Turbo v S2

[Guest]

Thanks for all the input, it seems to me that it has to be a slightly modded 250, to make it liveable, or a standard S2 which is just a big boys lux, and is a liveable car anyway.
The reason I said no mods was insurance, the car is number 3 in the stable, is garaged all the time and has a classic policy which means £160 a year fully comp !!! ( good old equity ) I would expect, but I havent asked, for them not to want the business for modifications, then it would be mainstream insurance I guess and a premium over £500.
Not sure if the boss will allow that, is there a good insurance company to start with for mods ??

 

[Fen]

Lots of classic type policies will allow modifications, in fact I imagine they are more open to mods than the people who's business is insuring shopping cars are because they have to look at each car as an individual case. If you can live with limited mileage and garaging overnight then it's easy and not too expensive to insure a lightly modified car.

 

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: sawood12
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.

What's he doing? Driving in reverse?

Over 30mpg on long runs, maybe dipping in to low 20s on short runs with a heavy right foot.

 

[Guest]

I have to admit that I went for an S2 for much the same reasons as Bob. Plus the fact for an equivalent condition I would have been paying an additional £1k - £2k. The biggest thing for me was the concern about the turbo reaching the end of its life, which tend (I recall from the buyer's guides I had read) to last about 100k. I would hazard a guess that there aren't many turbos about now with mileages significantly less than this.

On a separate note, I have to admit that I tend to get about 20 mpg during normal driving (which is dominated by trawling backwards and forward to work, i.e. regular short journeys - not good for the engine, I know). When I did a track day at Croft it dropped to about 15mpg. I have noticed that on long runs I do get much better fuel economy, but couldn't put a figure on it. I'm hoping to use the 944 on a trip down to Cambridge this weekend and should be able to report back on economy afterwards.

Graham

 

[Justin85]

I bought an S2, and realistically it's fast enough for the kind of mini-GT role that it plays for me, and I find that you can potter along fairly quickly without taking it to 6k by driving on the adequate torque. On a long run I can achieve near 30 mpg if I stick to an 85-90mph cruise, and do far it's done 10000 miles in 6 months (as a second car) and has been just fine, other than routine maintenance.

I did try a couple of Turbos, and they felt quick when they were "on boost" - but for my modest budget most seemed much rougher than my S2. A ropey S2 must be a be a better proposition than a tired Turbo for the same money, and vice versa!

Justin.

 

[RichardLW]

I went from a supercharged Corrado to a Carerra 3.2 to a 250 turbo and found the 944 very frustrating to begin with. I grew to love it, especially dropping down to 3rd to overtake, and actually quite fancy another one as well as my 993. Day to day, in give and take town traffic, I think the S2 makes more sense.

 

[sawood12]

The notion that a turbo is less reliable than an S2 because it's got something extra to go wrong is slightly misguided - what about a second camshaft? The cam shaft, sprockets, tensioners and even cam chain on an S2 have proven to have their problems - rare they maybe, but failing turbos are just as rare also. It is a myth that turbo's are less reliable than S2's. There are plenty of standard and non-standard turbos (and plenty pushing over 300bhp) all over the world being driven every day, clocking up the milage, having the odd outing on the track and have proven their reliability. My local Porsche breakers has just as many S2 engines with holes in the side of their blocks than turbo engines - in fact my mate with the S2 cab and apparent poor fuel economy had a new engine in his car only 4 months ago after one of his con rods decided to make a break for freedom on the M1.

Also it is probably true that most turbo owners do have their fishtailing moments as drivers get used to the power slamming in but it only happens once (or should do) as the driver gets used to the different power delivery. I now will not accellarate as i pull out to overtake and only floor it in a straight line, and as I said before it is possible (on the smaller turbo'd cars at least) to take the sting off the turbo boost by lifting off slightly at the right time meaning you can accellarate mid bend. I've had the unpleasant experiance of driving past a couple of 944's either in a ditch or wrapped around a lamp post and none have been S2's or turbo's - so it's the driver that crashes the car, not the car.

I'm not trying to say that the turbo is a better car than the S2 - far from it, but it is neither a less reliable car that is just waiting for it's chance to push you into the next lamppost.

 

[morris944s2john]

ORIGINAL: lockup

ORIGINAL: sawood12
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.

What's he doing? Driving in reverse?

Over 30mpg on long runs, maybe dipping in to low 20s on short runs with a heavy right foot.

Yes, my experience too the fuel economy of a 944S2 is very good.
Driving my S2 in a "spirited manner" on long journeys- like to Scotland, I regularly get 30-32mpg.
Driving in a more relaxed manner, but still with the occasional 100mph burst (in Germany obviously!)[] 34mpg.
Driving at 65-75mph to Scotland with gentle throttle on acceleration, I have achieved 36mpg.

It all depends on your right foot.

 

[Fen]

ORIGINAL: sawood12

The notion that a turbo is less reliable than an S2 because it's got something extra to go wrong is slightly misguided - what about a second camshaft? The cam shaft, sprockets, tensioners and even cam chain on an S2 have proven to have their problems - rare they maybe, but failing turbos are just as rare also. It is a myth that turbo's are less reliable than S2's. There are plenty of standard and non-standard turbos (and plenty pushing over 300bhp) all over the world being driven every day, clocking up the milage, having the odd outing on the track and have proven their reliability. My local Porsche breakers has just as many S2 engines with holes in the side of their blocks than turbo engines - in fact my mate with the S2 cab and apparent poor fuel economy had a new engine in his car only 4 months ago after one of his con rods decided to make a break for freedom on the M1.

