What are the differences between 944's and 968's
- Thread starter JaseGT4
- Start date
Neil Haughey
New member
I reckon so as well, I struggle to see what else could make the difference. These engines as an NA are all a bit frustrating. Many years ago my brother worked with ancient A series lumps that could take more revs but it seems that with such a big cylinder even going to billet crank and all that isn't going to give the 8k+ safe rpm that would be needed to get a lot of power. Rather perversely the 2.5S may be a better starting point for a high rpm high output motor but no one seems to have tried.
Back on the main topic the CS/sport are a touch closer to the 944 due to the centre console and clock, its only a small thing but something I always found a little odd.
blade7
Well-known member
I'm not that impressed with the 944/68 engine TBH. Nearly 30 years ago a friend of mine had a 2.0 8V Pinto engine that would rev to 8K, OK it had a very trick head, exhaust, steel crank/rods, twin 48 webers etc but in a MK1 RS 2000 it flew. The car was mint and he sold it for £4K to buy a Cossy. It would be worth £30k today [
]
]
pauljmcnulty
Active member
Interesting discussion. I wonder if we're missing the point about the engines?
An un-molested 944 engine will, if properly looked after, go on for what? 200K miles? 300K, 400K? Would a highly-tuned A-Series or Pinto engine get near that?
944s were designed to be driven lots, and to me seem to be built to a different standard than the more highly-strung equivalents.
Fair enough if you want to turn it in to a higher-revving, more powerful engine, but the downside will always be losing the reliability that comes from an relatively un-stressed design.
An un-molested 944 engine will, if properly looked after, go on for what? 200K miles? 300K, 400K? Would a highly-tuned A-Series or Pinto engine get near that?
944s were designed to be driven lots, and to me seem to be built to a different standard than the more highly-strung equivalents.
Fair enough if you want to turn it in to a higher-revving, more powerful engine, but the downside will always be losing the reliability that comes from an relatively un-stressed design.
ORIGINAL: blade7
I'm not that impressed with the 944/68 engine TBH. Nearly 30 years ago a friend of mine had a 2.0 8V Pinto engine that would rev to 8K, OK it had a very trick head, exhaust, steel crank/rods, twin 48 webers etc but in a MK1 RS 2000 it flew. The car was mint and he sold it for £4K to buy a Cossy. It would be worth £30k today [
People ask £30k and indeed some very special cars, the very standard un modified, actually reach that price, but they are few and far between.....as for 'worth' £30k, never in a month of Sunday's.
I've had dozens of them, several in concours condition, nice to look at parked on blocks of polished wood on a lawn with mirrors positioned so that you can see the polished sump, but try driving one in modern traffic for any distance, absolutely ancient and a pain, that's why all the Escort lads trailer them around the country.
Paul
Neil Haughey
New member
A standard one wouldn't get anywhere near that Paul but that isn't the point, even those dog old tech engines can be built up for 8k rpm and stacks of power, there is plenty even today being raced either on circuit or rally stages. Our cars however in NA form have always been a bit stuck when it comes to tuning, the basic problem being that if one looks for example at the peak cylinder pressures in the 968 its already very high in the mid to upper mid rev range so the only way to get much more power is via revs and its there that none of em seem very happy. I used to be a bit of a tuning addict but pretty much gave up when I bought the S2.
OK... These comments are really my opinion, not backed up with any real scientific evidence... That said I did serve my time making engine components and on engine test cells.... Taught me enough to know how little I know!
These engines were both around 30 years ago - so at least we're not trying to compare engines of a different generation (OK, the A series was around a lot earlier, the Pinto a bit earlier). However, 8k rpm would have been considered a lot of revs 30 years ago.
There is a significant capacity difference, and I would suspect a far bigger chunk of piston, rod, etc to accelerate up and down the bores... big chunks of metal don't like moving fast, hence the limit on the revs... not forgetting the V8 heritage of some elements, and over-engineering as a result.
Low revs also, is a significant bearing one engine life (in my humble opinion). Just as a heart has so many beats, and engine typically has so many revs before it dies... So probably an influence on a 944 engine doing 2-300k miles with ease... but... in standard form, a Pinto engine didn't do any more revs, and yet they were typically worn out by 100k miles. yes, I am sure there were exceptions, but the 2-300k mile lifespan of a 944 engine I think most would agree is the rule, not the exception.
I don't think any of the tuning techniques used on a Pinto increased their lifespan dramatically, but typically they were "state of the art" for 30 years ago... and exactly the kind of things you find if you look at a 944 engine (three angle valve seats would be the obvious example - top-notch tuning stuff on a Pinto, standard on a 944), so all the usual tuning things had already been done - hence the not being able to tune them further.
