moving from 993 to 944T ?

[Hilux]

Re performance comparisons........not magazine but real time.............

I`ve driven in Europe at very high speeds for hundreds of miles with C2`s and C4`s and they could "just about stay with me" (the other drivers comments!) but could never catch and overtake and at 130 plus they weren`t as quick further up the scale and mines only got 253bhp but has v v good flat torque curve almost factory original figures (which is where some more powerful 951`s are let down). I kid you not, those boys were trying (we were on holiday with them) and couldnt lose me if they took off no matter how hard they tried.

951 works for me []

 

[George Elliott]

Hilux is right, I have a 964C2 and a 964rs with a 280bhp Printout, - my 944t with a Promax Chip and DPW is a quicker car. Its that simple.
I could go on about handling - but the 944 is the better all rounder.
Why have a 911? - they feel nice to drive
George
944t
964

 

[zcacogp]

ORIGINAL: morris944s2john

I would agree the S2 is not as fast as the 250hp 944 turbo, but there is not much in it between an earlier 220turbo and an S2, only 9bhp and the S2 does not have turbo lag.

There speaks an eminently sensible man, with a good command of the truth ... At the last Westmeister day, my S2 produced bigger numbers than a couple of the turbos.

Sadly John, I do get the impression that the boosted ones can be made to go a lot quicker with some modifications - something that is not so easily done to the S2's.


Oli.

 

[Diver944]

ORIGINAL: zcacogp

ORIGINAL: morris944s2john

and the S2 does not have turbo lag.

There speaks an eminently sensible man, with a good command of the truth ... At the last Westmeister day, my S2 produced bigger numbers than a couple of the turbos.

Not quite so - the S2 has infinite turbo lag

The only Turbo I can find on Ricks website with less than 240bhp/260ftlb is Will Lyons at 216bhp/260ftlb and he's only bought it a few days before the dyno day, where it had been standing for a long time.

Edited to add: Oh and I forgot Grahams very poorly Turbo from back in 2005 that only made 172bhp with 0.6psi and a huge boost leak [&o]

 

[zcacogp]

Damn you Mr Smith for looking at the detail!

I was stretching the truth with my bold, outrageous claim, but only a little ... it's a bit hard on Will, I have to confess, but I cling to the fact that my S2 produced more horses than his at Weltmeister! (And yes, those two, or possibly three, horses were what I was referring to!)

(Will, should you be reading this, please don't take that the wrong way. I understand that you are now happily prodding a much larger herd of ponies with your right foot, but please don't tell Mr Smith that!)


Oli.

 

[Diver944]

Heh heh heh [] you should know what an anorak I am by now []




You'll also notice I failed to mention your S2 gave better results than mine [:-] which is why I've put this bit in very small print

 

[zcacogp]

ORIGINAL: Diver944

Heh heh heh [] you should know what an anorak I am by now []

Bacon Buttie still owing (you'll know what a long memory I have by now as well!)

ORIGINAL: Diver944
You'll also notice I failed to mention your S2 gave better results than mine [:-] which is why I've put this bit in very small print

Yes .... but it's still an S2, so I'm happy!


Oli.

 

[morris944s2john]

I'm talking about a standard S2 versus a standard 220bhp turbo. I test drove two 220BHP, one 250 and my S2. The 250 was noticably quicker on boost but there was quite a lag, more than the 220. The S2 seemed to accelerate as fast as the 220turbo, which is borne out by tested performance figures (in the Michael Cotton 924/944 book I have).

 

[zcacogp]

John,

It's a good point, and I think backed up in the literature of the day, that the S2 was introduced at around the same time as the 220T became the 250T, and the S2 offered pretty similar (in numbers) performance to the outgoing 220T, while the 250T was a bit quicker. It's interesting also that the S2 was given the same brakes (and ARB's, I think) as the 220T, suggesting that similar sorts of stopping capabilities would be in order. In fact, doesn't the S2 have a slightly quicker standing quarter mile time than the 220T?

However, given the difference in power deliveries between the S2 and the 220T, they must be different cars to drive (I've never driven a Turbo), and therefore must appeal to different types. And, given the modern engine tuning options available now, I can appreciate that either turbo can fairly easily be turned into a much less laggy, much brisker machine - the power figures alone say that they should be quite a lot quicker than an S2. BUT this doesn't come cheap, and although I don't have any figures to back this up, the cost of a half-decent turbo plus the cost of getting it to 300+bhp must be getting on for double the cost of a decent S2.

