944 Turbo v 924 2.7 N/A (Wanted for a potential Mag Feature?) +GT3 Beater?

[924Srr27l]

Hi Roger...your car sounds like a fun machine to drive although there's more to performance than the power to weight ratio...yes it helps off the line and I bet it would be very quick around a track .. the Turbo is a different beast...it's relatively slow off the mark but at mid range it's a true champ even in standard form. It has very long legs and even with a basic tune won't loose acceleration until it hits the redline in all gears.. I followed these cars on the race circuit for a number of years until they were finally banned from the Porsche Pirelli/Michelin cup championships as they just kept winning against Porsche's latest models, final straw being when they even beat the then new GT3's and we are talking standard engine output here...just imagine then what a well sorted 951 is capable off.....

Good luck with your lightweight....hope to see it and you at one of the meets some day...
cheers
Pete

Yes Thanks Pete,

"they even beat the then new GT3's and we are talking standard engine output here."
This sounds bizarre, I can't understand how a standard power (220 / 250) 944 race cars can beating a GT3 Race car unless the
driver talent was very different ?

Here's a good clip off Youtube, both Racecars and the 944 is not standard power and the driver's lines are poor and he is slower.
eventually the GT3 gets past..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS54sGBr01I



There are several keywords I can see and pick up in your reply which is exactly why I decided to modify the lighter from standard and narrower 944 (The 924) and then lighten further (by 250kg) and install a large 2.7 Litre normally aspirated big four with 8 valves.

It would of been much easier & cheaper to of installed a turbo or 968 motor, but there's no fun in that and besides I always
prefer to be the underdog (David) and not Goliath! even more so as the 924 has the "Van engine" and "Poor Man's Porsche" labels!

I've owned 8 Transaxles (So far) including the 3.0 968 and I've also driven 3.0 S2's and 944 turbos, firstly so many of the same models differ in performance which I think is often down to use....... or lack of it!

Turbocharged car's are always a Hoot when that Boost comes in, however they can be annoying
when they don't do "what i want" (Go, due to lag) when i want and vice versa! which is why you often hear and read the 3.0 S2 944 is a far better ROAD car than any 944 turbo due to the effortless instant torque on tap and easier driveability.

I'd like to compare on the ROAD a long legged (FDR 3.375) laggy and heavy 944 turbo (1500kg+ with driver) in comparison to my shorter geared (3.889) 400kg+ less (with driver) car which it's freshly built and USA tuned high compression (10:9:1) 2.7 Engine, the 20 piston braking system and Wavetrac LSd etc..etc...I'm fairly convinced it would be the quicker car Road car. (Not just a straight line test)

When you say "there's more to performance than the power to weight ratio...yes it helps off the line"

I disagree , it's not something that just "Helps", it's a huge thing not just beneficial off the line, it's midrange, top end and everywhere.
When I press the loud pedal the car moves with keen vigour due to the (20%) less mass and the (37%) extra torque it has.

I often switch off the engine, get out and push my car in and out a single garage on my own!

The total Increase in the Power to weight figure is approx a 60% compared to it's original weight & the 2.5 engine
which is a fair increase!

It would be like driving a Boxster 3.4 (300bhp) and then jumping in a 3.8 (480bhp) GT3 that's how much different and better the figures not only register on paper but also in reality on the public roads now I've done 1600 miles in it over the last 2 months.

Sure, Power to weight is not always the 100% story but you only have to look at the ultimate laptimes on Magazines and Motoring TV programmes to see often the quickest machinery is either a lightweight Caterham or Ariel Atom etc...and not a 900bhp twin turbo Italian supercar..

The Race track is a total different bag to the Road, talking of magazines again they often refer when testing a McLaren or lambo etc..on twisty B roads that a cheeky little hatch is as quick if not quicker than these Supercars which have 3 to 4 times more power....Unyet on a Track they would Blitz the Hatch.

