Turbo vs. S2

[zcacogp]

Chaps,

OK. Let me say from the outset that I have an S2 and have no plans WHATSOEVER to buy a Turbo. OK? Is that clear? S2's are fantastic vehicles and I am deeply, deeply in love with mine - all the performance you could ever ask for *, looks to die for and handling to ... well, handling that redefines 'sublime'.

BUT ... let's talk about these turbo things.

I think I am moderately clued-up as to the basics of 944 ownership, but how much harder are Turbo's to live with than S2's? I know the old addage is that an S2 is what to buy if you want a reliable daily driver, a turbo is what to buy if you want a toy. I need a daily driver. My S2 comes out most days, in rain or shine, and has only let me down once. How hard is it to live with a turbo, doing this sort of thing with it?

Also, how much juice do they guzzle? In these days of oh-my-life-does-it-really-cost-that-much? fuel prices, will I notice an ever bigger dent in my wallet from turbo fuel bills? I appreciate that extra power WILL use more juice, but what about day-to-day-type-driving, trundling around off-boost on the North Circ every day?

And what about maintenance? My S2 has needed very little done to it in the last 3 years. Luck of the draw perhaps. Will a turbo bankrupt me? Finances are not tight, and I want them to remain that way.

While we are on the topic of costs, what about insurance? Both are Group20, and I am just about to renew my S2 insurance for around £530 (aged 33, parked on the road in E London, Class 2 Business Use, more NCB than you can remember, me and the missis to drive.) Are Turbo's a lot more to insure?

Last Q. I have to admit that I have never owner a forced-induction car, and I don't follow the thread on modification here. Can someone outline the sort of typical upgrade route one may take - boost enhancers, chips, wastegates, cycling valves etc etc etc .. I'm lost!


Oli.

* - And I most certainly didn't have an embarassing incident yesterday on an A-road where I lost out in a straight line to a SEAT Altea which looked like a melted welly-boot and smoked like a diesel. OK. That didn't happen. At all. Never. Hope that is clear as well. OK? Good.

 

[Riverside]

I've had a few big bills with my car but none specifically because it's a turbo. In that respect it's down to the individual car & the way it's driven & looked after. Mine does about 300 miles to a tank (I from fuel light on to the first click when I fill it), on a long run the best mileage I've managed is 350 miles.

I use mine mostly at weekends but it's my only car (my wife has her own car) & the main issues that might make it less easy to live with is the taller gearing (a pain in slow first gear crawling because your clutch up minimum speed is higher than most surrounding cars) and it takes quite a while to get warmed up (might just be my car), ideally needing a good 15-20 miles to get properly warm.

Mine has M030 & the ride is stiff but perfectly useable, it doesn't make the car any less practical than any other car with sports suspension.

Off boost (below about 3-3.5k rpm) it's far from gutless, it has plenty enough torque to get a move on from low revs but when it's raining or icy the boost ramping up the torque can break traction in the lower gears unless you're careful - A dual port wastegate would probably exacerbate this problem.

I think the main issues with turbos are probably the same as your S2 - if it has been abused or neglected things start to go wrong, that's all.

 

[appletonn]

ORIGINAL: zcacogp

Chaps,

OK. Let me say from the outset that I have an S2 and have no plans WHATSOEVER to buy a Turbo. OK? Is that clear? S2's are fantastic vehicles and I am deeply, deeply in love with mine - all the performance you could ever ask for *, looks to die for and handling to ... well, handling that redefines 'sublime'.

BUT ... let's talk about these turbo things.

I think I am moderately clued-up as to the basics of 944 ownership, but how much harder are Turbo's to live with than S2's? I know the old addage is that an S2 is what to buy if you want a reliable daily driver, a turbo is what to buy if you want a toy. I need a daily driver. My S2 comes out most days, in rain or shine, and has only let me down once. How hard is it to live with a turbo, doing this sort of thing with it?

Also, how much juice do they guzzle? In these days of oh-my-life-does-it-really-cost-that-much? fuel prices, will I notice an ever bigger dent in my wallet from turbo fuel bills? I appreciate that extra power WILL use more juice, but what about day-to-day-type-driving, trundling around off-boost on the North Circ every day?

