What are the differences between 944's and 968's

[JaseGT4]

Looking at both cars and beside the obvious visual differences is there really much difference between the two cars (an S2 and a 968)? I've read that the build quality is not as good on the 968 but I find that hard to believe.

I personally prefer the front end of a 944 but the rear of a 968 is very different.

 

[bmnelsc]

IIRC the key mechanical differences are:
3.0 engine with VARIO CAM (236 HP vs 208 for the S2)
6 speed transaxle
dual mass flywheel (which is why 968 clutches are quite a bit cheaper than 944 clutches)

I believe the steering/suspension/brakes are interchangeable with the S2 although there are probably some differences in suspension bushing hardness, etc. How Porsche got to 85% new for the 968 is a mystery to me.

As for your styling preferences - I'm the opposite - I like the front end but the tail light treatment is underwhelming to me - looks a little too plain/unfinished to my eye. Perhaps if they incorporated a multi-part lens or ? I do agree that the simpler lines better integrate the rear and make a cleaner overall package but those tail lights !

 

[Masher]

I believe the extent of modification on the 968 engine is more limited (more costly) than the 944. Depends on whether you intend changing it mechanically as to whether this is an issue I guess.
Cheers
Mick

 

[Cater_Racer]

I owned a 944S2 in 1993 and part-exed it for a 968CS.

I was gobsmacked how much quicker the 968 was, the gearbox is a delight, the engine is always on the cam.

A fabulous car which I enjoyed to the full. The six-speed CR box is fantastic. Loved it!

I guess my 968 was new, and the 944s2 was three or four years old, but they were chalk and cheese performance wise.

 

[PAUL RUDDY]

Contrary to the above, I had a 968 after two S2's, didn't like it one bit, thought it lacked the classic styling of the 944, eventually came to hate the front and rear end, Bovril cars I think, apart from the CS they struggle to find buyers.

Sold mine, taking a 944 Lux in px and then bought my current 944S2.

Paul

 

[Neil Haughey]

I agree. There are some huge myths around these cars floating around. The biggest one is in the area of the engine. I know someone who got 265 Bhp out of his 968 race car with a custom chip tune by Mr Schofield, custom exhaust and bone stock freshly rebuilt internals. The same legendary tuner told us you can't get anything out of the S2 engine with mapping, all you can do is tune on fuel and cam timing to move the power and torque peaks around. A bob on S2 engine will make 220 which is easy to find and you can't get more without extensive "cheating". However conventional wisdom says the complete opposite which is frankly IMHE complete nonsense as a bob on 968 is way faster than an S2, this is why the clubs championship has such a big weight difference between the cars in the regs and yet everyone still moved onto the 968 and the S2 has been seen by many as uncompetitive (I don't agree with this btw but its what most seem to think now). The other thing with the engine is this bizarre idea that the S2 is really torquey but the 968 isn't somehow. The complete opposite is true as they made the power band much wider on the 968 and with the forged bottom end they can be safely revved way beyond the S2 yet keep on making power all the way up to 7k rpm. The gearbox however has a 6th which is more like an overdrive.

I went right through my 968 a few times fixing it and changing the carpets over to black (nightmare job), the bodyshell is the biggest difference IMHO. Its almost completely different to a 944 bodyshell, lots of stiff though is interchangeable, I couldn't see much different between my two in the dash and gubbins back up there for example.

I felt the build quality of our 968 was not as good as our S2. It had so many niggles and foibles that the 944 didn't have that it somewhat tarnished my opinion and memory of the 968 in general. Personally I think the best build quality was on the earliest cars, the two 85 turbos I have looked at closely seemed to be better finished and spot on all over than either my S2 or that 968 which seemed a bit cobbled (85 turbo slightly better than S2 way better than 968). Its the odd little things like the finish behind bits of trim and carpets, the glue and little bits and pieces of mountings and covers etc. God thinking back I really hated that 968 in the end.

 

[chrisg]

The other thing to bear in mind is that the 968 gearbox is a purpose built6 speed Porsche box which, IRRC has most of the mass/gears ahead of the drive shafts ie between the driveshafts and the clutch. The TT is notably different in shape and length.

Although heavily modified the Gearbox in the Turbo is in essence the Audi Coupe front wheel gearbox. The 'bellhousing' of the original gearbox is where the Audi clutch used to be, the gear linkage runs through the starter motor hole.

Yours

Chris

 

[simkin911]

Owned a couple of s2 models, a lux and several turbos. Now have a 968. Different folk have different experiences and opinions. I find the 968 delightful. Lovely gearbox. Decent 241bhp following a rebuilt with new cams. My biggest negative is that I find the car feels heavier than my s2 and way less nimble than a modded turbo.

Major plus is the absence of extensive weak points for corrosion. That's not to say they are immune... But the body shops aren't making a fortune out of sill work Etc on these cars.

Best of both must surely be (for me) a 968 turbo.

 

[blade7]

ORIGINAL: Neil Haughey

they made the power band much wider on the 968 and with the forged bottom end they can be safely revved way beyond the S2 yet keep on making power all the way up to 7k rpm.