So i understand any 944 turbo Race modified car is very quick on a track, but a standard one I not only think would be no quicker but actually slower than my 924S on the Road.
I'm not interested or have built this car for the track (It's all Rubber Bushed) I'm only interested in Road use and this is why I believe from my Racing and Motorsport tuning experience a light, compliant and low down torquey car would and is a real tool.

You mention the "the Turbo is a different beast" and "it hits the redline in all gears.." this is exactly what my car does not NEED to do as it's like riding a big Sports bike, you can pull away from the lights and junctions with ease and it leaves a lot of car's for dead, I often short shift at 3000rpm because there's no need to go any higher unless there's an M3 up my chuff! Then i'll go to 5500rpm but not much more as the peak power is 5799rpm, and peak torque is 4500rpm

It has a lightweight Knife edged 951 crank, aluminium flywheel and lighter (968) rods and Wossner forged pistons which all equate and total 9kg less revolving weight (than a stock setup) which doesn;t give it more power but means it accelerates quicker from point A to B. The downside is the loss of inertia so it decelerates quicker when you lift off the throttle...

The 250bhp 944 Turbo factory figures (which are often quite a bit less when Dyno'd on 25+ year old cars)
are not that far different (10 - 25%) Considering it has a blower:

2000rpm (924 = 164) v (944T = 180) ft lbs +10%
2500rpm (924 = 180) v (944T = 213) ft lbs + 18%
3000rpm (924 = 190) v (944T = 238) ft Lbs + 25%
4500rpm (924 = 205) v (944T = 254) ft lbs + 24%
6000rpm (924 = 179) v (944T = 202) ft lbs + 13%

Add on top my 400+kg less mass and you can see why I'm keen to find a 944 & even 968 Owner? and do a shoot out
on the road and also the track even with my soft Road suspension set up, and skinny 205mm tyres ....

911& PW are ready to feature my car, I'm sure I could convince them do a feature on a 944T & 968? v a 924 modified n/a comparison..

Any takers?

R

 

[blade7]

I bought a turbo for a weekend fun car and TBH I'm not interested that a stripped out 2.7 may be faster from A to B on some roads, though I doubt it if the turbo had 320 bhp + and the driver knew how to use the gearbox to keep it on boost. I'd be interested which big sports bikes you're comparing to ? I've owned whichever is the quickest 900/1000 for over 35 years and drawing any sort of comparison is laughable, the latest/fastest are screamers reving to 14k+ and they're relatively gutless under 6k.

 

[924Srr27l]

I bought a turbo for a weekend fun car and TBH I'm not interested that a stripped out 2.7 may be faster from A to B on some roads, though I doubt it if the turbo had 320 bhp + and the driver knew how to use the gearbox to keep it on boost. I'd be interested which big sports bikes you're comparing to ? I've owned whichever is the quickest 900/1000 for over 35 years and drawing any sort of comparison is laughable, the latest/fastest are screamers reving to 14k+ and they're relatively gutless under 6k.

Hi,

Ok, thanks it's not for you and your car then... ?

Is your weekend blaster (952) totally stock or modified?


"Stripped Out" ? No I've got 2 seats, Full carpets, doorcards, sound deadening, a heater, lights etc..! Remember it's a relatively comfy Road car and not some harsh stripped out rock hard track orientated thing..

I'm aware not many 944 owner's may not be interested in being beat by the grandfather skinny 924, but this is a good part of the Fun & challenge for doing it, do you agree and hence your comments think both Turbo models (220/250) would need to have a (70 -100 bhp Hike) to be on par then?

You've misunderstood the point I was trying to make : "it's like riding a big Sports bike, you can pull away from the lights and junctions with ease and it leaves a lot of car's for dead"

A big engined Motorcycle pulls away nice and easy from the traffic lights and out accelerates pretty much most cars...without having to pull lots of revs. (Short shifting)
I've done this many times even on a little V twin 650's and hence can compare the sensation to a road car where the 924 pulls away effortless with very little rpm and really no need to go over 3000rpm in each gear to achieve a good turn of speed..... It looks like you thought I was comparing my car to a motorbike, but I wasn't!..

