968 gearbox in a 944
- Thread starter dodgydal
- Start date
It's been done before, but not by me so some of the follwoing is received wisdom.
It needs the boot floor "relieved" to allow it to fit. That's potentially with a 12lb reliever. There was an early problem with the pionion gear in the 968 'box. Almost all should have been fixed by now and I believe it is a fix as opposed to a new one that will fail in the same way. It's possible a used gearbox may not have failed yet however and probably the lower the mileage and earlier the manufacture the more likely that is.
As to the pros and cons I'd have to say that after owning 2 S2s I never felt the need for closer stacked gear ratios; they always felt well-spaced and adequately long for the engine and chassis to me. I'm pretty sure the 6-speeder was a marketing tool as not only do I not think the S2 needs a 6th cog, but I've never read or heard anyone else say they think it does either, and the 968 was supposed to have a flatter torque delivery than the S2 hence it should have less need still for the extra ratio. That last theory is backed up when you consider that the 968 was offered with a Tiptronic gearbox also and that was only a 4-speeder but tthat performance was not massively reduced and probably no more than you would expect for any torque-convertor model vs. the manual equivalent.
I don't know if the shift action is significantly different as I have not spent any real time behind the wheel of a 968, but again I have no complaints to level at the S2 in this area. It could be a bit shorter I guess, but I think it's in keeping with the spirit of the model (more GT than outright sports) and a short-shift kit would be a cheaper and easier way to address that if it's an issue.
It needs the boot floor "relieved" to allow it to fit. That's potentially with a 12lb reliever. There was an early problem with the pionion gear in the 968 'box. Almost all should have been fixed by now and I believe it is a fix as opposed to a new one that will fail in the same way. It's possible a used gearbox may not have failed yet however and probably the lower the mileage and earlier the manufacture the more likely that is.
As to the pros and cons I'd have to say that after owning 2 S2s I never felt the need for closer stacked gear ratios; they always felt well-spaced and adequately long for the engine and chassis to me. I'm pretty sure the 6-speeder was a marketing tool as not only do I not think the S2 needs a 6th cog, but I've never read or heard anyone else say they think it does either, and the 968 was supposed to have a flatter torque delivery than the S2 hence it should have less need still for the extra ratio. That last theory is backed up when you consider that the 968 was offered with a Tiptronic gearbox also and that was only a 4-speeder but tthat performance was not massively reduced and probably no more than you would expect for any torque-convertor model vs. the manual equivalent.
I don't know if the shift action is significantly different as I have not spent any real time behind the wheel of a 968, but again I have no complaints to level at the S2 in this area. It could be a bit shorter I guess, but I think it's in keeping with the spirit of the model (more GT than outright sports) and a short-shift kit would be a cheaper and easier way to address that if it's an issue.
it was just a thought as my gearbox needs either replacing or rebuilding , I havnt decided yet what to do . As for using the 968 gearbox I think you have already made up my mind as I am happy with the way the existing gearbox performs but was just wondering if the 968 being the next generation may have something to offer and think about , many thanks .
Neil Haughey
New member
I agree more or less 100% with what Fen says here and I like the 968, ok mine is the tiptronic but what Fen says about the relative performance is spot on. The tiptronic is slower then the manual for 3 reasons;
1) Torque converter
2) That auto box is a blooming massive heavy beast, AFAIK a tiptronic 968 is well over 1400 Kg
3) It has only 4 speeds, as opposed to 5 in the S2 or 6 in the 968 manual.
You would think that would make for a very slow car but as Fen points out there really isn't that much difference, the 1/4 mile time for example is 15.1 seconds compared to 14.9 for a manual gearbox S2.
However here is the rub, the 2nd gear in the 968 tiptronic is very very long, it pulls something like 75 to 80 mph, whereas in the S2 or manual 968 you would be topping out 3rd gear by that speed. Ultimately IMHO this all makes very little actual difference to performance BUT it does make the tiptronic 968 feel slow and I bet that conversely the 6 speed box in the 968 makes it feel very sprightly.
Drive a modern MX-5 and you will see what I mean, Stephanies MX-5 has the 6 speed CR box and it makes the car feel quick because you are constantly changing gear, it has a lot of very low ratios so it makes the car feel very fast when in reality you look down at the speedo and see it is fairly average [which is a good thing really in this day and age].
1) Torque converter
2) That auto box is a blooming massive heavy beast, AFAIK a tiptronic 968 is well over 1400 Kg
3) It has only 4 speeds, as opposed to 5 in the S2 or 6 in the 968 manual.
You would think that would make for a very slow car but as Fen points out there really isn't that much difference, the 1/4 mile time for example is 15.1 seconds compared to 14.9 for a manual gearbox S2.
However here is the rub, the 2nd gear in the 968 tiptronic is very very long, it pulls something like 75 to 80 mph, whereas in the S2 or manual 968 you would be topping out 3rd gear by that speed. Ultimately IMHO this all makes very little actual difference to performance BUT it does make the tiptronic 968 feel slow and I bet that conversely the 6 speed box in the 968 makes it feel very sprightly.
Drive a modern MX-5 and you will see what I mean, Stephanies MX-5 has the 6 speed CR box and it makes the car feel quick because you are constantly changing gear, it has a lot of very low ratios so it makes the car feel very fast when in reality you look down at the speedo and see it is fairly average [which is a good thing really in this day and age].