And what about maintenance? My S2 has needed very little done to it in the last 3 years. Luck of the draw perhaps. Will a turbo bankrupt me? Finances are not tight, and I want them to remain that way.

While we are on the topic of costs, what about insurance? Both are Group20, and I am just about to renew my S2 insurance for around £530 (aged 33, parked on the road in E London, Class 2 Business Use, more NCB than you can remember, me and the missis to drive.) Are Turbo's a lot more to insure?

Last Q. I have to admit that I have never owner a forced-induction car, and I don't follow the thread on modification here. Can someone outline the sort of typical upgrade route one may take - boost enhancers, chips, wastegates, cycling valves etc etc etc .. I'm lost!


Oli.

* - And I most certainly didn't have an embarassing incident yesterday on an A-road where I lost out in a straight line to a SEAT Altea which looked like a melted welly-boot and smoked like a diesel. OK. That didn't happen. At all. Never. Hope that is clear as well. OK? Good.

Uh oh, not a Seat Altea Diesel.....?!!![8|]

Mind you, who wants to drive a melted welly boot...?[8|]

In my experience, leaving the common S2/Turbo potential rust issues to one side (should have mine back this week after some lower front wing work etc[8|]) I would say that mine has not needed any money spending on it in the last 6 months of use, but (and here's the rub) it has had money spent on it because i wanted (no, needed[8|][]) to improve it...

Mine is modified somewhat, and I struggle to better 25mpg in mixed driving.

Can't comment on the insurance as mine is on a 5000 mile/yr classic policy.

Mine can be hard work when you are tired, it is pouring down and you just want to get somewhere without having to have your concentration levels set to Defcon 10... - it will easily cruise around off boost and is not temperamental at all but you do have to watch the arrival of full boost in cold/damp/wet conditions and that can make it less than relaxing to drive if you are trying to 'make progress'!

As far as that Seat incident goes, I'm guessing you were just caught in the wrong gear.....[]

I've lost count off the times that my reasonably powerful day to day car has been left behind by the instant thumping torque of a turbo diesel something that has enough torque to pull a house over and is in it's 'torque band' whilst I have to rev my petrol car to get it to keep up...[8|]

 

[graham.webb]

Does it have to be either or? I started looking at Turbos, mostly because some magazines offered the opinion that at least they had the less complex 8v engine. However, when I got out there I found that a lot of them were mechanically tired, including one being sold by a well known indie that had so much track day abuse they'd bent a con rod and had to put another engine in from a crashed donor.

At that point I widened my search to include the S2 and, as they say, condition is all and that's what I ended up with. Have to admit that when I read about the awesome performance some people are wringing out of their Turbos I do get a twinge of jealousy, even though the steady torque delivery of the S2 is always a buzz!!

We all know they're fantastic cars, and as has so often been said here, what else could you get for the money that would come close for performance and handling?!

 

[Black_JPN]

Blimey, I read that post before reading who wrote it. Are you finally thinking of seeing the light Oli and joining the dark side?

I had the S2 and it was everything you said it is. Always hankered after the turbo though (secretly - I'm guessing a bit like yourself?) and took the plunge in November last year. I went in eyes wide open, saw a lot of big bills had been taken care of and am now enjoying the ownership experience massively. The car is used almost daily and off boost fuel consumption is fine (see my Lakes post where I got 34mpg I think it was). However, you're never off boost when the roads free up but that's what the car is all about. The lag some people moan about but I've grown to love it, all part of the 80's supercar charm. Timing is everything and booting it at the right point then feeling the boost come in a second or too later is something else, overtaking is an art to be relished. Once you've perfected it nothing compares.

Everything good that you read about boost is true. You know more than enough now to spot a decent 944 and what to look for so I'd say go for it. The turbo is top of the 944 game usually with higher spec than the S2's (air con, M030, sports seat, 10 speaker stereo etc), if you like 944's so much everyone should own one at least once!