A good road Car & Driver can out corner and brake a lot of sports bikes, it's only the straights where the lighter Bikes are superior, I know what 14,000rpm and 16000pm is like from Kart Racing (since 1994) mostly with a 125cc Two stroke 6 speed sequential Gearbox Karts which can Corner faster and stop quicker than Moto GP bikes.

R

 

[tref]

I am sure you are absolutely right. I have an S2 as a daily driver, a 220 Turbo, and a 924S. I have also recently borrowed an early, very basic 944 2.5. Which one I would choose to take on any particular day would be entirely dependant upon my mood, type of road, how much traffic... If you need a car for comparison depending upon when and where I may be able to help. An "on road performance comparison" I would be a little wary of... Legality, mentality etc, etc...

Tref.

 

[blade7]

A good road Car & Driver can out corner and brake a lot of sports bikes, it's only the straights where the lighter Bikes are superior,

In the dry ? I don't think so. Since the advent of multi setting traction control, road legal semi slick soft compound tyres, and race ABS on sports bikes you'll need a hyper car to beat a good rider on the likes of a BMW S1000RR.

 

[PSH]

An interesting discussion here I see...I already stated that a lightweight would be quick off the mark I do not agree that the same would be true higher up the band. With both cars side by side already on the move say at 90mph I think you'd be surprised at how easy the 944T would pull away, even in standard trim. An N/A just doesn't have the power and in general, to be on equal par with a turbo you'd need nearly double the capacity to compete, you'll find this in various race championships when Turbo's are on the same grid as N/A cars.
Regarding GT3's vs 944T's...take a look at the Porsche Michelin cup back in the late 90's early 2000's. Yes driver has a lot to do with it but in the last year before the 944T was banned outright after having a number of seasons when it was first handicapped in an attempt to stop it beating the then new 996's , it was then put against the GT3's until it was banned outright having IIRC finished 4th in the last year when most of the field was GT3's... actually the winner was a 964RS and the 944T had the most wins but also the most DNF's...I am saying this from memory so forgive me if I have any of this wrong, it will be recorded somewhere. I am talking the first GT3's here, the current models have a good deal more power.

 

[blade7]

Pete, unless you've owned/driven a modified 944T for a good while I can see how it's strengths could be over looked. Use the gearbox to keep it on boost and use the torque and it's an effortlessly fast car, without revving the nuts off it. Unlike the 968 which was the ultimate NA road frontrunner. The 2.7 engine was little better than the 2.5 really, and there's a school of thought that it had a forced induction future before Porsche binned the 944/68.

 

[JM1962]

"Stripped Out" ? No I've got 2 seats, Full carpets, doorcards, sound deadening, a heater, lights etc..! Remember it's a relatively comfy Road car and not some harsh stripped out rock hard track orientated thing..

How have you managed to strip 250kg out of it?

 

[924Srr27l]

A good road Car & Driver can out corner and brake a lot of sports bikes, it's only the straights where the lighter Bikes are superior,

In the dry ? I don't think so. Since the advent of multi setting traction control, road legal semi slick soft compound tyres, and race ABS on sports bikes you'll need a hyper car to beat a good rider on the likes of a BMW S1000RR.

It's a common thought by most bikers that they think a Bike can corner as well as a 4 wheel machine, it's just not possible by the law of physics.
It's the same with braking the 2 tyres with a total contact patch less than a Fag packet is a limiting factor...ABS or not.
The Higher (than a car's) power to weight ratio they have can of course be fully exploited on the straight pieces, but you don't need a Hypercar on public roads to give most bikers good a run on twisty B roads, forget straights and Motorways that's just no contest.

Bikes also have such a narrow profile that on the road when challenged by a Fast car can get away so easily by going through small
gaps and even (as many do) straddle the centre white line and squeeze through an oncoming car.
A chasing car is so much wider it loses out here big time.

I personally enjoy dual carriageways coming up to roundabouts where many times I've been able to shoot past bikes on the brakes..