Also, people on here with S2's don't seem to be too upset by them (I certainly am not!) and I'm not aware of too many people who have traded up from an S2 to a turbo because they want more power (I await to be corrected on this one). I bought an S2 because I happen to like normally aspirated engines and was slightly scared off the complexity of a Turbo, as well as not being able to justify the extra cost of one, and I don't think I am alone in having decided on these grounds.


Oli.

 

[appletonn]

Oli, I followed an S2 along the damp lanes to Oulton Park the other weekend to the RS day. Peter's car has a performance exhaust I think, but not sure if it has been chipped, but has the KW variant suspension and lovely anodised Racers Edge top strut mounts (jealous, moi?![]). It certainly went well and the key difference came at the exit of a narrow, damp junction, where Peter gently slid it slightly sideways as the normally aspirated delivery allows more gradual metering of the power - if i try that in mine, I get BIG wheelspin (both wheels thanks to the LSD) and it is far harder to modulate the power once the boost kicks in fully.

I was out and about in mine on Friday in the rain ( 'oop Norf' ) and even though my new Vredestein Sessanta tyres are now well and truly scrubbed in, if I put my foot down in second gear, once the full boost arrives it will break traction and require a touch of opposite lock, even in a straight line if the road has a camber[&:]

Great for the old hand to eye reflexes, if not the laundry bill....[]

Those S2s are more driveable I think, especially if the weather is poor - in mine, I find myself shortshifting to 3rd and avoiding the onset of boost, if the roads are really lethal!

 

[333pg333]

Yes I guess you guys really have to take wet roads into consideration. I am thinking of outright performance and in the dry. They are certainly 2 different cars and it's possible to extricate some pretty darn good lap times in the S2. We have a guy in our 'stable' in an S2 that is a Targa car (caged and some minor mods) and he is doing some seriously quick times and embarrassing people in much more fancied cars. Equally so the 968cs is very good too. Without a doubt the turbo car is like a drug. You become totally addictd to the boost, it drains your wallet, you become anti-social, and you can't get enough. Tread warily and enter at your own risk!!![8D]

 

[appletonn]

ORIGINAL: 333pg333

Without a doubt the turbo car is like a drug. You become totally addictd to the boost, it drains your wallet, you become anti-social, and you can't get enough. Tread warily and enter at your own risk!!![8D]

"Hello, my name is Nick and I have an addiction to BOOST...!"

 

[zcacogp]

ORIGINAL: Diver944
You'll also notice I failed to mention your S2 gave better results than mine [:-] which is why I've put this bit in very small print

Just noticed your sig ... I thought you wanted to keep that quiet?


Oli.

 

[Hilux]

Not quite so - the S2 has infinite turbo lag

Very funny, just spat me tea out over the keyboard.................very good []

Interesting thread though so here`s a few of my thoughts.......................

The 250 was noticably quicker on boost but there was quite a lag, more than the 220.

What lag and where? I may be missing something never having driven a 220 version but I consider if driven on boost there is no lag however bog down in the wrong gear and you wont get home that evening. Over 3000rpm there is none. On track....the same.......what lag?? if its driven properly you are always on boost to varying degrees.

However, given the difference in power deliveries between the S2 and the 220T, they must be different cars to drive

I`ve not driven an S2 but I understand it has to be driven hard to perform using the whole rev range. The turbo is generally less thrashed in general use as it creates its power without drama due to huge gobs of torque throughout the rev range but also lower down where its needed. It is generally accepted that although the turbos do place huge strains on the engines on full boost the mid range means they are driven less aggressively and (in theory) should be more reliable over higher mileages as they are also a less complicated engine (8 valves).

if I put my foot down in second gear, once the full boost arrives it will break traction and require a touch of opposite lock, even in a straight line

The famous (everyone wants one) lsd is not all good for in greasy/wet conditions it will put you 90 degrees or off the road as it transfers too much power v v quickly once it senses problems and most are old and not vey good any more as they need a rebuild for peak performance.

Those S2s are more driveable I think, especially if the weather is poor - in mine, I find myself shortshifting to 3rd and avoiding the onset of boost, if the roads are really lethal!