I have thought about putting a 968 box in my S2, but that is because I would like closer ratios for the hill climbing and sprinting I do. My road car is a 968 so I am used to both boxes and really there is not alot to choose between them. For normal road use the 68 box really won't be much of an advantage over the standard box.
I have a feeling that the Torque tube is different in a 968 but I maybe wrong.
I have a feeling that the Torque tube is different in a 968 but I maybe wrong.
TTM
Well-known member
As others said above, it depends on what you want to do with your car.
I helped a friend fit one on his nicely modified and track-biased 944 turbo. He loves it.
I personally find the ratios ridiculously close, but then I'm not interested even remotely in taking my car on a track (did it once in Spa and got bored of going round in circles).
The shifting on the 968 box feels a bit awkward. It doesn't shift as smoothly as on the 944 gearbox and you have to shift gears with quite more force. Some like it, others like myself don't.
I would suggest test driving a 968 and see for yourself.
The torque tube on the 968 is shorter than on the 944, because the clutch bellhousing is bigger on the 968 (the dual mass flywheel on the 968 is way thicker than the single mass flywheel on the S2, and the bh features an opening to get access to the clutch) but a 968 gearbox will fit without any problem on the torque tube of a 944.
I helped a friend fit one on his nicely modified and track-biased 944 turbo. He loves it.
I personally find the ratios ridiculously close, but then I'm not interested even remotely in taking my car on a track (did it once in Spa and got bored of going round in circles).
The shifting on the 968 box feels a bit awkward. It doesn't shift as smoothly as on the 944 gearbox and you have to shift gears with quite more force. Some like it, others like myself don't.
I would suggest test driving a 968 and see for yourself.
The torque tube on the 968 is shorter than on the 944, because the clutch bellhousing is bigger on the 968 (the dual mass flywheel on the 968 is way thicker than the single mass flywheel on the S2, and the bh features an opening to get access to the clutch) but a 968 gearbox will fit without any problem on the torque tube of a 944.
Neil Haughey
New member
I checked in my owners manuals recently to see the difference between the 968 and S2 gear ratios, basically goes something like this;
1st gear a bit longer in 968, 2nd gear a touch longer, 3rd gear almost identical, 4th and 5th way shorter in 968, 6th in 968 similar to 5th in S2 ISTR a touch longer.
The big thing is that they went to all the effort to produce a 6 speed box and shortened the only 2 gears in the S2 that really didn't need shortening. Has anyone ever driven an S2 and thought to themselves, man that drop from 3rd to 4th is way to big? Nope, utterly pointless IMHO giving the 968 6 speeds unless you are ragging the nuts of the car on a track.
What is good though is the slightly longer 1st and 2nd. The drop from 2nd to 3rd is the one big hole in the S2 as you drop below the torque peak.
1st gear a bit longer in 968, 2nd gear a touch longer, 3rd gear almost identical, 4th and 5th way shorter in 968, 6th in 968 similar to 5th in S2 ISTR a touch longer.
The big thing is that they went to all the effort to produce a 6 speed box and shortened the only 2 gears in the S2 that really didn't need shortening. Has anyone ever driven an S2 and thought to themselves, man that drop from 3rd to 4th is way to big? Nope, utterly pointless IMHO giving the 968 6 speeds unless you are ragging the nuts of the car on a track.
What is good though is the slightly longer 1st and 2nd. The drop from 2nd to 3rd is the one big hole in the S2 as you drop below the torque peak.
Tam Lin
New member
Did you have to change the fuel tank? When we were fitting an S2 drivetrain in my 924S, initially we bought a 968 tank. This turned out significantly different from the 952 tank we eventually fitted.
Also, how much heavier is the 968 6 speed than the 944T/S2 5 speed? Last thing I'd want on track is more weight...
TTM
Well-known member
Yes I forgot to mention the 968 gearbox is heavier, though I can't remember how much more.
We were led to believe the 968 tank was different when we tried to fit the amuminium cross brace of the 968 which did not fit, so we reused the metal cross brace from the 944, along with the "hook".
We were led to believe the 968 tank was different when we tried to fit the amuminium cross brace of the 968 which did not fit, so we reused the metal cross brace from the 944, along with the "hook".
There is absolutely no reason to do what you're suggesting unless you're building some bespoke track/hillclimb vehicle. The S2 has a shortend final drive through it's crown wheel and pinion and you will spend a lot more to do this conversion than having your stock box rebuilt. I would also suggest that you spend your money on an LSD unit as opposed to doing a 968 conversion. Sure if you have a turbo car there are many who chose to swap over to a 968 tranny as there is a belief that they're stronger. They're certainly bigger/heavier. The 6th gear is more like an overdrive. You should spend your money elsewhere IMHO.
Peter Empson
PCGB Member
I've heard figures of about 16kg mentioned, but haven't the foggiest if that's correct.
Peter Empson
PCGB Member
Lol!
I remember expecting the S2 box to be heavier than it was, I managed to lift one into the boot of a Polo when I needed to get it to my garage (not entirely sure they were impressed that I'd used their courtesy car for this however! [
]) so I guess that one weighed in the region of about 50kgs or so?
pauljmcnulty
Active member
I was thinking exactly the same thing! 50KG, on your own? That must be about what I weigh....[&:]
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
