Ex Skyline
New member
blade7 said:
What he said, Yawn.....ZZZzzzzzzzz
944 Turbo v 924 2.7 N/A (Wanted for a potential Mag Feature?) +GT3 Beater?
- Thread starter 924Srr27l
- Start date
What he said, Yawn.....ZZZzzzzzzzz
PSH
PCGB Member
Just to point out that the 86 turbo weighed a lot less than the later models, even from the 87 car....when you start adding wider track, ABS, airbags, etc etc the weight piled on...the last models weighed around 100kg more than the 86 model year. Mind you even the last heavily laden cars with all the goods that Porsche added to shift the last them through the showroom didn't weigh as much as the 1,500kg that you've used in your comparison.
Pete
Pete
924Srr27l
New member
PSH said:
Yes the luxuries, electronic and safety aids piled on the pounds,
Manufacturers quote curb weights Pete, 1500kg is a real life figure for a 944t / S2 car, driver and fuel..(I've seen it on a weighbridge)
my 924s is at least 400kg less.
My mate has a weighbridge where I often visit with many cars to check the actual weight
against the manufacturers and so far every car is much heavier than specified.
I had an Audi on there the other month, a RS6 5.0 V10 TT avant thing ! 2360kg with no driver, passengers or luggage!
Audi quote 2000kg kerb weight, but people tend to use and think this is the vehicle weight, and it really isn't
If you have any of the numerous 944 Books? which have the road tests, especially the American ones you'll often find they will quote curb weight and test weight which if often 200kg+ more which include extra's, all the fluids, and the driver.
It's a similar scenario with power figures they are often inflated, and VW Emissions that's something else !
R
PSH
PCGB Member
tref said:
Hi Tref
Lag...what's that?...
no, of course, you'll suffer lag but it's not a problem if as Paul said you use the box properly for a turbo car../short shifting is an every day event for me, much more fun.....reminds me of the day I told my friend to try the car, he'd never driven a turbo before....he didn't look too impressed trying to drive like an N/A using all of the revs....I said, ' ok now try short shifting' the big smile on his face told me he's fallen in love with turbo's, the car was standard back then .. anyway, these days lag even on an old car can be greatly offset in most cases...Now my car is a very, very long way from standard and for negating lag the Apexi is king here....just try driving with a high duty cycle to see what I mean. The downside is you loose control of your set boost level, it will spike above any level that you have set but boy does it help with lag....Pete
edh
New member
I don't really understand this thread? How do you evaluate which is the "quicker road car"? Too many variables surely?
..to my mind you're suggesting; spend a lot of money & time on a very focused car, and then compare it's best attributes against a superb all rounder (stock 220/250T)? I'd be very disappointed if the former wasn't better in many respects, simply because it's designed to be so.
A 944T with some very modest tweaks (chip, boost enhancer, or maybe splash out £500 on a DPW & MBC) and fresh suspension is a quick road car ....and still a luxurious, comfortable GT car.
In comparison I thought my 924S was a sweeter driving car for B-roads, one that you could enjoy even at modest speeds, a stock S2 possibly the best compromise of the lot (open to debate obviously []).
They all have their merits, just enjoy them for what they are. That's what I do with mine, built at a low cost for a very specific purpose (a road legal track car that can be driven long distances in relative comfort).
btw power wins at high speeds when air resistance becomes a limiting factor (given similar CDa's etc..)
..to my mind you're suggesting; spend a lot of money & time on a very focused car, and then compare it's best attributes against a superb all rounder (stock 220/250T)? I'd be very disappointed if the former wasn't better in many respects, simply because it's designed to be so.
A 944T with some very modest tweaks (chip, boost enhancer, or maybe splash out £500 on a DPW & MBC) and fresh suspension is a quick road car ....and still a luxurious, comfortable GT car.
In comparison I thought my 924S was a sweeter driving car for B-roads, one that you could enjoy even at modest speeds, a stock S2 possibly the best compromise of the lot (open to debate obviously [
]).They all have their merits, just enjoy them for what they are. That's what I do with mine, built at a low cost for a very specific purpose (a road legal track car that can be driven long distances in relative comfort).
btw power wins at high speeds when air resistance becomes a limiting factor (given similar CDa's etc..)
924Srr27l
New member
edh said:I don't really understand this thread? How do you evaluate which is the "quicker road car"? Too many variables surely?
..to my mind you're suggesting; spend a lot of money & time on a very focused car, and then compare it's best attributes against a superb all rounder (stock 220/250T)? I'd be very disappointed if the former wasn't better in many respects, simply because it's designed to be so.
A 944T with some very modest tweaks (chip, boost enhancer, or maybe splash out £500 on a DPW & MBC) and fresh suspension is a quick road car ....and still a luxurious, comfortable GT car.
In comparison I thought my 924S was a sweeter driving car for B-roads, one that you could enjoy even at modest speeds, a stock S2 possibly the best compromise of the lot (open to debate obviously [
They all have their merits, just enjoy them for what they are. That's what I do with mine, built at a low cost for a very specific purpose (a road legal track car that can be driven long distances in relative comfort).
btw power wins at high speeds when air resistance becomes a limiting factor (given similar CDa's etc..)
Ok,
The design brief was to modify the first incarnation (924) and improve it's performance for Road use to a level
which on paper calculated it's power to weight was higher than all the models in the entire line up except (1)
(The 968 Turbo / S)
So higher than Any standard 924, 944 (All models inc turbo and the 924 CGT) and the 968
It was never going to be easy or a guaranteed goal to achieve.