Let us not compare a 944 engine with a modern engine, because it is a 30 year old engine, tuned as far as it could be in it's day. I dare say if you open up a modern Porsche engine you will find the same, the difference is that technology has moved on, and some of the fundamentals that allow a higher state of tune are in place.
So... it makes sense to a degree to compare a tuned Pinto with a 944 engine, which is tuned from the factory... and there, I have to say the significant difference is the longevity. The 944 engine will last 3 times as long, so to me, it is a superior engine.
I'm sure a tuned Pinto in an Escort did go pretty well... but would you want to put that engine in a 944 and try and convince anyone it is an improvement?
Elsewhere there is a link to a 944 for sale, looking cheap with a V8 in it... I haven't passed comment, and it looks beautifully done, but... I can't see it working. Is it really any better than a 944 Turbo? Yes, it will have 400 hp or something, but there are turbos that will do that. But without going into the specifics, I really doubt it will work as a package.
And I think that is the thing with the 944 - it needs a 944 engine. Sure, I love the noise a V8 makes... my choice would be a 928 V8 in a 944. But... It won't be a 944. The balance will be lost, the same I suspect as the V8 elsewhere. I suspect that is why the tuned Pinto flew in the Escort - it worked as a package. It may well be that a rev-happy engine works in that light car... The revvy engine in the 944 range - the "S" - is the poor relation to the rest of the range... So maybe it just isn't right for the car.
These engines were both around 30 years ago - so at least we're not trying to compare engines of a different generation (OK, the A series was around a lot earlier, the Pinto a bit earlier). However, 8k rpm would have been considered a lot of revs 30 years ago.
There is a significant capacity difference, and I would suspect a far bigger chunk of piston, rod, etc to accelerate up and down the bores... big chunks of metal don't like moving fast, hence the limit on the revs... not forgetting the V8 heritage of some elements, and over-engineering as a result.
Low revs also, is a significant bearing one engine life (in my humble opinion). Just as a heart has so many beats, and engine typically has so many revs before it dies... So probably an influence on a 944 engine doing 2-300k miles with ease... but... in standard form, a Pinto engine didn't do any more revs, and yet they were typically worn out by 100k miles. yes, I am sure there were exceptions, but the 2-300k mile lifespan of a 944 engine I think most would agree is the rule, not the exception.
I don't think any of the tuning techniques used on a Pinto increased their lifespan dramatically, but typically they were "state of the art" for 30 years ago... and exactly the kind of things you find if you look at a 944 engine (three angle valve seats would be the obvious example - top-notch tuning stuff on a Pinto, standard on a 944), so all the usual tuning things had already been done - hence the not being able to tune them further.
Let us not compare a 944 engine with a modern engine, because it is a 30 year old engine, tuned as far as it could be in it's day. I dare say if you open up a modern Porsche engine you will find the same, the difference is that technology has moved on, and some of the fundamentals that allow a higher state of tune are in place.
So... it makes sense to a degree to compare a tuned Pinto with a 944 engine, which is tuned from the factory... and there, I have to say the significant difference is the longevity. The 944 engine will last 3 times as long, so to me, it is a superior engine.
I'm sure a tuned Pinto in an Escort did go pretty well... but would you want to put that engine in a 944 and try and convince anyone it is an improvement?
Elsewhere there is a link to a 944 for sale, looking cheap with a V8 in it... I haven't passed comment, and it looks beautifully done, but... I can't see it working. Is it really any better than a 944 Turbo? Yes, it will have 400 hp or something, but there are turbos that will do that. But without going into the specifics, I really doubt it will work as a package.
And I think that is the thing with the 944 - it needs a 944 engine. Sure, I love the noise a V8 makes... my choice would be a 928 V8 in a 944. But... It won't be a 944. The balance will be lost, the same I suspect as the V8 elsewhere. I suspect that is why the tuned Pinto flew in the Escort - it worked as a package. It may well be that a rev-happy engine works in that light car... The revvy engine in the 944 range - the "S" - is the poor relation to the rest of the range... So maybe it just isn't right for the car.
blade7
Well-known member
I dare say you could have bought three new 2.0 pinto's for the cost of one new 944 engine so the longevity balances out overall, and I could probably pull and fit three pinto's in the same time as one 944 engine. Porsche took a backward step in my opinion when they ditched turbocharging for NA 16V. The 968 is still a great car, internal politics prevented it being a turbocharged 90's supercar.