I absolutely agree with all of that. In terms of reliability I'd take a punt on a Turbo before an S2. I've had 2 S2's and I've had to put cams in both. By contrast I only had my 152k miles turbo reconditioned as "I was in there". Many S2 owners (and 968 owners) I know have also had cam problems, far more than I know Turbo owners with turbo problems (most of them I can think of the detail of have been foreign objects hitting the blades). Even if a turbo should fail it's a cheaper fix than a pair of cams.

 

[TTM]

ORIGINAL: Fen
I know Turbo owners with turbo problems (most of them I can think of the detail of have been foreign objects hitting the blades). Even if a turbo should fail it's a cheaper fix than a pair of cams.

You'd have to be quite lucky for debris not ending up scoring cylinder walls, though.
Such turbo failure can require a block rebore, and that is assuming it can be rebored - not sure that's cheaper than replacing cams/chain/tensioner on a 16V.

The problem with that cam chain design, apart from being basically not adapted to the 4 cylinder (I think valve springs are softer on 928 32V hence the reason there are far less failures), is that there is no rule on how the ensemble wears out. It's definitely the first thing to check when looking at a 16V.
Whether it be the cam chain thing or the turbo thing, both are likely to get equally lightly or badly wrong.

In any case I am not sure it is a good idea to buy a 944 to drive it only 2,500 miles per year. They need to be driven regularly to retain good reliability and best performance.
The best 944 turbo I have driven has 152k miles yet it drives better than any other lower miles 944 I have driven.

 

[Fen]

I agree about debris, but if you got debris into the inlet on an S2 it would damage at least one bore/piston also

 

[sawood12]

ORIGINAL: TTM

ORIGINAL: Fen
In any case I am not sure it is a good idea to buy a 944 to drive it only 2,500 miles per year. They need to be driven regularly to retain good reliability and best performance.
The best 944 turbo I have driven has 152k miles yet it drives better than any other lower miles 944 I have driven.

Absolutely. If anything i'd be put off by a very low milage car (say under 60k miles) unless I could get if for a good price to offset the cost of taking the car to a specialist to get all the belts and seals replaced and give the brakes a good overhaul. If stood for a long time belts can develops kinks, seals can dry out and stick to the rotating component and therefore tear when the car is suddenly started, and brakes can sieze and fluid can age. Also exhausts can corrode without the regular heating from use. You've got to find a good balance between being used and being cared for.

 

[TTM]

Very true Fen ; However you don't hear such failures on an S2 as often as you do on a turbo.
The S2 intake is shorter and more simple than the turbo's. The turbo airbox often cracks near mountings points because of age and the use of screws, not the case on the S2's thanks to the more rational use of clips [] (although it's quite a PITA to get to, I must say [&:])

 

[sawood12]

How common is getting foreign object into the bores though? I'd hazard a guess that its one of those things that is pretty rare and only happens in the most extreme cases but on forums like this you get to hear about almost every case - a bit like the RMS seals on Boxters and 911's where the true statistics show that it is still rare compared with the total number of engines out there that run trouble-free but you just get to hear about the vast majority of failures. Don't forget there is an intercooler between the turbo and the cylinder head so any debris will find it difficult to get through unless its very small. The majority of turbo 'failures' i've heard about are seals going through age causing excessive smoking as oil gets into the charge air.

 

[TTM]

ORIGINAL: sawood12
Don't forget there is an intercooler between the turbo and the cylinder head so any debris will find it difficult to get through unless its very small.

Well, in this case an unknown washer had made its way to the compressor wheel which then butchered itself and went all the way to the cylinder bores. The bits of metal were indeed pretty small, allowing for going through the IC, but big enough to score significantly all four cylinder bores.
So I guess there is a good potential for the compressor wheel to turn into tiny bits quickly.

I seem to remember some went through a similar issue and replacing the turbo proved enough ?

 

[944Turbo]

My turbo had a small strike, no washer or bolt to be found, possibly some debris (scale) from the metal pipe that runs under the inlet manifold (venting the crankcase). This in turn alowed lots of fine particles to make their way through the dump valve back into the inlet and round again. My whole inlet system had a metal paste all the way through. The borse looked ok through the intake valve/ plug holes so I kept the head on and replaced the turbo/ dump valve cleaned everything. Around 55k miles later the HG went and my bores were still very good. Turbo rebuild was around £650 +VAT but that included a K27 cold side and a few other minor mods.
Tony

 

[Diver944]

My Turbo had a big strike [] One of the airbox nuts came loose and was ingested - the resultant metal swarfe scored cylinder number one. This was at 120k miles, but it turns out the turbocharger was not original anyway. At some point in it's previous life the original K26/8 turbocharger had been replaced with a K26/6

A worn out turbocharger is always a good thing [] it gives you an excuse to get a better, modern alternative. If it damages your engine at the same time it's even better, you now have a good reason for a total rebuild.

If I say the above sentances enough times it even sounds sensible []

 

[ross255]

I think all this talk of turbo failure due to a foreign object should be taken in context.
It only happened because someone was careless or didnt put something back together properly.
Turbos dont suck nuts bolts or washers out of thin air, if you are carefull you should never leave anything in the intake of ANY car.
So its hardly a case of the turbo being unreliable if it fails in this kind of way.
I am sure a turbo left to get on with its job would excede 100k being water cooled helps stop it cooking after shut down, and being further from the exhaust ports may also stop it getting as hot as conventional positons..

 

[944Turbo]

Well mine was scale from the breather pipe which everyone should be a little wary of, all the ones I have seen have been the same. I have one of jon Mitchell's recirculating catch cans now. Other occasions I know of have been the air box internals breaking up and the nut off the end of the turbo.
Tony

 

[ross255]

I take it that the nut coming off the turbo was a bad rebuild?
or did it back off an old unit.

Tony, you wouldnt happen to have an email begining with sidestream, we exchanged emails about a turbo a while ago?