 

[Neil Haughey]

I agree, if you can why not have both. After driving a 220 turbo I came away with a feeling that has transformed into a firm idea that turbo's make awesome GT's. I didn't expect this since listening to boostistas go on about performance all the time could lead one to think a turbo is somekind of uncontrollable beast. More controversial however is my feeling that I definitely prefer my S2 as a track car. The thing is I could easily live every day with the stock turbo suspension but couldn't with the stock S2 stuff, likewise once the cat is dropped and the ECU chipped as well the S2 becomes a much more frenetic car and when on track I love wringing it right round to 6.5K all the time. The short gearing means an S2 driven hard is buzzing away all the time and feels IMHO much faster then a turbo would doing the same speeds (as in more frenetic to drive).

 

[Peter Empson]

Simple solution, what about a Supercharged S2... []

 

[edh]

Oli you need to be very careful, because once you've tried a turbo I don't think you'll be happy with an S2. []
- Make sure it's a good one, that comes on boost nice & early & also holds boost, and it will feel so much faster than an S2. I wonder if the car in the 911 & PW article had a tired wastegate? as they weren't very complimentary about the turbo.

I've spent plenty on my car - but that's mainly because there are lots more opportunities to modify on a turbo. Track day use also increases wear & costs.
I find off-boost performance OK - you don't want to be charging around all the time, and boost is always there when you need it on motorways.

I have to say I don't find traction a problem, or worry too much about wet weather (mind you, I do try & get the car straight before putting the power down). It needs some care, but I don't think it's a hard car to drive. I can get nearly 400 miles to the tank on long journeys - 80-90 mph cruising, town driving is probably nearer 250 miles to the tank. It eats fuel on trackdays - I can easily use a tank & a half on a dry trackday.

The only thing I really don't like is the lack of drama in the induction / exhaust noise - it's very dull.

 

[TTM]

Budget-wise just about everything was mentioned above, so I will just give some personal experience & thoughts on both cars ...

I "started" with an S2 which I still have and hang hard onto it, even though I haven't driven it much since I bought the turbo.
Senseless move ? Well, I bought a turbo as the outrageous lack of mechanical failure on the S2 and rather limited choice and cost-effective upgrades engine-wise did not comply with my need for putting my hands in grease and oil and spending unreasonable amounts of hours wrenching on a car.
The first turbo I got to drive was a clean '89 with fresh M030 and unmodified engine. I vividly remember how disappoined I was with its ruthless ability to go fast in an overwhelming lack of drama. Taking back my S2 after it I felt like a fish being put back into the sea.
However I still ended up buying a turbo, one that belonged to a friend. He could not give it all the attention it needed as he was spending most of his time abroad and offered it to me for a decent price. Some 3 years before I bought it, it was the first turbo I drove that was fitted with a Guru Racing kit - it actually might well have been one of the few first ones in the EU fitted with a Guru Racing kit - I remember Diver944's car was still stock-ish when I posted on PH some 5 years ago about how incredibly the GR kit tranformed the car.
As I did not see myself owning any other 944 turbo I happily bought it regardless of the few things that needed being sorted out and I have since spent a lot of satisfying efforts (and €€€ [&:]) making it "better".
I rather consider my turbo as a driveable "project car" while the S2 remains the one I can lie on when I need a car to do some things. Which is quite stupid actually, as they can both be used for almost the same duties.

ORIGINAL: edh
Oli you need to be very careful, because once you've tried a turbo I don't think you'll be happy with an S2.

I have to disagree with this.
You get into an S2 and just drive it away without thinking.
In the turbo I always have to remind myself how much of a dog and uninvolving it is at moderate speeds (regardless how well the GR kit and MAF have improved it), how gear ratios are good for nothing but derestricted Autobahn and/or bothersome fuel economy stats, and how I should keep an eye on the boost gauge and knock gauge to check if the engine is doing fine when I floor it.
The S2 engine is fun at any speed while the turbo naturally unsporty character makes you wonder if there is any point driving at anything below 100 mph as it just hates slow speeds.

Throttle response is the reason why a turbocharged car will never feel as lively as a NA car. Porsche have always made moderately stripped-out specials NA cars available to the public, and no Porsche turbo ever was presented with a similarly sporty image. There has to be a reason why 968 CS fetch crazy prices these days ...

