Engine performance
- Thread starter SUSIT
- Start date
You're correct, its not a high output by modern standard, but its not a modern engine either.
IMHO your best bet of extracting more power is a fully stand alone ECU that controls spark and fuel individually and a day or so on a rolling road. That might make you maybe 10 or 20 extra bhp but will cost probably £2k+. I've heard of someone who did something similar on a 968 and got some incredible results.
You might get a little bit extra from more aggressive cams, but I'm yet to hear of anyone thats done it - not to say it won't work though. The intake manifold is pretty neatly matched to the head already so theres next to nothing to get there. I'm also pretty sure there Ex. manifold is fine - many people who replace it often LOSE power.
Best solution for more power is to just add lightness [
]
IMHO your best bet of extracting more power is a fully stand alone ECU that controls spark and fuel individually and a day or so on a rolling road. That might make you maybe 10 or 20 extra bhp but will cost probably £2k+. I've heard of someone who did something similar on a 968 and got some incredible results.
You might get a little bit extra from more aggressive cams, but I'm yet to hear of anyone thats done it - not to say it won't work though. The intake manifold is pretty neatly matched to the head already so theres next to nothing to get there. I'm also pretty sure there Ex. manifold is fine - many people who replace it often LOSE power.
Best solution for more power is to just add lightness [
]
Northern924
New member
Afriad I have to agree completely with Alex, its a 20 year old engine and its never going to compare to modern standards.
The 3.0l engine was tuned to the best it could be at the time and it was designed 20 years ago so its 20 year old technology, Porsche were already planning the 968 and knew they would have to use that engine as its powerplant so they knew they had to get the best they could from it, so as with all 944 engine any increase without bolting on a turbo or charger is going to be marginal
The 3.0l engine was tuned to the best it could be at the time and it was designed 20 years ago so its 20 year old technology, Porsche were already planning the 968 and knew they would have to use that engine as its powerplant so they knew they had to get the best they could from it, so as with all 944 engine any increase without bolting on a turbo or charger is going to be marginal
Copperman05
New member
Nitro?
Northern924
New member
LOL, that would work [&:]
Peter Empson
PCGB Member
Here you go...
peanut
Active member
the 3l engine is deceptively quick because it has such a smooth delivery and the power is available over a wide rev band rather than peaking.
It doesn't help that there isn't a nice exhaust note to listen to.
My S2 is Promax chipped for trackday racing and its noticably quicker than the previous S2 I had. I would say that bang- for- buck your best option is to get it chipped, improve the air filter /intake, fit a sports exhaust and get it serviced and tuned.
Then as others have said lighten it. You know what an acceleration killer it is having a passenger in the car and thats just 80-100kgs
sawood12
New member
Don't be fooled by headline BHP figures, they are misleading and only tell a small percentage of the whole story. The engine in an s2 is still a very capable engine and its approach is very different from modern engines i.e. good torque but not necessarily high bhp. It is a pretty torquey engine though. Modern N/A cars may sport higher bhp figures but i'm often amazed at how weedy they feel. A Civic Type R for example is 198bhp (so basically 100bhp per litre) but doesn't feel like that to me and to get any performance out of one you've got to thrash the engine to within an inch of its life which is a pain in the backside I think, and if you are not in the mood for that style of driving (which i'm not as I advance in years) then a Type R has no performance whatsoever. They may rev to 9k rpm but you are only actually using the top 2500 rpm to get the sporty performance.
Every time i've been in an S2 i've been struck by how it does pick up a good turn of speed, at least as comparable to a modern hot hatch, then put that superior handling into the equation and you still have a pretty potent machine. If I were you i'd just focus all my energy on making what you have (engine, transmission, brakes and suspension) working as good as they can be and if you want to throw money at any upgrades then top of your list should be KW (or some other similar suspension kit). You'll get far more real-world performance return for your buck then suspension and brakes will be a much better investment. If you want outstanding straight-line acceleration then buy a turbo! If you are driving an s2 properly and feel that they lack performance then your name is Stig.
You could take weight out of the car - but you'll also make it into an car that is unbearable to drive - noisy, hard, unattractive inside and will cause condensation that will drip on you. Fine if you want a dedicated trackday car or a race car, but not good if you want a road car that you want to use regularly and cover some mileage in.
Every time i've been in an S2 i've been struck by how it does pick up a good turn of speed, at least as comparable to a modern hot hatch, then put that superior handling into the equation and you still have a pretty potent machine. If I were you i'd just focus all my energy on making what you have (engine, transmission, brakes and suspension) working as good as they can be and if you want to throw money at any upgrades then top of your list should be KW (or some other similar suspension kit). You'll get far more real-world performance return for your buck then suspension and brakes will be a much better investment. If you want outstanding straight-line acceleration then buy a turbo! If you are driving an s2 properly and feel that they lack performance then your name is Stig.
You could take weight out of the car - but you'll also make it into an car that is unbearable to drive - noisy, hard, unattractive inside and will cause condensation that will drip on you. Fine if you want a dedicated trackday car or a race car, but not good if you want a road car that you want to use regularly and cover some mileage in.
Peter Empson
PCGB Member
You can save a substantial amount of weight from these cars without going to those extremes, in fact I'd argue a good set of bucket seats are more comfortable than the originals (for me anyway), noise and condensation only become an issue if you want to get rid of the last 40kg or so (that's a guess) of headlining and carpets. You really should drive a car that's been carefully tweaked - think of a 968CS or RS touring for inspiration, for me they're a real sports car in intent with better braking and handling to boot!
