose colour scheme [
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
