the Porsche myth that never dies

[peanut]

funny how one stupid comment can blight a marque for over 40 years.

When I bought my first Porsche back in 1996 (1986 944 Lux) my nieces then boyfriend immediately said 'oh thats the Porsche with a VW van engine !' doh...

Tonight a Red Cross collector knocked on the door looking for money and seeing my 944S2 in the dark says ' Is that a Lotus '? ...

No I said ,its a Porsche 944S2 .

'Ah he says thats the one with a Shirocco van engine isn't it' [] He then follows this with ' I know my Porsche's '

The only thing that he could remember about Porsche was this stupid inaccurate myth.
Anyone else ever come across this stupid nonsense ?

 

[Mark_Bennett]

No, never...

 

[Cater_Racer]

Well Pete we must remember there was a little VW/Audi DNA in the 924, just as there is a little neanderthal DNA in some people.

It probably doesn't do to remind them, even when they make simple mistakes.

 

[vitesse]

The fact is that the 924 was stuffed full of VW parts from engine to brake drums.

 

[Mike_Pollock]

Well the 924 was designed for VW and was REQUIRED to use as many current VW group parts as possible, so there is more than a bit of VW DNA there.

Bit I like best about the birth of the 924 is the fact that WV paid 90 million DM to Porsche to develop it and Porsche bought it for 60 million DM, thats business!

 

[pauljmcnulty]

there is a little neanderthal DNA in some people.

Love it!

Seriously. Rolls are now full of BMW parts, Aston's best bits were arguably Ford's reliable electrics. VW own Bentley, Bugatti and Lamborghini, none of which have exactly been less reliable through VW's input.

I suppose you could argue that the '80s Porsches were actually Porsches, whereas the current models are built by a small sub-division of VW...but that would be equally as stupid a comment.

 

[Andy97]

I do wish that they had put the Golf Gti engine in the 924 and, later, put the 1.8 turbo engine in the 944/968 though.

 

[924nutter]

The truth is that the 924 2.0 never ever had a van engine. It shared the four cylinder 1984 cc (2.0) engine with the then current Audi 100 which included in its model range the incredibly long 5 cyllinder engine in the Audi 100 5E. The Audi ran carbs but as part of the design for the cylinder head casting were spot faces for the fuel injectors which simply heed to be drilled out and tapped with a 24 x 1mm pitch thread for the bakelite or similar insert into which the fuell injector simply pushed, to be held in by manifold depresion. I believe that the cast iron block was derived from the 1788 cc engine found in the Audi 100 coupe from the 1970's If anything the LT28 van had the Audi engine in it. This engine could also be found in the 2.0 gremlin an American aberration that with carbs and detox would not pull a sausage off a plate. I know these thingsbecause my first 924 really did have an Audi engine in it. At the time a second hand 924 engine could be bought from a scrappy as we used to call them, for £250. I bought a complete, driveable Audith 100 from a laughing up his sleeve trader who thought he had sold a pup but was not so cocky when I said I bought the car for the engine and that the whole car was £100 less that I would have paid just for the engine. Using the facilites in the maintenence workshop where I was working, I machined the carburettor head to accpet the injector inserts and replaced the valve guides etc. The cam followers from Barnett and Small (Audi) were £51 +vat each back in 1992 but were only £38 + from AFN. A new oil pump was 147 similar to the 944 but better egineered in that the crank had a dog on it that fitted into recesses in the driven pump gear so no matter how loose the crank nut became there was always drive to the pump not that the nut was silly tight anyway.

 

[andy watson]

Ironic don't you think?

Considering the partnership today

 

[CarreraRSR]

I love to ask Sierra Cosworth owners if that's the twin cam Transit engine. Or Cobra owners if that's the F100 pick up engine. I p155 my pants every time! The best one is reminding Cayenne owners that their V6 is a Golf engine on a Toureg chassis.

 

[944 man]

A DKW engine really, that was very, very different from AUDIs improved OHC revision (DKW designed it as an OHV) and only used later (again, the VAG version, but with low compression) in a poverty spec LT van.

Repeated by the same wallys who believe that theyre VW Polo door handles...

 

[gresley]

Why worry - just be delighted that people are interested in our cars the way that we are interested in theirs ( I hope ! ).

Andrew

 

[Fred Hindle]

I often remind my ndn that his Jaguar XJ8 has a Ford engine. I can't remember if it was the 'X type' or the 'S type' that was almost a rebadged Mondeo.

Cheers,

 

[John Sims]

ORIGINAL: Fred Hindle

... 'X type' or the 'S type' that was almost a rebadged Mondeo.

Cheers,

The same attitude that names 944's Audi's (My gearbox casing has an Audi badge on it btw as have a number of the switches). []

As Clarkson said of the X Type (along the lines of) "While it might have links with the Mondeo it is still sufficiently Jaaaag to make it a Jaaaag." I was very happy with my X Type and felt it had more creditability (and reliability) because of its links with Ford. It is quite fun doing the "Spot the Ford/Jaaag parts" game when looking at Astons though. There use to be lots inside the Vantage, it was like being in a X Type

 

[Richair]

I've had plenty of wannabe car people try that one on me; I soon stop them dead in their tracks and send them away with their tail between their legs probably thinking 'what a sad geek'!..

It seems to me it's only 'people who like cars' and not propper car people like us that come out with this kind of waffle... The truth of the matter is the 924/44/68 has one of the most interesting stories behind it of any car ever made, but much of this is forgotten due to a few silly statements probably started by the arse-end of the motoring press back in the day... Let's not forget the brand wouldn't be what it is today, or even around at all with out the long lived run of transaxle cars.

 

[blade7]

ORIGINAL: A9XXC


Bit I like best about the birth of the 924 is the fact that WV paid 90 million DM to Porsche to develop it and Porsche bought it for 60 million DM, thats business!

Who's in charge now though.

 

[Mike_Pollock]

Only 'cos the accountants screwed up BIG time

 

[TTM]

There is no doubt the 924 engine will run forever if properly maintained but it must still be said it remains a rather rough unit unworthy of the car it was used in. While it can be frustrating to hear ignorant people always make that same old VW van comment, there is some justification behind what it means.
Even the Porsche engine is a bit limited if you don't spend loads in it, and these cars should have had a V6 from the start.

 

[924nutter]

For probably not the last time all porsches sports cars (excluding tuareg derivatives and panamera of which I know nothing) are transaxle cars. A transaxle is simply a gearbox and axle combined. I think if you look closely the beetle, 356, 911 all have a transaxle all bolted directly to the engine. Yes the 924, 944and 968 transaxlex are not bolted directly to the engine but that does not make them any more "transaxle car" than it makes the beetle 356 and 911 any the less transaxle cars. Is it some form of inverted snobbery? Talk about a crap statement (no offence to the op) that generates a myth, this is one of the worst, in a thread about mis-informed statements. It is exactly along the lines of the 924 has a van engine in it and is on a par with it too.

 

[Mike_Pollock]

Maybe we should call them the TT or Torque Tube cars?