944S - why is it often overlooked?

[Hallsy]

As a prospective buyer (yes....still) I have been reading around as much as I can on the different models, etc.

I keep saying that I'd be happy with any of them, but being a bit of a petrol head, I know that ideally I'd want for a Turbo, but it will all depend on budget at the time.

Anyway, I keep stumbling on the 944S. I understand that the car gets a lot of stick, and is often said to be a strange choice for Porsche. Reading Peter Morgan's book he says with only 190bhp it flounders between the 167bhp Lux and the 220bhp Turbo.

I don't really get that, it sits pretty much bang in the middle between the two models on paper. Being released the same year as the Turbo it would hardly be clever to bring out an S model with almost the same performance.

Obviosuly there is the S2 with 211bhp, but by that stage the Turbo had moved on to 250bhp, so again, a suitable gap between the models.

Anyway, obviously it's not all about peak power, I'd be interested to see a torque/power curve for each model if anyone has any to hand?

The reported flat spot, is this easilly mapped out? Does it really feel that lacking in torque, even compared to the Lux? On paper it has more torque, but without seeing a graph you can't get a feel for the delivery.

Only reason I ask is that I see a good 944S as a good alternative to a possible ropey S2/Turbo for the same money, but they seem to be the model that is least recommended by owners, etc.

 

[homesea]

Sorry cant help with the 'S' but I have seen an S2 for sale that seems a bargin, cant find it on any site for sale. What part of the world are you in? I have driven past this S2 nearly every day for the past 5 months, but never stopped so it could be a pile of rust but looks good from a distance. Its in Maritime blue I think and up for £2200. Just thinking I might of just posted the most rubbish reply to any post.[][]

 

[Hallsy]

I'm in Sudbury, Suffolk. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to buy one just yet though. I have another car in bits on my driveway that I need to rebuild and shift before I can buy another car Trouble is, as I've lost interest in it, it's hard to get going with it, although the prospective 944 is good encouragement. There's a champagne Turbo on ebay that looks good for the money also (£3400 or best offer), although obviously you can't tell just from an advert. Ho hum!

 

[Peter Empson]

There's a few thread discussing the pro and cons of the 944S here, so it's worth a quick search (just limit the time searched over as otherwise it all goes a bit wobbly). They are more expensive to run than a Lux due to the chain/tensioner, but I think buying the right car will negate that cost in the long run anyway. Like you I'd have a nice 944S over a ropey S2 or Turbo anyday (unless I wanted a project/money pit[]). I maintain the perceived flaw with the 944S is the gearing, it's just a little too long which makes it feel a little underpowered below 3.5k, but it makes it nicer on the motorway and being able to hold onto the gears longer is good fun. The other plus is when you keep it on the boil then it works wonderfully and can effectively give you two cars in one - a refined relatively economical cruiser that anyone can drive at a very reasonable pace with the plus of a revvy powerband for when you get to your favourite stretch of road. The plots from the owners manual were posted elsewhere (I'll see if I can find them in a moment) and they back this up. The only issue I find with it is pulling out of junctions into fast moving traffic which can take a little more planning, but it's less of a problem than the lag you'd experience on a similar vintage turbo'd engine. The cylinder heads on the 16v engines seem prone to losing power with mileage (possibly more so than the 8v engine), so to get the best I'd start with a refresh there. [link=http://www.cannell.co.uk/]Rick[/link] has done various things to his 944S and gained some power so they do seem to respond to tuning. I keep saying that I'm leaving mine standard, but I might try the odd tweak next year []

 

[Peter Empson]

[link=http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=401334]Here's the thread[/link] (finally found it, no thanks to the bloomin cantankerous search facility!)

