Cup Confusion Continues

[hotblack944]

I first came across this car in April 2003 when it came to the UK from France, where it had been allegedly sitting in a body shop unused since 1996.

> I saw a 944 today that could have been a Turbo Cup - see
> attached JPEG for
> the build sticker. VIN is 95GN101709 making it a 1986 car
> yes? The option
> numbers are C00, 220, 666, and 751. Apart from 220 (LSD), I
> do not know
> what these are. It had battery cut off switches, white 8"
> and 9"? phone
> dials (magnesium? - seemed very light), Matter roll cage,
> Sparco race seats.
>
> It is not in very good condition (minor accident damage
> partly repaired,
> general neglect) and the engine is not running - it has not
> been used since
> 1996. I have more photos and video if you are interested...

The attached pic shows the intake manifold at the time (sorry about the quality - vid cap), which looks like the picture in the article p68 GT PP Nov 2007 and not like Rik's picture above. Perhaps it has been "replaced" with a standard one???

Jim.

 

[eastendr]

There's an awful lot of differences between those two pictures

For example;

Silverstone pic (taken by Rick)
a) Airbox Snorkel in place
b) Fuel feed to FPR is routed OVER the fuel rail
c) Fuel return from damper is routed UNDER the fuel rail

Other Pic
a) Airbox snorkel is missing
b) Fuel feed to FPR is routed UNDER the fuel rail
c) Fuel return from damper is routed OVER the fuel rail

** note that both pipes should be OVER the fuel rail.

If this is the same engine bay, which picture was taken earlier (I haven't seen the article) ? In either case the pipework is assembled wrongly, routing the fuel pipes close to the hot exhaust manifold !

Certainly the silverstone picture is of a standard aluminium inlet manifold while the other picture would appear to be the much smoother casting of the magnesium version.

Has anyone any further information on the Magnesium inlet manifold ? I would assume it would have the same internal passages as the aluminiun version (and hence have no performance advantage) as opposed to a properly re-worked version.

I still want to see it run 23PSI and suggest 5th November as the date !! [] [] []

 

[Peter Empson]

ORIGINAL: eastendr

If this is the same engine bay, which picture was taken earlier (I haven't seen the article) ? In either case the pipework is assembled wrongly, routing the fuel pipes close to the hot exhaust manifold !

Hi Rick, the engine bay in the article looks identical in setup to the picture you took at Silverstone.
So now the question is... if the psi figure is to be believed will the boost finish it off first or will it be the fuel pipe catching fire []

 

[John Sims]

It would have been so much better if Jon had bought the car - assuming he didn't forget to SORN it and it ended up being crushed. []

 

[hotblack944]

Hi Rick,

ORIGINAL: eastendr
If this is the same engine bay, which picture was taken earlier (I haven't seen the article) ?

Just to clarify, the picture I posted was a still captured from a video I took of the car in April 2003, so long before yours. The car wasn't running when I saw it which might explain the missing snorkel.

Jim.