Has someone famous enthused about 944's of late?
- Thread starter zcacogp
- Start date
ChasR
New member
Without defecting too off topic I do think mid 90s-mid 00s cars are a bit of a bargain basement at the moment. I recently purchased my Clio as a daily runner. It is no 944, don't get me wrong, but Christ it is fun! It is close to being a true hot hatch (I think the 106 and 205 did the job better there bar the hideous driving position of the former) but it is quite a lightweight flyer for its age. No wonder many magazines raved about them for so long. The Panda is another great shout but I see 100HPs are not what one would call common!
Fuel, luggage, and other things can affect weight let's not forget, even options ; I am sure AC bits are not all that light!
As for old cars my 944 prior to me selling it had quite a few people stopping me to talk about it! Saying that, quite a few things from the 80s result in a conversion or 5!
Fuel, luggage, and other things can affect weight let's not forget, even options ; I am sure AC bits are not all that light!
As for old cars my 944 prior to me selling it had quite a few people stopping me to talk about it! Saying that, quite a few things from the 80s result in a conversion or 5!
Neil Haughey
New member
Ashley Cross is a strange place, everytime I drive that way I seem to spend an eternity in some kind of traffic jam that appears from nowhere whilst thinking that Parkstone is the coolest place in the area [
]. Sad to admit the last 4 or 5 times I have gone that way is because of the Machine Mart down there.
Jon its hard to believe an 86 turbo could be that light surely?
Older Ford, Vauxhall and French car weights are not very believable, there have been loads of threads on PH about this which I broadly agree with along the lines that manufacturers used to use their own standard for quoting a weight whereas others may have been quoting including fluids and a driver. I think this definitely makes a difference but at the same time even the low end basic cars these days are built to high crash standards so its not surprising they would get a lot heavier.
]. Sad to admit the last 4 or 5 times I have gone that way is because of the Machine Mart down there.Jon its hard to believe an 86 turbo could be that light surely?
Older Ford, Vauxhall and French car weights are not very believable, there have been loads of threads on PH about this which I broadly agree with along the lines that manufacturers used to use their own standard for quoting a weight whereas others may have been quoting including fluids and a driver. I think this definitely makes a difference but at the same time even the low end basic cars these days are built to high crash standards so its not surprising they would get a lot heavier.
Indi9xx
New member
Different Ashley Cross, mine is my daft name for the Ashley heath roundabout where the VOSA weightbridge is just up the road from our Ferndown workshop.. I completely forgot that part of Parkstone is called Ashley Cross, most people around there just refer to it as Lower Parkstone or Penn Hill, sometimes people stretch it out to call it Canford Cliffs, all in an attempt to add to property values! lol ... I know what you mean about traffic jams though Neil.. The problem is that we have some good routes around here coming down from the M3 into the M27, which then becomes the A338, but then that all ends at branksome leading loads of traffic to them be single file to get to Poole or heading west along the coast which causes a big tail back between branksome and Poole and poor old Machine mart stuck in the middle!
It does in reflection indeed seem light for an 86 turbo, completely stock though, still has all its factory goodies including aircon and does not even have a chip (you would not believe how hard that temptation has been to avoid).
But it does have one oddity other than the weight, which is that although it is completely stock with 75,000 miles, it has 225 BHP on a dyno (there is 5% error that I would expect) but I would have expected 20 horses to have escaped even with tip top maintenance through valve guides alone... Whats more it has managed to be clocked at 175 mph (off the end of the speedo on a private road) by a laser gun (not sure what the expected error on those are) and wanted to keep going (I lifted off - one, because I lost my bottle and two, I did not want to find out what happens when you hit the rev limiter at that speed!).. But thinking about it, it always has been a quick car for a stock 86 Turbo.
I had assumed that perhaps everyones quotes of the pre 86 "lux" models being lighter weight compared to the 86 onwards ones was maybe not accurate and maybe the weight increase happened at 87 with the extra ABS pump, longer wishbones, deeper rear arms and possibly a beefier chassis to go along with it and maybe my 86 turbo was not unusually light but the norm.. But thinking about it, there is a reasonable gulf of weight difference between my 86 turbo and what I know a fully option loaded 89 Turbo weighs on our corner scales.
It is a bit of a mystery that I now want to find out more information on though
It does in reflection indeed seem light for an 86 turbo, completely stock though, still has all its factory goodies including aircon and does not even have a chip (you would not believe how hard that temptation has been to avoid).
But it does have one oddity other than the weight, which is that although it is completely stock with 75,000 miles, it has 225 BHP on a dyno (there is 5% error that I would expect) but I would have expected 20 horses to have escaped even with tip top maintenance through valve guides alone... Whats more it has managed to be clocked at 175 mph (off the end of the speedo on a private road) by a laser gun (not sure what the expected error on those are) and wanted to keep going (I lifted off - one, because I lost my bottle and two, I did not want to find out what happens when you hit the rev limiter at that speed!).. But thinking about it, it always has been a quick car for a stock 86 Turbo.
I had assumed that perhaps everyones quotes of the pre 86 "lux" models being lighter weight compared to the 86 onwards ones was maybe not accurate and maybe the weight increase happened at 87 with the extra ABS pump, longer wishbones, deeper rear arms and possibly a beefier chassis to go along with it and maybe my 86 turbo was not unusually light but the norm.. But thinking about it, there is a reasonable gulf of weight difference between my 86 turbo and what I know a fully option loaded 89 Turbo weighs on our corner scales.
It is a bit of a mystery that I now want to find out more information on though
timmyturtle
New member
944's got a mention in The Mail on Sunday today as a classic to buy
pauljmcnulty
Active member
To be followed by an article saying all classic Porsches are owned by Islamic fudamentalists, or lesbian single mothers from Romania. All living in 5-bedroom houses on the benefits system. [&o]
Neil Haughey
New member
Series 2 cars are definitely a lot heavier than the first 944s, just surprised that would include pre ABS turbo.
Patch234
New member
Shown on Top Gear recently
Taken from:
http://www.bbcamerica.com/top-gear/photos/season-22-episode-3-photo-gallery/
Taken from:
http://www.bbcamerica.com/top-gear/photos/season-22-episode-3-photo-gallery/
You mean the one that gave a fold-down part to the tailgate as well?
If so, squeaking would have been the least of the concerns. It would have reduced the torsional stiffness of the chassis to a horrible extent, making it much less nice to drive. Probably still quite good, as by all accounts it was being chucked around with some aplomb, but still a step in the wrong direction!
Oli.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