 

[homesea]

Does the ‘S’ come with better suspension and brakes then a normal Lux? If not then I would go for the S2/turbo every day. I think the better brakes and konis on my turbo just blow the Lux away in performance. No problem getting out of junction in a turbo…….just drop the clutch at 3k RPM.[]

 

[Hallsy]

Thanks for that Peter, I'll take a look, I may have already read it in a previous search - I've done a few!! I had forgotten about the longer ratios, seems like a strange mix for a revvy engine. Oh, and I'm used to a bit of turbo lag, my daily driver (until I pulled it apart) was a Nissan 200SX, not too laggy, but still not as snappy as a decent NA. Homesea, iirc the S has the same brakes and suspension as the Lux (unless it has option upgrades), although it does have the rear diffuser and some nice little 16 ventiller badges

 

[Peter Empson]

ORIGINAL: homesea Does the ‘S’ come with better suspension and brakes then a normal Lux? If not then I would go for the S2/turbo every day. I think the better brakes and konis on my turbo just blow the Lux away in performance. No problem getting out of junction in a turbo…….just drop the clutch at 3k RPM.[]

Same brakes and suspension as the Lux, but I'd say they're up to the job required of them if in good condition. I feel that with some good pads/fluid the standard brakes (if in good condition) are actually very good on track. I used to be amazed how much I could gain on other more track designed cars under braking especially at Bedford Autordrome as there are some rather big stops there. For track use some tweaks to the suspension would be a good idea, but arb's can do an awful lot to help here for next to no money.

 

[Hallsy]

Took a look at those graphs Pete, and on a quick comparison it looks like the torque of the S is higher everywhere above 2k rpm, with a big jump from 3500 onwards, although I can see a subtle flat spot just before 3500 rpm. Although, I'm not sure if the lux graph is right, haven't done the math based on the torque curve, but it shows peak power as 150bhp, unless it's at the wheels, but I seriously doubt a lux has 150bhp at the wheels!!!! The felt lack in torque must be due to the jump after 3500 rpm, or due to longer gearing causing the power to feel slower coming in maybe. If only there was a gargae up the road that had every model on the forecourt ready for me to try!!

 

[pauljmcnulty]

For my tuppence-worth... The Lux and 944S have slightly less corrosion issues than the S2 or Turbo with the dirt-trapping trim. They will still be prone to £000s in repair bills if rusty. The 16V engines are potentially more expensive to do a once every 100K miles service, that's true. A N/A engine might need a full-frontal service if you're unlucky, and there are as many common parts that will be as likely to need attention. Belts, seals, water pump and a clutch on a N/A will cost as much as a full re-build on a 16V head. The turbos are always going to be more expensive, both to run as standard and if you want to improve them. They were 50% more expensive to buy new, probably double the value now and why shouldn't they cost a bit more to maintain? Being realistic, these are cars that cost between £25K and £40K new. They can be bought for less than £1k now, and as Peter's 944S shows they can be a really good workhorse for a few hundred more added to that. I'd say drive them all, forget silly concerns like colour or half-leather trim, and buy a solid example of whatever model you prefer. A good 944S is going to be more enjoyable and a whole load less expensive than a cheap S2 with a slipping clutch, rusty cills and worn cams. A really cracking Lux for £2k is more use than a turbo that sits on the drive waiting for the budget to get it going properly. A well-sorted turbo is probably better than a car costing ten times as much, but you won't get one for £3k! The "official" line is that the 944S is the most compromised version. In reality, a really good 944S is one of the best bargain cars available - as long as you actually want a 16V over the similarly-priced Lux. Forget the figures quoted back in 1988, drive good examples of both. Set aside a contingency fund of £1K at least, £1.5K is better, buy the best you can - not difficult in the present market if you're prepared to spend time and travel - and you'll be laughing.

 

[Hallsy]

Good advice Paul - thanks. I had a similar outlook when I bought my 200SX, I went and viewed a few and ended up with a very solid one in a colour I'd said I didn't want. But in the end I came around to love the colour, and whilst many were rusting away, mine was still solid As for maintenance, that's not too much of an issue for me as I work on my own cars without problem, and have done a few welding repairs now, although I'd still steer well clear of anything too far gone. Are the chains and tensioners particuarly expensive for the 16v heads? Any special tool needed to set cam timing? I have read about the 16v heads wearing more than the 8v heads though, is that fact? Do they often need a full rebuild, i.e. valves, seats and skim? I could imagine a set of valves from Porsche being pricey!!