Add a supercharger and you can have even more fun [
]
peanut
Active member
I couldn't agree more with your comments, although I can understand the desire for more performance because I was young once (its true Oli ) I used to drive everywhere with the pedal flat to the floor.[
]The 944S2 is essentially a grand tourer in design and I just love the cabin space , comfort and effortless cruising ability of the car with the potential of some spirited cornering and overtaking when needed.
I think if you have a 'small revvy hatchback' mentality and need to race away from the traffic lights then the 20+ year old 944 is probably not the most suitable car out there . It makes an excellent trackday/race car but you'd need to spend some serious money.
ORIGINAL: peanut
I couldn't agree more with your comments, although I can understand the desire for more performance because I was young once (its true Oli ) I used to drive everywhere with the pedal flat to the floor.[
The 944S2 is essentially a grand tourer in design and I just love the cabin space , comfort and effortless cruising ability of the car with the potential of some spirited cornering and overtaking when needed.
I think if you have a 'small revvy hatchback' mentality and need to race away from the traffic lights then the 20+ year old 944 is probably not the most suitable car out there . It makes an excellent trackday/race car but you'd need to spend some serious money.
Hi Guys
What a range of answers. Not actually planning any mods at all, was just interested to hear about what you could do to make more BHP and torque.
Agree with those that say throwing weight out will ruin it as a very brisk touring car. Did a 320 mile round journey to my dads on fathers day and for me a third of that is classic scottish single track roads, what a blast brings a grin to my face every time I think about it[
] No my one is staying as near standard as possible.
If I want more grunt will use my kit car 900kg and 260 Bhp of Alfa V6 but its as twitchy as hell and will bite your bum just as quick.
I do find it a bit strange that head work and bigger valves etc does not get a mention.
I've not idea about fitting larger diameter valves, I'm guessing theres no room. Cams are a funny one, Piper Cams can do a regrind but I've not got any proper info off them. I spoke to Kev Eacock at EMC and he mentioned they probably grind down the base circle and you need to fit shims (or something, my memory is vague...). I must admit I'm puzzled that I've never found anyone who has either a set of more aggressive cams or reground ones. I'm not sure if its because it doesn't work or because no one has dared put the money into it yet.
944 man
Active member
They do grind down the base circle, making them far less desirable. If theyd grind them on new blanks then Id have a one by now. Unfortunately the fax full of important information didnt ever materialise.
With regards to other modifications: its hard to know what will work without a flowbench and an engine dynometer of your own. A firm whose opinion I respect told me one thing, which they seemed to contradict when speaking to another poster here... Until proven otherwise I will still accept that the cylinder head would be difficult to improve upon, although the gains must be available somewhere: 1979 Golf 8v GTI levels of performance equate to 190-200bhp and this cant be an unreasonable expectation, surely?
For certain the original Bosche DME and airflow meter is a massive restriction, and a replacement running a MAP sensor will be the best place to start. An engine is an air pump - if you can get the required amount of air in (and fuel it!) then the power comes out. All that can affect the output is the inlet tract and inlet manifold, exhaust manifold and exhaust system, the cylinder head, the camshaft profile and the fuel supply and ignition system. Its unlikely that the inlet & exhaust tracts are both perfectly optimised, so if gains arent to be found there through matching then that leaves the camshaft or the DME as the first limiting factor...
With regards to other modifications: its hard to know what will work without a flowbench and an engine dynometer of your own. A firm whose opinion I respect told me one thing, which they seemed to contradict when speaking to another poster here... Until proven otherwise I will still accept that the cylinder head would be difficult to improve upon, although the gains must be available somewhere: 1979 Golf 8v GTI levels of performance equate to 190-200bhp and this cant be an unreasonable expectation, surely?
For certain the original Bosche DME and airflow meter is a massive restriction, and a replacement running a MAP sensor will be the best place to start. An engine is an air pump - if you can get the required amount of air in (and fuel it!) then the power comes out. All that can affect the output is the inlet tract and inlet manifold, exhaust manifold and exhaust system, the cylinder head, the camshaft profile and the fuel supply and ignition system. Its unlikely that the inlet & exhaust tracts are both perfectly optimised, so if gains arent to be found there through matching then that leaves the camshaft or the DME as the first limiting factor...
Now here is a very sensable post, Not sure why the cylinder head should be that difficult to improve on! My mates 2.6 LTwin cam chevette produces close to 265 bhp and serious torque, I will admit it does not have the largest of powerbands but that is not the point. Also its a seriously old design having been about since the late 70's
Also slightly surprised that no one seems to have done that much with them in terms of tuning.
Might need to find an old head and start experementing[
]
AndrewS
Member
ORIGINAL: SUSIT
...
Also slightly surprised that no one seems to have done that much with them in terms of tuning.
Might need to find an old head and start experementing[
That's mainly becuase it doesn't make economical sense to do so and becuase (for more performance) it's simply easier to sell up and buy a Turbo.
There are ways of increasing the power output (on the 3.0 16v); but the cost is simply too high when measured against the likely value of the car. For example; there is a Supercharger conversion for the 944S2, but I am not aware of anybody that has fitted one (again, would cost more than the value of the car).
The Turbo, on the other hand, can have the power increased to 280+ bhp at relatively low cost (and low risk). [
]Regards,
Andrew
Copperman05
New member
What is the cost of adding a supercharger such as the vortech to an S2? Depending bhp gained, there'd be no lag issues, could be worth thinking about.
Edd
Edd
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