 

[944Turbo]

I had a lux for a few years and then purchased a turbo. I have had the turbo for 6 or seven years now. In standard form they are relatively flat especially as unmodified most / all will have a weak wastegate and be down on standard power.
Until recently I have done most of the work on it myself and whilst it is not my only car it is my prefered choice for travelling. I have done around 100,000 miles in it and have slowly modded it and done lots of work on it myself - just getting it serviced checked over by others every 12k. Whilst I was working on it and modding it myself it didn't really hit me with very many big bills. I had a turbo failure and upgraded parts were around £700 plus a fair bit of my time fitting. I have done Head gasket on it the old one was rotten and I had a iffy boost controller that occasionally allowed 30+PSi.
I have replaced the shocks with standard items ( I think they were past there best again at 50k with uprated front springs) and with Leda.

Tuning - If you are sensible read lots monitor AFR and boost - I did most of the development myself of my car with input from trusted friends and specialists, It is pefectly possible to do it in stages.
Boost enhancer restores some of the weak wategate loss especially if you shim it as well (shimming is pennies if you do the work yourself)
Ensure no boost vacuum leaks

Then I reccommend
Boost and AFR monitoring
better wastegate and simple Electronic controler e.g. Gredy Type S
Uprated fuel pressure regulator and chips (Ideally with settings for different injectors)
uprated injectors
uprated fuel pump if required

IIRC That was about all Davids car (Good 250 turbo) had carefully installed and set up (320Bhp and 380ftlbs)

That creates a fairly quick car

getting more power becomes expensive

MAF and piggyback
Or Stanadalone (usually will also control boost negating need of boost controller) also chips above will not be required
The turbo under bonnet area is failry crowded, but it mostly comes apart fairly easily.

Uprate exhaust when it needs a new one, Turbo

IC and hard pipes start to limit things once you get around 330bhp

Brakes, suspension, wheels, tyres as required

from 350 bhp up they start to really be very impressive, overtaking on A roads a Breeze.

Provided I do not use all the performance all the time tuning my car seems to have improved the mpg, using it will make it much worse around 10mpg on track days.

Still docile around town. Insurance can be difficult once modded especially with business use.

Paying others to work on it can be expensive the labour adds up fast when you have to start removing lots of bits to get to the one you need - not especially difficult generally but with a few silly exceptions.

e.g. radiator fans I find tricky to remove but it makes acces to belts so much nicer. Some exhaust bolts on turbo side need patients and a varied tool box to extract.

I have had a lot of fun with it though - met some great people, (come out on top on 2 dyno days before everyone got power crazy respect!)

It is a slippery slope - its suprising how addictive that power can be and how quickly you get used to it. But I have passed many much more expensive cars ferraris porsches tvrs evos etc. on trackdays which is nice, they are very quick to gather pace at illegal speeds which is a risk these days. May last 3 points came courtesy of a seat Altea hire car 1.6 petrol however.

So if you think you will enjoy turning into something special go for it.

Tony

PS extracting the clutch made my body ache - just got to put it back together now - wonder how many bonus items will remian at the end.

 

[Diver944]

Hi Oli, as you know I have one of each - the S2 for 10 years, the Turbo for 6.5 now. Up until three years ago I used to use them on alternate weeks to commute the 30k miles a year back and forth to work. Over that timespan they worked out to be virtually identical cost wise over 45k miles each, and included a few basic mods for the Turbo.

In my case the Turbo did not cost any more to run that an S2 over normal day to day driving on the road and that includes repairs, fuel, insurance etc - just like you I record all my costs on Pistonheads

Most standard Turbos will feel quite laggy and lacklustre but that's because they have leaks, tired wastegates etc. Once that is sorted out you have a fine, well sorted and responsive car. It 'feels' a bit dull off boost but that is only because it feels so much more alive when the boost is there - it's a mind trick. In reality an S2 has infinite Turbo lag but delivers a very smooth and refined power delivery. In contrast the Turbo is two cars in one, a very good sports coupe when off boost, and an awesome nutter maniac when the boost is there [8D]

 

[charles.y]

Turbo? Oli, Are u tempted or else?

Like Peter said, a Supercharged S2 or even better to swap the 3.0L 4-pot with a Chevvy V8.

 

[swright]

ORIGINAL: charles.y

or even better to swap the 3.0L 4-pot with a Chevvy V8.

Oh lord no! Why would you want to replace such an awesome Porsche engine with a yank V8?????