Compare the performance on a Track though where the 2 wheeled machine cannot gain an unfair advantage of easily
negotiating the traffic! and the bike's small tyre contact and lack of cornering and braking capability shows up massively short where they can be
for example 30 seconds a lap slower at Silverstone (F1 v Moto GP) even the tin top BTCC car's lap close to the British Superbikes.

R

 

[924Srr27l]

I am sure you are absolutely right. I have an S2 as a daily driver, a 220 Turbo, and a 924S. I have also recently borrowed an early, very basic 944 2.5. Which one I would choose to take on any particular day would be entirely dependant upon my mood, type of road, how much traffic... If you need a car for comparison depending upon when and where I may be able to help. An "on road performance comparison" I would be a little wary of... Legality, mentality etc, etc...

Tref.

Hi Tref, great that sounds brilliant to have a choice of 4 ! They all must have very different personalities!

Is the 924S and early 44 manual steering or Power ? I bet the 2.5T & 3.0S2 are like chalk and cheese....

Are you located anywhere near the North West ?

Roger

 

[924Srr27l]

"Stripped Out" ? No I've got 2 seats, Full carpets, doorcards, sound deadening, a heater, lights etc..! Remember it's a relatively comfy Road car and not some harsh stripped out rock hard track orientated thing..

How have you managed to strip 250kg out of it?

Yes good point.....If I went for a Track car and installed Fibre doors, dash out and all the above and more ... I think It may be under 950kg!

Loads of things, lots of big stuff, but also a lot of small items with as little as 500 grams saving on some parts!
Crazy I know, but once I got started I couldn't stop!

The entire Build and lightening has it's own website... where 99% of the modifications are illustrated

www.924srr27l.co.uk

Roger

 

[924Srr27l]

Pete, unless you've owned/driven a modified 944T for a good while I can see how it's strengths could be over looked. Use the gearbox to keep it on boost and use the torque and it's an effortlessly fast car, without revving the nuts off it. Unlike the 968 which was the ultimate NA road frontrunner. The 2.7 engine was little better than the 2.5 really, and there's a school of thought that it had a forced induction future before Porsche binned the 944/68.

Yes I agree a Modified Turbo 944 dependant on how much extra power (over 250bhp) and weight reductions ? it has will be a handful for my N/A to keep up with on the straights!, which is why I'm requesting a stock car, especially when quite a few of them will be down on power anyway (with age!)

I'm not sure what happened when Porsche did the 944 2.7 for 1 year ? as it's power output was virtually the same as the 2.5 (165bhp? I think)
They designed a new Cylinder head which had Bigger Inlet valves than the 2.5 but the extra 202cc from 2479 to 2681cc didn't do much at all.

However my engine is not the same as this but is made up from 4 transaxle models:

- 944 3.0 S2 Block honed to 105mm
- 944 2.5T Crankshaft (Knife edged)
- 944 2.5 n/a Cylinder head (Small valve)
Modified water section to fit the 3.0 block + Inlet Ports modified by Lindsey Racing
- 968 Conrods (balanced)
Capacity 2707cc

It's effectively a Short stroke 3.0 S2 but with an 8 valve Head, which is what I wanted as much lower RPM torque as
possible for road use.

This Combo produced 40bhp more than the Porsche 944 2.7 (205bhp / 205 Ft Lbs)

I ran a 968 coupe for over a year which was great car, but this 924S is quicker in all 3 departments (Go, Cornering & Braking)


Roger

 

[924Srr27l]

An interesting discussion here I see...I already stated that a lightweight would be quick off the mark I do not agree that the same would be true higher up the band. With both cars side by side already on the move say at 90mph I think you'd be surprised at how easy the 944T would pull away, even in standard trim. An N/A just doesn't have the power and in general, to be on equal par with a turbo you'd need nearly double the capacity to compete, you'll find this in various race championships when Turbo's are on the same grid as N/A cars.
Regarding GT3's vs 944T's...take a look at the Porsche Michelin cup back in the late 90's early 2000's. Yes driver has a lot to do with it but in the last year before the 944T was banned outright after having a number of seasons when it was first handicapped in an attempt to stop it beating the then new 996's , it was then put against the GT3's until it was banned outright having IIRC finished 4th in the last year when most of the field was GT3's... actually the winner was a 964RS and the 944T had the most wins but also the most DNF's...I am saying this from memory so forgive me if I have any of this wrong, it will be recorded somewhere. I am talking the first GT3's here, the current models have a good deal more power.

