944s Ventiller
- Thread starter punkassmofo
- Start date
punkassmofo
New member
Cant check the rear seats as I dont have any at all!!
If you could scan that article Id appreciate it too!
peanut
Active member
well the subject is bound to arise from time to time with new members and cars pasdsing hands. Nothing wromng with a bit of discussion surely ?
Why do you take such strong exception to the photos and description in Cotton's book? If you have any evidence or proof it would be informative to see it
Why do you take such strong exception to the photos and description in Cotton's book? If you have any evidence or proof it would be informative to see it
pauljmcnulty
Active member
I've never heard of a 16V 2.7 car. I did a lot of research on it when trying to help a guy looking for parts unique to the engine.
2.5 944S was made from model year 1987-88, from MY 1989 it was superceded by the 3.0 S2.
The 2.7 8-valve cars were, of course, S2 as in Series 2. The sometimes used nomenclature for the oval-dash models. I'd guess that one of the books has confused this. The 2.7 engine was brought in with MY 1989.
2.5 944S was made from model year 1987-88, from MY 1989 it was superceded by the 3.0 S2.
The 2.7 8-valve cars were, of course, S2 as in Series 2. The sometimes used nomenclature for the oval-dash models. I'd guess that one of the books has confused this. The 2.7 engine was brought in with MY 1989.
punkassmofo
New member
Wow - never thought my (what I thought was simple) question, would bring such debate.
What I do feel from owning both this and the 8v is that the 16v feels more throaty higher up in the rev range and a little more responsive, but the 8v felt like it had a little more low in the revs.
I may be wrong but I think the 8v had a louder exhaust tone under acceleration, although it could have just as easily been a blow on my old exhaust!
What I do feel from owning both this and the 8v is that the 16v feels more throaty higher up in the rev range and a little more responsive, but the 8v felt like it had a little more low in the revs.
I may be wrong but I think the 8v had a louder exhaust tone under acceleration, although it could have just as easily been a blow on my old exhaust!
peanut
Active member
actually Paul I think you need to get hold of a copy of the book in question and look at the pictures and read the article and specification before coming to any conclusion . I'm still open minded about this because it looks like the info and pictures came direct from Porsche .
If the info is to be believed we are talking about 20 x or so cars at most and I could well believe that the S2 cyclinder head and other parts could have been trialled on an earlier model (ie 944S) and then a short production run sold off as 'specials' with according to the article split rear seat backs side decals upgraded brakes and alloys .
If i could find the blasted book i'd scan the article and post it for everyone to make up mtheir own minds
pauljmcnulty
Active member
Please do, it's got my curiosity going! [
]I love these debates, it so often throws up something we never knew before.
peanut
Active member
this car has been discussed here and at Rennlist before but although there is a lot of sceptism no-one has been able to convincingly refute it.
Here are the two pictures from the book . Apparently these cars have a special badge on the dashboard , heated seats, split rear seats ,were only in Silver Rose and various other bits and bobs
The article is on pg 54 Porsche 924 & 944 by Nigel Edwards ISBN 8720004-76-8
Here are the two pictures from the book . Apparently these cars have a special badge on the dashboard , heated seats, split rear seats ,were only in Silver Rose and various other bits and bobs
The article is on pg 54 Porsche 924 & 944 by Nigel Edwards ISBN 8720004-76-8
Porka944s
New member
Interesting, would be nice to know if there were a few running around, funny you said the book says that a 16v 2.7 was 190 BHP i would have thought it would be more bearing in mind the 2.5 16v was 190 BHP and the S2s 3.0 16V was, what 210 BHP. I would of thought a 2.7 16v would put out a rounded 200 BHP.
peanut
Active member
there was one that came up for sale last year on ebay and it was discussed on here . I believe a member may have bought it actually. If the search button worked I might be able to find it [] I'll see if I can find my book tomorrow .
I believe it could have been a 2.7ltr 944S engine fitted with the new S2 16 valve head ?
] I'll see if I can find my book tomorrow .I believe it could have been a 2.7ltr 944S engine fitted with the new S2 16 valve head ?