Everything I've read points to the pistons and rods being cast in both the S2 and 968, and both cranks being forged. Some people say the 968 crank is lighter while others have weighed both and found them the same weight.

 

[blade7]

ORIGINAL: chrisg

The other thing to bear in mind is that the 968 gearbox is a purpose built6 speed Porsche box which,

I thought it was a modified Audi gearbox.

 

[pauljmcnulty]

I think it's unfair to compare a 944S2 with a 968CS? Totally different beasts.

If you find an un-spoilt CS for reasonable money then that's near the top of the list from the whole "transaxle" range.

80% new parts means nothing. Stamping on a new part number means it's "new", changing the spec of some bolts and screws would be 80% of parts by number! I'm sure they could have said 80% of parts were changed between a 924 and a 924S, or a 944, or a series-two 944. It's marketing hype, meant to fool you in to believing that they've launched a new car. In fact, the 968 was Porsche trying to prolong the car's life as they hadn't got a replacement.

They still haven't replaced it, for some reason. I don't get it, as the layout is still popular with makers such as Aston, Ferrari, Mercedes etc. [8|]

 

[chrisg]

Just checked looking at pics of 968 Gearboxes, apologies I was wrong its the same type of gearbox = modified Audi Coupe box.

I was mixing it up with the 5 speed 924 box which is a different layout:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=picture+of+a+porsche+968+gearbox&biw=1600&bih=799&tbm=isch&imgil=LQgKzSMXUENVkM%253A%253BJ-kvRxGHVU9NZM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.locostbuilders.co.uk%25252Fviewthread.php%25253Ftid%2525253D155384&source=iu&pf=m&fir=LQgKzSMXUENVkM%253A%252CJ-kvRxGHVU9NZM%252C_&usg=__fz9SEvVD6HlEFzWvrR4QoGu7Wsg%3D&ved=0CDQQyjc&ei=VxXAVJeMIIfCPLKGgCA#imgdii=_&imgrc=1y54vGxb5aknYM%253A%3BdIb6qVjgeuCtLM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.porsche924-944.nl%252Fmanual%252FHaynes%252Fimage004e.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.porsche924-944.nl%252Fmanual%252FHaynes%252F07_Transm01.htm%3B913%3B490

 

[blade7]

No need for an apology []. I think the extra go in the 968 is down to the Variocam and bigger valves, and maybe different gear ratios. Plonk that lot on the lighter S2 and it may be quicker.

 

[George Elliott]

80% new parts means nothing

They could have used weight, component count or value as the measure....[8|]

I like the 968 but have never driven one. They were a desperate effort by a struggling firm to stay in business, and ultimately a vote of confidence in the transaxle layout which we and they knew was a great package. The CS was Autocar handling COTY in '93 if I recall.

Pity it was essentially outdated and the Toyota lean manufacturing squad would have told them that two thousand fastners of 20 types in an interior is inefficient. Now we get plastic clip features that go together with a thump and split when dismantled.

George
944t

 

[MarkK]

I really love the 968,I had a road CS that I wish I still had[&o],to me they feel like a 944 and to me it feels like its just a facelifted 944 so part of the 944 family in my book. 968 Gearbox is very delicate under hard use or race conditions I would be scared to add up the amount of new 968 gearbox components I have bought and broken over the past 4 years,when it's right though it is a lovely box to use but not as tough feeling as a 944 turbo box that feels like its made from tractor parts in comparison.

 

[Neil Haughey]

Blade the bottom line is that both are very very strong but the S2 bottom end is just not suitable for revving. EMC tried it in the past and have seen that vast majority of failures in race conditions with those engines involves lots of revs (yes many have failed including mine clipping 2 valves at over 6500 rpm). The 968 engine when properly prepared can take the high rpms as pretty much all 968s being raced will be doing regularly.

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: simkin911

Major plus is the absence of extensive weak points for corrosion. That's not to say they are immune... But the body shops aren't making a fortune out of sill work Etc on these cars.

Not entirely true, the rear of the sill area rusts from the inside out just the same as on 944s you just don't see it because its all covered in plastic trim. Mine was going through there but actually failed its MoT because the rear hangers had rusted. Rear bulkhead also needed blasting and retreating. The sills themselves and the bottom of the front wings are not wrecked though like on a 944 but there are other problems with restoring all the plastic bits and the horrid beading that seals it onto the body.

All 968s are rare cars though and not many have done such high miles as many 944s have so very few people get to see one which has got to the same sort of state.

 

[Mike_Pollock]

The original 924 gearbox is the reason the boot floor is so high in the whole series.

Also a point to note the side windows are different in the 968 to the earlier cars, which I think helps bring the lines more up to date.

 

[blade7]

From the front and the rear I like the 968, but side on the sill extensions and bumper mouldings look heavy compared to a S2 or Turbo.

 

[tref]

Despite the car I normally drive, the thing I dislike most about the 968 is the number of them with distorted plastic panels... The shrinking rubbers all over the place can be replaced. The rear quarter windows I wanted to see if could be retro fit to my S2, but they still seem to be expensive at the moment. I also wonder how the engine would perform through a five speed box for the same reason.