Yeah, as you say interesting thoughts and idea's I was pretty poor at maths at school but have got a lot better since working in the real world for the last 30 years, but I'm unsure how a light car would only be good for standing starts and not at 90mph?

I understand a Power to weight figure is not clear cut when torque is involved EG a Civic Type R and a 944 Turbo both with 220bhp and we all know
the Japanese machine will have a gutless lower torque figure and as your suggestion in a 90 - 110mph test the Pork would be quicker even if the civic is lighter but then it's not got a turbo..

So in my proposed challenge a Turbo car v a Normally aspirated car is quite unfair but if in my case the N/A is 400=kg lighter so the performance
could be very close, or as I suspect on the Road the N/A has an advantage with no Lag / delay to it's throttle and power response..

My car currently sits at 4000rpm at 90mph in 5th gear, I think the Turbo would be less? and my torque and power figures may be quite close
certainly to a 220bhp model? and from all the car's I've owned and driven and the numerous Rolling Road Results I've seen (all 3 of these transaxle models) commonly produce much less power than the original spec sheet.

I also think a 1 ton car and a 1.5 ton car with exactly the same power to weight figure, the lighter car will handle & Brake better.
Even lighter wheels & Tyres will move the car quicker than a heavier set...

Until now I've never experienced any engine in any 924 / 944 / 968 as sharp, which makes sense as all the car's I've owned and driven are all decades old, used and some abused! So there's no way they will feel as keen because any new or fully rebuilt Engine is going to be strong, especially when it's all bespoke and tuned costing a total of 10K!

So in some sense it's an unfair comparison to expect an old 944T and even a 968 to be as sharp as this freshly built Semi Racing Engine.
But that's why I did it, to have a wolf in sheep's clothing that creates interesting conversations and sceptics!

Roger

 

[PSH]

Hi Roger

The thing is if already moving you have already overcome the initial 'inertia', this is where a lighter object can move quicker off the line than the heavier object as it has less inertia to overcome. Not sure if I explained that very well...anyway if both vehicles are already moving that advantage is mostly loss, yes you still have the quicker response but the extra torque of the Turbo will soon negate and then overcome that....btw at 90 I'd still be in third if accelerating. As an example and since we are talking bikes, I had a run-in with an R1 some years back, car had less power then...I was in outside lane having just overtaken a slower car, noticed the bike coming up fast behind and pulled into the middle to let him past at approx 90mph...the rider came up level with me and looked straight at me hunched down ready for a fast exit....well that's like a red flag to a bull. I was mid gear and right in my power range having just over taken that earlier car....I waited for the rider to react which he did and then I floored it...his bike was screaming...sounded good but to his obvious surprise he couldn't pull ahead...I won't go into speeds obtained but clearly, he wasn't going to get ahead and when my wife screamed at me that I was going to kill him if I didn't back off I closed the throttle as she was right and I'm too old for such stupidity....still it was good to know just how good the car was set up.....btw when cruising at 85mph I'm only on 15% throttle, as of yet I haven't used full throttle since it's engine rebuild and believe me it's fast even when only using 60% throttle to accelerate hard......I get more fun just burbling along the road and watching everyone look around to see what's coming, she does make a lovely sound on overrun........

 

[924Srr27l]

How have you managed to strip 250kg out of it?

Hi, I've just found my excel spreadsheet which I attempted to log everything, but must of missed several things
as it only totalled a 230kg loss, but when the car was corner weighted on 4 computer scales the final weight figure was
a further 20kg less than my calculations!

So I must if missed a few things from several places!