 

[Peter Empson]

ORIGINAL: Hallsy I have read about the 16v heads wearing more than the 8v heads though, is that fact? Do they often need a full rebuild, i.e. valves, seats and skim? I could imagine a set of valves from Porsche being pricey!!

It seems to be the case that they are prone to wear more, although I'm sure someone more familiar with the oily bits will chime in with the reasons. The valves shouldn't need replacing, it's the seats and a grind that are beneficial so shouldn't be too expensive. My 99K mile car was dyno'd at 150ish bhp recently (on what seemed like a slightly pessimistic dyno). It doesn't feel this low but I may be tempted to get the top end done at some point with another before and after dyno run, but as I'm perfectly happy with the performance at the moment I'm not going to rush. If you're anywhere near me (Aylesbury) you're more than welcome to a ride in my car if that will help.

 

[Hallsy]

Peter - thanks for the offer, I'm in East Anglia so not so close unfortunately Was the 150bhp at the wheels on the Dyno? That would sound about right for a 20 year old 190bhp car. If it just valave seat wear then that's not too bad. I've had to encounter the odd head rebuild in my time. One other thing I forgot to mention, and this applies across the board. The auto belt tensioner that was fitted to the 87 on cars, is it reliable for tensioning? I thought I had read that they do break up if not replaced reguarly?

 

[Peter Empson]

ORIGINAL: Hallsy Peter - thanks for the offer, I'm in East Anglia so not so close unfortunately Was the 150bhp at the wheels on the Dyno? That would sound about right for a 20 year old 190bhp car. If it just valave seat wear then that's not too bad. I've had to encounter the odd head rebuild in my time. One other thing I forgot to mention, and this applies across the board. The auto belt tensioner that was fitted to the 87 on cars, is it reliable for tensioning? I thought I had read that they do break up if not replaced reguarly?

150 was at the flywheel, so it is down on power. Ricks car gave similar results be from memory he got it close to 170bhp with his mods (the dyno plot is on his website) without touching the head just yet. I've not heard of specific problems with the belt tensioner, although it's quite common to need to do the various rollers/bearings at every other belt change. The slipper that tensions the chain on the 16v cars has a bit of a reputation, but this is because Porsche left it off the service schedule, so they were often overlooked until they failed. They're made of plastic so do wear but it doesn't happen overnight.

 

[Hallsy]

OK thanks. 150bhp does sound quite down on power, maybe the dyno operators were hoping for some corrective business!!

 

[Peter Empson]

It was the last dyno day and almost everyone seemed to be of the opinion that it was reading lower than the dyno used in previous years. Just before I did the engine swap 8v engine was measured at about the same power (but on the previous dyno, so was almost certainly lower than my 944S), but that had been thrashed senseless, I've lost count of how many flat out track miles that had done [] That car was so much fun, most people would laugh at 150bhp on track in a 944 (albeit slightly lightened), but it would still humble much more modern and expensive machinery.

 

[MRGT]

This seems as good a thread as any for my first post [] I recently purchased a 1987 944S with 96K on the clock, and am more than happy with it for the money I paid. All the S2's I saw for around the same price (or more) were what I would definitely term 'ropey', either structurally, mechanically and, in many cases, both. For interest I have attached an RR readout which was done not long after I purchased her, and as you can see it is clearly lacking on the BHP front (est flywheel figure) which ties in with my own 'feel' for the car. That being said I have no regrets at all about buying her. (despite having to have a new clutch [&o] ) Apologies for the B+W image but the original broke the 200k attachment limit

 

[Peter Empson]

Welcome Howard, mine is about the same mileage as yours so it does seem rather common to be down by this sort of percentage. As far as I'm aware no one here has had a refresh and a dyno afterwards, so it is only conjecture that this is the reason until someone has the work done, but it seems the most likely place to start.