recovering lost BHP

[Pete917]

Weight loss can be a good tink IMHO. Especially if you take it off in the right places. Unsprung weight loss is also a good thing, so lighter wheels and tyres. Pilot Sport Cup tyres for example weigh a fraction of most road going tyres.

 

[sawood12]

In theory yes, but original Porsche wheels are already pretty light compared with other alloy wheels out there - i've compared the weight of some stock D90's with BMW BBS alloys of the same dia and the D90's were alot lighter than the BMW wheels. But taking away A/C and power steering and rear seats is just like sweeping a bit of snow off the top of Mount Everest. No point. Even those who create trackday/race cars and go for FG bonnet and wings usually only end up a couple of hundred KG's lighter than a car in stock trim by the time the roll cage and other equipment has gone in - which is not enough in my opinion to make a significant and noticeable difference and for a car you want to drive on the road there are too many compromises for comfort and the niceties.

Those in the states who have gone to extraordinary lengths to achieve a sub 1000kg 944 have had to resort to really expensive and extensive measures to get there like partially or fully spaceframing and replacing the body with plastic panels. You sort of end up with a car that looks and smells like a 944 but isn't.

 

[the_dr38]

Does anyone know what the recommended HP's, 0-60 times and max speeds are for the entire 944 range? I have never known what my HP should be, im guessing around the 170 mark on a 2.7? With around 140 ish top end? Ive had 125 but it felt like it wasnt over the moon about doing it. 0-60 id say mine is around 8 or 9 (not great by todays standards but not bad for a 20 year old head turner with 230K on the clock i spose!)

 

[Suffolk944]

ORIGINAL: the_dr38

Does anyone know what the recommended HP's, 0-60 times and max speeds are for the entire 944 range? I have never known what my HP should be, im guessing around the 170 mark on a 2.7? With around 140 ish top end? Ive had 125 but it felt like it wasnt over the moon about doing it. 0-60 id say mine is around 8 or 9 (not great by todays standards but not bad for a 20 year old head turner with 230K on the clock i spose!)

Here's a good handy reference. I dont think the 2.7 developed many or indeed any more horses than the 2.5 though no doubt I will be corrected presently...

http://www.titanic.co.uk/944/paulsmith/history.htm

 

[MRGT]

Those figures on the Titanic site dont look quite right to me, especially those for a straight lux

This from my original 1986 manual

BHP/RPM Torque(NM)/RPM 0-62 0-100 1km standing start Top Speed

944 163/5800 205/3000 8.4 22.2 28.8 137

944S 190/6000 230/4300 7.9 19.9 27.8 142

944 Turbo (220) 220/5800 330/3500 6.3 14.9 26.0 153



Howard

 

[Suffolk944]

I think that the Titanic figures were derived from averages of published road tests but again I may be wide of the mark there. No doubt Paul himself will be able to enlighten us on that later.

 

[Eiger]

Well I started the road to bhp recovery but doing a complete service - the dizzy, rotor, leads and plugs were all in a bad way. The air filter was very dirty too. I'm surprised my car was going as well as it was but now it's positively stonking - well almost.... Much smoother and more responsive (all details here). The grin is growing!

I found a rolling road/dyno in nearby Portsmouth that seems popular with the local VW/Seat/Audi guys called JKM Performance. I'm going to swing by and see them about getting a bhp test on my 944.
Anyone used them?

 

[Diver944]

ORIGINAL: Suffolk944

I think that the Titanic figures were derived from averages of published road tests but again I may be wide of the mark there.

I couldn't even begin to remember where we got those figures from about 10 years ago [&:] , but you're right the Lux times look suspiciously low by a second

 

[Suffolk944]

ORIGINAL: Diver944

ORIGINAL: Suffolk944

I think that the Titanic figures were derived from averages of published road tests but again I may be wide of the mark there.

I couldn't even begin to remember where we got those figures from about 10 years ago [&:] , but you're right the Lux times look suspiciously low by a second

Ah well perhaps I just made that up in my head ! []

 

[the_dr38]

also it says that the turbos are all 2.5's is this true in the earlier models?

 

[pauljmcnulty]

also it says that the turbos are all 2.5's is this true in the earlier models?

Yep, only recently have people realised that 3.2 is the optimum size for the turbo engine. [8D]