Bodywork - 80kg
Interior - 80kg
Suspension & Brakes 20kg
Engine and bay 34kg
Exhaust system 16kg
Other Misc 20kg

Total 250kg

Roger

 

[924Srr27l]

Hi Roger

The thing is if already moving you have already overcome the initial 'inertia', this is where a lighter object can move quicker off the line than the heavier object as it has less inertia to overcome. Not sure if I explained that very well...anyway if both vehicles are already moving that advantage is mostly loss, yes you still have the quicker response but the extra torque of the Turbo will soon negate and then overcome that....btw at 90 I'd still be in third if accelerating. As an example and since we are talking bikes, I had a run-in with an R1 some years back, car had less power then...I was in outside lane having just overtaken a slower car, noticed the bike coming up fast behind and pulled into the middle to let him past at approx 90mph...the rider came up level with me and looked straight at me hunched down ready for a fast exit....well that's like a red flag to a bull. I was mid gear and right in my power range having just over taken that earlier car....I waited for the rider to react which he did and then I floored it...his bike was screaming...sounded good but to his obvious surprise he couldn't pull ahead...I won't go into speeds obtained but clearly, he wasn't going to get ahead and when my wife screamed at me that I was going to kill him if I didn't back off I closed the throttle as she was right and I'm too old for such stupidity....still it was good to know just how good the car was set up.....btw when cruising at 85mph I'm only on 15% throttle, as of yet I haven't used full throttle since it's engine rebuild and believe me it's fast even when only using 60% throttle to accelerate hard......I get more fun just burbling along the road and watching everyone look around to see what's coming, she does make a lovely sound on overrun........

Ok, If you replace the word Inertia with mass this would make better sense ?

The only Inertia you have when sitting at the traffic lights is the crank rotating & spinning, if a vehicle is stationery it has no forces on apart from static gravity and wind resistance.
The engine then propels it forwards and against a higher density (gravity and wind resistance).

A car weighing 1000kg and 200bhp and another car with 1500kg and 300bhp have the same power to weight (Mass) figure.
The 300bhp car has more power but it's got 500kg extra to lug along, be that from a standstill or from any speed.

If you compare the weight to torque figures these details will give you a result for which one will propel itself forwards at a quicker rate.

I'm comparing my 924 car with a standard 220 or 250bhp 944 turbo and also one that's 30 years old so I could almost guarantee
the 220 and 250 figures won't be the case, because they never are. My figures are recent and on a trusted Rolling Road (Ninemeister)

So as quoted before my N/A bhp and Torque figures are very close to the new specification outputs, which is all well and good but the real
difference is the 400kg+ less weight I have to lug around.

So if anything I'd say if a standard 944T (220) was only pushing out 195bhp or a 944t (250) only 230bhp both of these carrying 400kg more than me and the high figures I achieved from my N/A engine 's torque figure (being only 10% less at 6000rpm) will be a strong contender...

Once the final weight and 8 hour Rolling Road session was complete the American Porsche Transaxle Tuning Specialists Lindsey Racing did some
calculations and produced the following figures based on a 944 2.7 & a Turbo (220)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your engine - 205 hp
Stock 2.7L - 162 hp
Gain - 43 hp

Your engine - 205 torque
Stock 2.7L - 140 torque
Gain - 65 ft lbs !!

Stock 944 turbo (non S) Weight 3050Lbs average. 220 hp/ 243 torque
Turbo weight to HP - 13.8:1
Turbo weight to torque - 12.6:1

Your engine weight to HP - 10.8:1
Your engine weight to torque - 10.8:1

Your weight to HP ratio is 22% better than the turbo car.
Your weight to torque ratio is 14% better than the turbo car.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So if I was in 5th @ 90mph and a 944T 220 was in 5th at 90mph and we did a test to accelerate from 90 to 110mph
These figures calculate my 924S 2.7 N/A would get there in less time, as it would also from any rpm in any gear compared like for like.

On top of this I also have less unsprung weight, less frontal and width area's (More efficient - Less drag) and also less
Rolling wheel & tyre weight (Lighter and less resistance 205mm width tyres on all 4 corners) + the Lighter Crank / Flywheel and revolving parts etc...all this make it even more quicker, especially if a prospective 944T has those heavy 17" Cup wheels and wide tyres on it!