Tam Lin
New member
There were all sorts of weird prototypes made by Porsche 1987-89: On a German transaxle site, two members have 924S prototypes from the period with factory fitted later (oval) dash trim and a 2.7 8V engine. I think about 9 were made and given internally to Porsche employees. Would make sense that if P. planned to introduce a 924S 2.7 8V as the base, they'd need to make the base 944 "one better". The recession & changes at the top made it all for nothing, of course.ORIGINAL: peanut
there was one that came up for sale last year on ebay and it was discussed on here . I believe a member may have bought it actually. If the search button worked I might be able to find it [
I believe it could have been a 2.7ltr 944S engine fitted with the new S2 16 valve head ?
There was never a 2.7L 16 Ventiler engine produce, asked that from a friend who worked for Porrsche in Weissah. He was involved of 944 produc line during the time these cars were new.
Part number for "16 Ventiler" is 94455913700. It includes fender pieces of the side moulding.
How to produce a 2.7L 16V engine? Adding a S2 head to 8V block is almost impossible and won't get any additional cubic cm's. The only way to do it, is over bore 16V 2.5L engine to about 104mm bore or install 2.5L crank to S2 engine with suitable pistons. I don't see any sense why factory has made such an engine, when they had running S2 prototypes under testing back in early 1987 when 2.5L 16V was launced.
peanut
Active member
I presume that you were not a Porsche employee at the time and cannot know with such certainty what limited special editions were produced by Porsche 20+ years ago. If you can produce documentary evidence from Porsche I would be very interested to see it posted on this thread.
In the meantime we are investigating and looking into possibilities and keeping open minds [
]
944 man
Active member
I havent ever seen any reference to a 2.7l 16v engine code, in approaching twenty years of owning, racing and dismantling the cars.
The only production year where a retail car is even remotely likely, would by 1989; but what would be the point of mating the new block, pistons, rods and 16v head, with the short stroke crank? Youd end up with a car that cost more to manufacture than a long stroke production 3l 16v (the new 944 S2), but which was dynamically and aesthetically inferior.
Its a nonsense.
The only production year where a retail car is even remotely likely, would by 1989; but what would be the point of mating the new block, pistons, rods and 16v head, with the short stroke crank? Youd end up with a car that cost more to manufacture than a long stroke production 3l 16v (the new 944 S2), but which was dynamically and aesthetically inferior.
Its a nonsense.
DivineE
New member
Just to let you know the above is not strictly correct. The 2.7 lux (8v engine) is 104mm bore the same as the S2 and the fitting of the head right down to sharing the same head gasket is identical. The difference in capacity between the 2.7 and the 3.0 is trictly down to the stroke. The S2 has a different crankshaft, the 2.7 uses a 2.5 crank.
So 'technically' there was nothing to stop them building a 2.7 16v with all standard parts (i.e. no need for different part numbers) but I don't think they did. I think its just a print error, maybe they planned to do it?
So 'technically' there was nothing to stop them building a 2.7 16v with all standard parts (i.e. no need for different part numbers) but I don't think they did. I think its just a print error, maybe they planned to do it?
peanut
Active member
keep your hair on young Simon [
]we are just discussing this out of interest in all things Porsche .
Your belief may well turn out to be correct but none of us know at this point and there is no need to be quite so dogmatic and forceful to make an observation or point.
Clearly Cotton must have published the pictures and text in the understanding that Porsche produced a special so we cannot know for sure without more research.
944 man
Active member
What Ive written is correct. When I say 'short stroke crank', I mean as opposed to the longer 87.8mm stoke crank that takes the 'new' engine from 2,688cc to 3,000cc'. The mythical 2.7l 944S would have what was essentially an M44/41 S2 engine, but with a 78.9mm short stroke crankshaft. As I said earlier, itd be more expensive to manufacture as it wasnt in series production, and itd be less attractive than an S2, dynamically inferior and completely pointless.
I think its a simple mistake, not a print error. Its only slightly more credible than the '250PS Turbos were sixteen valve' myth that was popular in the early nineties...
I think its a simple mistake, not a print error. Its only slightly more credible than the '250PS Turbos were sixteen valve' myth that was popular in the early nineties...
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