Boost is directly related to the amount of throttle so a light touch in any gear is needed. You can get the car by nature of its natural torque to get to quite high speeds without boost admittedly on a flat road.

 

[333pg333]

I'm with you Paul on the lag issue. Really, you have to be inattentive to get hurt by the lag plus I don't mind a bit of a wallop in the back to let me know I am in fact driving a turbocharged car. Heck, that's why I bought the damn thing. You can minimise the lag anyway depending on how much you have to spend.. It all depends on what you want from your car.

 

[TTM]

S2 vs turbo, bla bla bla ...

[]

 

[951Torqing]

ORIGINAL: zcacogp

John,
Also, people on here with S2's don't seem to be too upset by them (I certainly am not!) and I'm not aware of too many people who have traded up from an S2 to a turbo because they want more power (I await to be corrected on this one). I bought an S2 because I happen to like normally aspirated engines and was slightly scared off the complexity of a Turbo, as well as not being able to justify the extra cost of one, and I don't think I am alone in having decided on these grounds.
Oli.

Wait over ! :- I traded up to a Turbo (ex Simon Peckhams see Ricks table !!) to get the High Torque 377Ft Lbf, Lack of Lag, without too much top end power (318bhp).
I had an 944 2.7 then an S2 Cab for 2 yrs and decided to lash out and get something special before my before retiring in a year @65
Admittedly It cost a fair bit more than the £5-£8k but was worth the wait and the extra £ to get this 944 Gem in preference to a 911 for the same price.
IMOH the 944Turbo represents best value for all round performance. once the boost bites it sticks.

Regarding the decibel issue I much prefer the "stealth mode" " a silent whoosh" especially at 120(mph not kph) on the dunlop straight at Donington!

Clive

 

[morris944s2john]

"
I`ve not driven an S2 but I understand it has to be driven hard to perform using the whole rev range. The turbo is generally less thrashed in general use as it creates its power without drama due to huge gobs of torque throughout the rev range but also lower down where its needed. It is generally accepted that although the turbos do place huge strains on the engines on full boost the mid range means they are driven less aggressively and (in theory) should be more reliable over higher mileages as they are also a less complicated engine (8 valves).
"

Thats not quite true, the S2 has smooth powerful delivery from 2000rpm foot to the floor, true, you do get more power over 4000rpm, but 2-4k is not slow. The S2 can be driven fast using torque not revs. there are many S2's with high milage (150k-over 200K) still running well. I chose an S2 over a turbo because it was faster on the motorway in real world conditions. Try booting a 250 turbo in 5th gear at 60 or 70mph and do the same in an S2 and see what I mean! I drive to Scotland a few times a year in my car and decided that although the turbo is ultimately faster and more exciting, that the S2 with its bigger capacity and smoother power delivery is the more suitable motorway car. I'm talking about un modified cars here and about real world compromise. S2 is the better car to drive to Scotland in the winter- 600miles in one day late December poor weather!

As for the complexity argument, yes, the twin cams and tensioners can be troublesome if not maintained, but then so can turbos, and waste gates etc at high milages. Its just swapping one type of complexity and the associated issues for another.

Having said that, i'd LOVE to have a 250 turbo, but in addition to, not instead of my S2. I'm therefore quite jealous of Paul Smith! ;-) Both flavours of 944 are great, different, but both great.

 

[pauljmcnulty]

Both flavours of 944 are great, different, but both great.

Excuse me - there is also the high-torque low-cost Lux! [8|]

 

[Gordon Attar]

Mike
Sorry I'm a bit late on this and thanks David for the plug.

I would agree with all of Appletons comments and nick gardner they are pretty much spot on.

Hilux I suspect your car is chipped because having owned both an S2 and a 250T the power delivery is there from 2k with the S2 and Morris description is spot on. Personally having to wait for 3500 rpm to start moving is a pain hence I have bought a dual port wastegate and boost controller to hopefully resolve and this will get around the power of your 993 so I would expect the cars to be similar in acceleration and speed with the 944T probably edging it and on road holding, you would also miss the the sound of the 6.

So if you love the low down torque of your 993 you may wish to include the 964 in your test, if that doesnt clear enough funds then for £5-8k you will be well catered for with a 944T but I'm sure you will need to spend up to a £1k to get the power and feel you would want.