I have only had my car a week now and it certainly needs a good wad throwing at it. But that aside, i have done over 190 miles on a full tank and still have just under half a tank left. And i haven't been holding back on the loud pedal either[] My merc 190 2.6 would have needed filling again by now!!!!

My insurance is around £250 a year fully comp. Cant complain about that[8D]

I just cant believe how cheap these cars are to run!! OK the 255/17 rear tyres will cost me a fair bit to keep replacing and IL be restoring the car as i drive it but it still works out a shatload less than it would cost to run a new car or many similar performance cars.

The bills i have seen from a few mates with lesser shopping car 'hot hatches' makes me laugh out loud. And they took the piddle out of me for having "an old banger VW"!! They soon changed their minds once i had granted them permission to be a passenger in my 951

Lux, S2, 951/2 all of them are stunning cars IMHO and also utter bargains at the mo with the used car market in such a state.

I just hope and prey the hoody chav brigade doesn't wise up to how good and cheap these cars are and ruin the ones remaining with neon's and tssst tssst tsst dump valves etc!!!!

 

[Hilux]

I started looking at Turbos, mostly because some magazines offered the opinion that at least they had the less complex 8v engine

Quite right.

In my research before I bought mine I read about S2 camshaft/chain issues. I also read about the free revving nature of a n/a 16 valver and deduced that the turbos will probably have been less thrashed for after testing many 951`s at low speeds etc the lack of boost means a thoroughly tractable car but when the turbo spools up it is awesome, fantastic, a real rush.

As for direct comparison S2 enthusiasts claim a well drive S2 is quicker in the twisty bits than a Turbo. I cant see how if the turbo is kept on boost as all this talk of turbo lag is nonsense because if in the right gear at the right revs the turbo is on boost all the time and will rag 968`s on track if driven well.

I actually dont care about the argument because you should drive what you like BUT if you have an S2 then you will not improve its potential greatly without major expense, so logic suggests that you then buy aTurbo as the e/o cost is cheaper than doing up the S2. To improve the Turbo still further is relatively cheap in £ per BHP terms.

 

[bigkeeko]

* - And I most certainly didn't have an embarassing incident yesterday on an A-road where I lost out in a straight line to a SEAT Altea which looked like a melted welly-boot and smoked like a diesel. OK. That didn't happen. At all. Never. Hope that is clear as well. OK? Good.

This worries me [&:] You`re kidding right? []

 

[sawood12]

Firstly I use my turbo as a daily runner and it makes complete and utter sense. It drives fantastically on all roads, in all conditions, is perfectly reliable and gives me no problems whatsoever over any other car. Fuel consumption isn't bad considering the performance capability - i'm only a few mpg off what you'd get from a modern hot hatch in similar driving conditions - so we're takling 20+yr old engine with archaic ECU being comparable to a modern state of the art 20v turbocharged, 6-speed gearboxed hot hatch. That isn't bad in my book.

And this driving off-boost thing had got out of all proportion. These cars can be driven off-boost quite comfortably, safely with no drama at all and will accelerate as quickly as say my Focus 1.8ltr. So not quick acceleration, but it does accelerate. If you are driving in a more spirited fashion or on track then the gear ratios are such that you should never be caught off boost, so it isn't the Achilles heal it is often considered to be. Don't forget the turbo has a reasonably successful factory racing heritage. I'm willing to be educated on this matter, but I don't think the S2 has any factory racing heritage???

In terms of mods i'd recommend something like the Promax L2 kit. It gives you an extra 30 - 50bhp without increasing boost to silly levels therefore not sacrificing reliability, you don't need to start upgrading fuel pumps, injector sizes (though probably prudent to do so) and reduces lag and improves handling as the boost comes on. It is a noticeable difference. If you want to go further then you are starting to look at larger turbo's, MAF's and everything else that comes with that so your costs start to ramp up significantly, but 350bhp can be achieved easily and relatively cheaply with off-the-shelf kits.

As to the diesel thing. Well I think diesels are a con both from an environmental aspect and a performance one, so i'm biased. As a comparison - in the previous model Seat did a diesel and a petrol 180bhp version of its Leon Cupra (1.9TDi and 1.8ltr turbo petrol) and if you looked at the performance specs the petrol version of the car was quicker. Granted you'd need to stir the gearbox more to achieve that performance compared with the diesel, but so what - that's what performance cars are all about. I suspect in your tangle with the Altea you just weren't prepared to hammer the clutch and gearbox enough to extract all the performance potential your car has. The on-paper stats say your car should win. Driver error I think is the culprit!!!