But I was surprised when the final figures (after a 3.5 year build) were better than expected and the final
PTW figure came out at 200bhp per Metric Tone.
"just enjoy them for what they are"
Oh that's happening for sure, I've already had 1600+ miles of use and so far it's not disappointed but again exceeded
my expectations where it's shown a clean set of heels to many powerful (But Heavy) modern machinery.
But I've not come across (yet) any other transaxle's and it's this which I'm considering putting in as a prospective
feature for a couple of Magazines (EVO + 911 & PW) that want to test and feature this project.
So the thread is edh exactly as the title suggests "944 Turbo wanted for potential magazine shoot"
"How do you evaluate which is the "quicker road car"? Too many variables surely?"
The same as you or anyone else does when they test drive one car to another !
Road tests are something of course the Mag boys do all the time, they have in the past tested all 3 transaxles
and the results are often favoured not to the highest power output car but the one that drives the best on public roads.
If it's a situation like Top Gear where a few people swap models, and reflect their opinions a winner is revealed.
The first model of the 924S 2.5 was de-tuned with a lower CR to avoid it being faster than the 944, but it still manages to do this as illustrated many times in mag features, and many have declared it's far better than its reputation which is more than likely because it started life with a vast array of VW & Audi components including the 2.0 Audi 100 Engine etc...
Having owned 8 Transaxle car's and a (928 4.7 & 3.2 Boxster) I tend to agree it's underated, and hence this is why I picked this model as I felt it had great potential to outperform all the other evolution models with extensive modifications.
It's fairly easy when road testing cars' to recognise the pro's and cons's and characteristics which can be logged and compared to other cars in a test.
Of course a timed Track circuit lap is far more accurate for speed testing (which one has the quickest laptime), but this car has been built with compliance, comfort and ease for fast road conditions and hence it's not a race track set up, however it will still out perform any "totally standard" Porsche 944T / 968 road car on a track because it's PTW is higher than all of them and all it's suspension and brakes are brand new & uprated.
so it's like comparing a standard Road going Sierra Cosworth to a lightweight heavily modified Mk2 Escort which has a higher PTW.
You've mentioned "btw power wins at high speeds when air resistance becomes a limiting factor"
Sure this echoes back to the Torque v weight figures I 've quoted previously
So if one car has a higher torque / weight figure than the other , like mine has more than than a stock 944T / 968 it will pull
quicker than the other ones, at all speeds from Zero, 50 , 100mph etc...
The 924 body shape has less drag than any 944, my rear wing / gurney also reduces drag further.
My Rolling resistance and Unsprung weight is also less, the list goes on...there's not much that has been overlooked on this car.
Of course, the nature of the Human being will reveal their competitive side as shown already by a few, they just can't believe such
a venture can be possible ? a 924 quicker than a 944 Turbo No Way ! ...this is all part of the Fun!
I'm always willing to "attempt" to explain it to any sceptics, however sometimes some people just won't have it regardless however clear it's explained..
So there you have it, to summarise is there anybody with a totally standard 944T 220 or 250 model, or a 944 3.0S2 or a 968 Coupe that would be prepared to (Potentially) be second best to a 924 ! for a Magazine to road test?
God loves a Tryer!
R
edh
New member
924Srr27l said:
Not a 924S? (I'm being picky here, but a 924S shares more with a S1 944 I'd have thought?)
924Srr27l said:
So not the "quicker" one, but the "best" one so very subjective. My usual reading of Porsche mags is that they say all the cars are great and then make a case for buying all of them...
924Srr27l said:
Not really, those two share very little DNA I'd have thought, whereas the fundamentals of the 924 platform didn't really change (Possibly the biggest changes were from S1 to S2 944's? )
924Srr27l said:
Torque isn't equivalent to Power One is an instantaneous measure, the other a measure of work done over a period. For high power you need to be able to generate high(ish) torque levels at high rpm's. My BMW diesel has masses of torque but less than 200bhp as it redlines at 4500rpm.
For cars with similar aero it's power (not power/weight) that wins at high speed, not torque. Power needed to accelerate & overcome drag increases as the cube of the velocity (I think), whereas power needed to accelerate mass is proportional to mass. Really powerful cars (even heavy ones) push through 100-150 with ease.
Don't get me wrong, I think lightweight is great. I just don't think your basic premise (924S special vs std turbo) bears much scrutiny. Comparing a host of funky lightweight/modified transaxle models would be more interesting IMO.
924Srr27l
New member
Yes, but my Engine produces more power & Torque than old stock 3.0S2's & 2.5Turbo's and the car' weight in standard form was lighter, but then the 250kg diet has obviously made it substantially lighter.
So it's power to weight & Torque to weight ratios are all higher, this is why I'm keen to demonstrate this.
If I get really bored I'll bolt on some Track suspension, Wheels & tyres and I can Go Compare with your S2?
It's the same thing, the reason it's better is also because it's quicker....
This is exactly the same analogy a the Turbo / S2 debate. The turbo is quicker on paper and has more power, but many times on here and many other worldwide forums is reported as not being the case in real time road driving.
I see the models as 3 exterior main body shapes & widths, (924 / 944 / 968)
So I'm referring to the first incarnation as the 924 body / narrower track
I decided to go with the Narrow track car with the correct offsets, (not the early 944 with the incorrect offset, or the 86 onwards 944 or the 968 because I've owned all of them and felt the narrow 924 track could be better)
A Narrow track loads up the tyres slower for more grip, a wider track gives more stability but can induce understeer.
Yes it's a huge performance benefit which I see you've done a bit on your track car, did you ever get it weighed?
R
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
