Turbo v S2

[Guest]

Hi Guys
Sorry for asking this question which I'm sure has been done before but what performance differences are there between a standard 220/250 Turbo and an S2, I am trading up from my 2.7 lux, and cant decide which would be the better bet.
I dont want to do any mods to the car, just keep to standard, insurance isnt an issue as its on a classic policy and they arent bothered which model it is, I do about 2500 miles a year, is a 91/92 S2 car a better bet than a 90 turbo ???
Thanks for your help in advance with my dilema
Ian

 

[lali]

If you dont want to tweak it then I'd say the S2 is going to be eaier to live with on a daily basis and cheaper to buy. If you want a turbo then the 250 is the one to go for beacuse it comes with LSD M030 etc...

 

[Guest]

Thanks Lali, but what performance wise is the difference, is a Turbo that much quicker than the S2, does 40 bhp make a massive difference ?? I guess the S2 will be easier to drive without the turbo lag, does anybody have any through the gears performance data
Cheers
Ian

 

[Fen]

I don't have figures to hand, but in real terms there is nothing in it, at least these days when standard Turbos don't tend to be exactly in rude health. More than that a standard Turbo isn't actually a very nice car to drive with all the accelerate, wait, whoosh delivery. If you just want your Lux but more-so then you want an S2.

By all means drive both and you'll probably know in yourself which is for you. The Turbo will feel faster because of the surge, but because it has to make up the ground it lost on the S2 while it was running as a low compression NA engine waiting for boost to build it isn't really quicker.

 

[Hilux]

I wanted a Turbo anyway when I was first looking and drove a couple of S2`s. Nice but you need to drive both to appreciate the difference. There is not a huge amount in it but its how the Turbo performs that is key for me.

My 253 bhp turbo is as quick as a paddle shift Ferrari 360 Spyder and M3 it also eats Maseratis and 911 Carrera 2 S is no quicker at speed believe me.

To be serious, for me at least, where the Turbo scores is its relentless pull and seamless acceleration. Its incremental times ie: 60 -80, 80-100 etc are still spectacular today. Try one, as long as you are on boost you wont really notice any difference as its quiet, unfussy and (if you do not watch your speedo) a licence loser as you will cruise at 140 and it seems like 90 [] The forced induction makes it all incredibly quiet.

Thats my two penny worth anyway...........................I love mine.

 

[Guest]

Thanks guys, I guess I need to go out looking, thanks for the comments

 

[wjk_glynn]

As regards performance comparisons, the following link lists measured results from independant tests:

http://www.weissach.net/924-944-968_RoadTestSummary.html

Reading those results, and having driven S2s and turbos (some modified), I'd summarize it as follows:

* In a modern urban or semi-urban environment, an S2 will feel quicker because of its sharper throttle response and no lag
* On a motorway or track environment (where you can keep the boost up), a standard 220 hp 951 is a tiny bit quicker than an S2
* A 951 with 250 hp is quite a bit faster then the S2. In fact, its very similar to a 3.2L 986 Boxster S. Plus the 250 hp 951s came with better goodies (bigger brakes, stronger transmission, etc.)
* Turbos are much more ameniable to performance enhancements than the S2

Karl.

 

[sawood12]

I'll take issue with the view that the S2 is easier to live with point. I'm not really sure what people mean by that. If it is in reference to the turbo lag then turbo lag is something you get used to and you will find yourself automatically adjusting your gearchanges to make sure you are always not too far from boost if you can't stay in boost. I also developed a feel for the boost kick and was able to anticipate it and just lift off the accellerator a tad to take the sting off the kick making the car very drivable in the range where the boost is coming in. Now i've fitted chips and DPW (a relatively inexpensive mod) the turbo lag is definately not an issue unless you are the laziest driver of all time in which case get an auto or tiptronic. I can't think of any other way a turbo is harder to live with than as S2 as essentially they are the same car.

I think ultimately it all depends upon the whole modding thing. If you think you'll want to modify the car to eek out more performance then the Turbo is the way to go, but if you just want to keep the car standard then the S2 should be your weapon of choice. However there is just one more thing to consider in our current heat wave. As I understand it S2's with A/C are pretty rare, but turbos had A/C as standard. On the flip side a decent turbo will cost you another couple of grand to buy over an equivalent condition S2.

Whichever you choose I doubt you'll be dissapointed!

 

[Fen]

The turbo lag issue is less of a point with modifications to the point where it becomes almost insignificant. On standard cars the 220 wasn't bad for lag in my experience (though I discovered years later mine had a 250 ECU), but a standard 250 car needs a calendar on the dash to measure lag.

 

[NeilW]

I've always taken the word 'lag' to mean the delay between opening throttle and feeling/seeing the boost build. This though is different to opening the throttle when off boost and at low revs where you would not expect boost to build, i.e. before 2000rpm. Taken in this context I do not believe the lag to be that bad. If applying throttle above 3000rpm then I woud have thought 'lag' was around 1 second, which you can drive around with practice.

 

[ross255]

I hardly consider chips and upping the boost to 15 psi to be much of a modification at all on a turbo.
So much so that be mandatory for anyone with a turbo to do it.

Then the difference between an S2 and a turbo is easily apparent.

 

[eastendr]

ORIGINAL: NeilW

I've always taken the word 'lag' to mean the delay between opening throttle and feeling/seeing the boost build. This though is different to opening the throttle when off boost and at low revs where you would not expect boost to build, i.e. before 2000rpm. Taken in this context I do not believe the lag to be that bad. If applying throttle above 3000rpm then I woud have thought 'lag' was around 1 second, which you can drive around with practice.