If you or anyone has 100bhp + more than a standard Turbo / S then this is in a different ballpark...

I'd need to go Supercharged and / or throttle bodied / twin cam etc....to be competitive...

My Engine builder races a 968 which has achieved over 325bhp from it's 3.0 N/A which weighs just under 1000kg fully caged.

Roger

 

[tref]

I think the environment makes a big difference here - On a track, even me with my inability to keep a turbo on the boil would be a able to whip the ass off my S2. On the road, no chance. Pete... I don't think your turbo is exactly stock! The first thing anyone used to do with a turbo was to fit a boost enhance - best £50 spent yadda, yadda, so if you haven't overcome the lag, I would be very surprised. You take a stock Turbo, and try and drive it in traffic without taking your foot off the throttle... Soon as you do, count to three, ah boost, now where has that S2 gone?!
It's an old anecdote now I know, but going to the factory I leant a friend one of my cars - I offered him the choice - Turbo or S2? He took the turbo - who wouldn't? Really struggled to stay with me, and that was when I was trying to keep him in the rear view mirror, and on German Autobahns where there are opportunities to put the turbo into the sweet spot, and he had over a thousand miles to learn the car.

Roger, the 924S has power steering, the bogo 944 doesn't. I have a 968 engine sat in the garage, which I believe would be brilliant in either of them, but it won't happen! Most significant weight saving, in my humble opinion - ABS vs non-ABS hubs and associated wheels.

 

[blade7]

It's a common thought by most bikers that they think a Bike can corner as well as a 4 wheel machine, it's just not possible by the law of physics.
It's the same with braking the 2 tyres with a total contact patch less than a Fag packet is a limiting factor...ABS or not.
The Higher (than a car's) power to weight ratio they have can of course be fully exploited on the straight pieces, but you don't need a Hypercar on public roads to give most bikers good a run on twisty B roads, forget straights and Motorways that's just no contest.

Bikes also have such a narrow profile that on the road when challenged by a Fast car can get away so easily by going through small
gaps and even (as many do) straddle the centre white line and squeeze through an oncoming car.
A chasing car is so much wider it loses out here big time.

I personally enjoy dual carriageways coming up to roundabouts where many times I've been able to shoot past bikes on the brakes..

Yawn Zzzzzzzz...

 

[blade7]

My figures are recent and on a trusted Rolling Road (Ninemeister)

 

[924Srr27l]

I think the environment makes a big difference here - On a track, even me with my inability to keep a turbo on the boil would be a able to whip the ass off my S2. On the road, no chance. Pete... I don't think your turbo is exactly stock! The first thing anyone used to do with a turbo was to fit a boost enhance - best £50 spent yadda, yadda, so if you haven't overcome the lag, I would be very surprised. You take a stock Turbo, and try and drive it in traffic without taking your foot off the throttle... Soon as you do, count to three, ah boost, now where has that S2 gone?!
It's an old anecdote now I know, but going to the factory I leant a friend one of my cars - I offered him the choice - Turbo or S2? He took the turbo - who wouldn't? Really struggled to stay with me, and that was when I was trying to keep him in the rear view mirror, and on German Autobahns where there are opportunities to put the turbo into the sweet spot, and he had over a thousand miles to learn the car.

Roger, the 924S has power steering, the bogo 944 doesn't. I have a 968 engine sat in the garage, which I believe would be brilliant in either of them, but it won't happen! Most significant weight saving, in my humble opinion - ABS vs non-ABS hubs and associated wheels.

Yes, many people are swung even by the sound of the word not to mention the boost shove of a turbo when diving them, but this can give a false impression they are quicker than they really are and real road driving situations often proves this is the case.

I've heard so many times the N/A S2 is much better on the road and I came to the same conclusion too after driving them both, hence why I didn't fit a turbo engine to produce the fastest enjoyable road car.

The 3.0 S2 revised engine (968) would work well with the extra power from the variable valve timing head in any 24/44, if your not using it I'll buy it off you? for the next project..(Race car)

R