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: sawood12

As to the diesel thing.  Well I think diesels are a con both from an environmental aspect and a performance one, so i'm biased.  As a comparison - in the previous model Seat did a diesel and a petrol 180bhp version of its Leon Cupra (1.9TDi and 1.8ltr turbo petrol) and if you looked at the performance specs the petrol version of the car was quicker. Granted you'd need to stir the gearbox more to achieve that performance compared with the diesel, but so what - that's what performance cars are all about.  I suspect in your tangle with the Altea you just weren't prepared to hammer the clutch and gearbox enough to extract all the performance potential your car has.  The on-paper stats say your car should win.  Driver error I think is the culprit!!!

OT but someone posted into auto express the over week that other 3 years and 60K miles a new petrol 318 works out cheaper then a diesel 318 (which is an amazingly economical diesel engine). On big engined diesels the benefits are even more questionable. It seems that with the massive cost of diesel now even massive annual mileage does not make it much cheaper in the long run, and of course on the secondhand market great petrol cars are cheap and plentiful.

Agree about the cross-country performance thing. Tref and I have gone on runs a few times round here and IMHO there is little to nothing to seperate an S2 from a 220 turbo. Basically the turbo will pull away when the torque kicks in but is reeled back in again given how linear the S2 acceleration is. However on the Haynes track last year Tref got to the same or slightly higher top speed on the main straight despite being much slower out of the corner onto the straight. 2nd gear and I suppose all in gear acceleration is much better in the turbo then the S2 (assuming both cars are in a good state of tune of course). This means that IMHO a good well driven turbo is much better for overtaking then an S2.

 

[Fen]

ORIGINAL: swright

Oh lord no! Why would you want to replace such an awesome Porsche engine with a yank V8?????

Awesome? Don't you mean fairly soulless 4-banger that doesn't excel in any area? Not a bad engine, especially in its day, but hardly a design classic.

On the other hand the "yank V8" weighs about the same as the Porsche engine despite having twice the number of cylinders and roughly twice the swept volume. Coincidentally it makes something like twice the power in "cooking" tune and an awful lot more if it's breathed on. It also has a massive amount of tuning kit available very cheaply and is extremely strong. It is absolutely a classic engine design. The problem with the Chevy V8 is what it tends to come packaged in, not the motor itself.

 

[Fen]

I used to use my car for circa 50k per annum and I sold my S2 to buy a Turbo during that time - both were my only car. It was absolutely fine. I genuinely don't think the Turbo is any more expensive to maintain or run - most of the parts are broadly the same and I imagine that in traffic where boost isn't an option the Turbo might better the S2 on fuel.

The Turbo feels "heavier" than the S2 due (I suspect) to a combination of stiffer ARBs (as Neil suggested recently), longer gearing and less snappy throttle response/turbo latency. I'd suggest that even in 250 form it isn't significantly quicker than the S2 until it's modified, but then aside Jon's planned fresh but bone stock car nobody I know has a 250 Turbo running as it would have when new; they're all either in need of a wastegate and probably some new rubber under the bonnet or they have been tweaked.

I have said before that the S2 isn't that fast, and it isn't. In the real world it is pretty close to the Turbo though. Contrary to what is often posted here about performance for the money there are lots of ways to go faster than any 944 for less money because they ain't that quick out of the box and they cost quite a bit to modify. I'm not sure the Turbo really makes a lot of sense in fact because they aren't as nice on the road as the S2 until they have cost 2-3 times the worth of the S2.

The 944 does occupy a niche which is a combination of price, build quality, practicality and performance; for the money you can buy faster, you can buy more practical, you can buy better built, but you would struggle to meet all of those in one car.

 

[edh]

ORIGINAL: swright

But that aside, i have done over 190 miles on a full tank and still have just under half a tank left. And i haven't been holding back on the loud pedal either[] My merc 190 2.6 would have needed filling again by now!!!!

Are you sure the gauge is working properly? [] I think I got around 200 miles from my first tankful when I got mine []