This is one of the best descriptions I've heard for years.

(ebay) A++

 

[Fen]

I was under the impression that lag is indeed the time the turbo takes to spool up at sufficient engine revs as above, and that the off-boost period of low revs was latency, but on checking not more than a week ago I couldn't find any definition other than both lag and latency are the same thing and both describe the period before the turbo makes useful boost, regardless of engine revs.

 

[333pg333]

Also be prepared for an addiction to the boost then watch your petrol gauge go down as fast as the speedo goes up! There is no doubt in my mind that you get addicted to boost and I defy anyone not to. Otherwise why buy this car? Having said that I would imagine that the S2 wants to be revved out as well to extricate it's performance but I doubt it would guzzle fuel anywhere near as quickly.

 

[Guest]

Theres a G reg Gold S2 possibly for sale near me...whats the sought of average price band for them. Im a bit of a lux veteran, what is likely to be more knackered on it than a lux, if anything.

 

[Fen]

It could be worth £2k or less, or it could be worth close to £7k. The only S2 specific problem to look out for is cam chain and cam sprockets. Worst case that's about £1,500 to fix. Otherwise it's all standard 944 stuff to look out for (plus caliper plate lift; I don't think Lux calipers have that problem?)

 

[NeilW]

ORIGINAL: Fen

I was under the impression that lag is indeed the time the turbo takes to spool up at sufficient engine revs as above, and that the off-boost period of low revs was latency, but on checking not more than a week ago I couldn't find any definition other than both lag and latency are the same thing and both describe the period before the turbo makes useful boost, regardless of engine revs.

Remember Clarkson hunting down a lambo with an Evo IX and then going on to demonstrate how poor the off-boost performance was by having a roll-on with some anonymous family saloon? He also called that lag, which I suppose tallies with your description.

I'd always thought that a normally aspirated engine has zero lag because when you open the throttle the full potential power of the engine at that engine speed is realised immediately, whereas a turbo engine has lag because there is a delay.

 

[Hilux]

If it is in reference to the turbo lag then turbo lag is something you get used to and you will find yourself automatically adjusting your gearchanges to make sure you are always not too far from boost

Agreed totally, if you are hard charging then you keep on boost, simple. Why would you bog down in the wrong gear ergo if you keep the correct revs and the turbo spooling it is no different to any other car. Note that the 951 has fantastic torque even when off boost so you can pootle around very economically if you want to.

I've always taken the word 'lag' to mean the delay between opening throttle and feeling/seeing the boost build. This though is different to opening the throttle when off boost and at low revs where you would not expect boost to build, i.e. before 2000rpm.

The delay is a delay or lag. If the turbo is spooling or not it cannot make any difference to the description as the only difference is time related.

Having said that I would imagine that the S2 wants to be revved out as well to extricate it's performance but I doubt it would guzzle fuel anywhere near as quickly.

Exactly, so its a fussier ride in my opinion and ergo S2`s will probably have been `thrashed` more for the equivalent (lesser) performance. Ever driven an S2000? Superb car but relatively gutless unless you like driving all the time at over 5000rpm []

 

[sawood12]

My experience of fuel consumption is pretty good considering. I'm regularly achieving a tank-to-tank average of 26mpg and find it to be pretty insensitive to the way I drive the car. Granted it can guzzle the fuel on long journeys that are peppered with considerable stints over 100mph but if I were patient enough to hang at a constant 70mph I would expect to get 30mpg. I don't think a 3ltr S2 could achieve that economy - a mate of mine with an S2 cab reckons he averages out at 20ish mpg and sees 18ish when he's on a charge.

The cost of chipping my car and getting 15psi boost has cost less than a set of alloy wheels with new rubber so I consider it a pretty cost efficient mod - especially considering that the kit has, to intents and purpose, irradicated lag and will actually run my engine more efficiently as it is mapped better than standard chips. I think it will be a while until I get used to the extra performance it's given me and I can't imagine wanting more power.

Yes it's true that a std turbo has lag (which I interperet as the time between flooring the throttle and the power coming in (when the turbo spools up - so you would get no lag if you floored the throttle at 4krpm as you are already in boost) but you can easily counter this by making sure you are in the right gear before flooring the throttle. In any case even in an S2, if you were pootling along in 5th gear sub 2krpm, floored the throttle you are not going to see half decent performance until the revs creep upto a decent level and you get in the powerband. So even S2's have 'lag' just as any car does as they all have a powerband - no car has a flat torque curve.

Ultimately this is all academic and the only choice that you have to make is will I want to keep the car standard or not?? If A/C is of vital importance you might struggle finding an S2 with it fitted unless you don't mind waiting for one to come up. Either way it's a nice decision to be making!!

 

[Fen]

Having had both, and using them every day for 50k miles a year, the S2 is the better car to drive. It is also better on fuel than a standard Turbo, if only by about 25 miles per tank.

Consider it this way; there are a lot of S2 owners who don't actually know how fast their car is beacuse they never get to 4,500 rpm where they start to go. That they don't think a sports coupe with the pre-4,500rpm performance has a problem shows how smooth and driveable the S2 is. Nobody would drive a 250 turbo off boost and confuse that with the car's full performance potential. An unmodified 250 Turbo is not a nice car to drive in town; it's horribly slow pulling out of junctions for example. Once rolling the lag isn't so bad, but show me a Turbo owner who hasn't had a big oversteer moment they weren't expecting because of the power delivery (and LSD quite likely).

The air-con point is valid, but aside from that and much as I like the Turbo (I would never buy another S2 nor a 968 personally) it is not the right model for someone who has a Lux and likes it, but wants "more Lux" and does not want to modify their car.