Much faster! [] My record for changing a pinto engine was one hour, for two people, from turning off, to turning the key and running again. Oh, and that included replacing a core plug on the engine going in!
I think my record for a 944 engine is about five days... but it could be I am a little more methodical now. I think we'll have to agree to differ on which is the better engine... that or ... FIGHT!!! []
] My record for changing a pinto engine was one hour, for two people, from turning off, to turning the key and running again. Oh, and that included replacing a core plug on the engine going in!I think my record for a 944 engine is about five days... but it could be I am a little more methodical now. I think we'll have to agree to differ on which is the better engine... that or ... FIGHT!!! [
]
blade7
Well-known member
ORIGINAL: PAUL RUDDY
ORIGINAL: blade7
I'm not that impressed with the 944/68 engine TBH. Nearly 30 years ago a friend of mine had a 2.0 8V Pinto engine that would rev to 8K, OK it had a very trick head, exhaust, steel crank/rods, twin 48 webers etc but in a MK1 RS 2000 it flew. The car was mint and he sold it for £4K to buy a Cossy. It would be worth £30k today [
People ask £30k and indeed some very special cars, the very standard un modified, actually reach that price, but they are few and far between.....as for 'worth' £30k, never in a month of Sunday's.
I've had dozens of them, several in concours condition, nice to look at parked on blocks of polished wood on a lawn with mirrors positioned so that you can see the polished sump, but try driving one in modern traffic for any distance, absolutely ancient and a pain, that's why all the Escort lads trailer them around the country.
Paul
We wouldn't say that if we had one and someone wanted to give us £30k for it would we ? [
] I've had at least a dozen MK11 RS Escorts inc one with a proper Group one engine and an X-pack, plus a few MK1's but the last was over 20 years ago. V6 Capri's always floated my boat more.
Whats "Pinto".....
I also wondering if we are missing the point....after all the 944 engine is really a GT not a sports car engine, and the engines origins were in a V8 GT so not really designed to be a Rev monster at all.
It is probably Over engineered in some respects but that is why they mechanically robust.
pauljmcnulty
Active member
Indeed.
I guess the problem is that Porsche accidently (or deliberately, depending on whether you're a conspiracy theorist [8|] ) built a car that could handle massively more power than is had when new. People now want to be able to drive past speed cameras with many hundreds of horse powers unused, rather than leaving the thing plenty fast enough to enjoy and still reliable.
Again, as a complete mechanical numpty, what's the issue with revs? We've seen that turbos can be tuned to 400 BHP and run for years, so why try to make the design, half a lazy V8, rev to V-Tec levels for no return?
Genuine question, as I don't understand what increasing the revs will gain.
Neil Haughey
New member
No your 100% spot on Andy and I feel this is the point, many of us prefer sports cars to GTs but in many ways we got a sports car with a GT engine. Just imagine how incredible these cars would have been with something like the late lamented Alfa V6 up front and sound track like the old GTV6. Would have been incredible.
Neil Haughey
New member
Power, its as simple as that. There is an odd myth that one can get loads more power from NA engines with little tweeks and head work and cams etc. This used to work with engines that had low peak cylinder pressure (the size of each bang) but makes hardly any difference on more modern engines which are already pretty efficient in these terms. All those kits people spend a fortune on to put throttle bodies on I4 engines likely will give a lower torque in the mid range but they open up the breathing to allow much higher rpm running. There was a thread sometime ago over on PH where the inability of tuning to work on the 968 was being discussed, someone posted the peak cylinder pressures for the S2000 engine and the 997 GT3 RS lump. I calculated what it is for the 968 and its actually significantly higher than the S2000 engine. Those Honda engines of course rev to silly high numbers which is what gives them high specific outputs.
pauljmcnulty
Active member
Neil, I understand that, but why try to get more power by doing something to an engine that it's not designed for, when you can get a reliable 400 BHP from a 944 already? How much will you get out of a 968 by doing all the possible modifications, probably not 400 BHP, and you'll be exceeding it's limits? What's the reasoning for trying to get an NA engine to do less than a turbo already offers?
Interesting point about the Alfa engine. My S2 was used in a comparison with an Alfa GTV6, and my Dad owned one. It was a lovely car, but really! Do the GTV6 forums enjoy discussions about 200K mile-plus cars regularly? Would you recommend a GTV6 as a reliable, everyday car? Whilst it was a great car when new, if you were lucky, but it was suffering massive issues at the first MOT, let alone 25 years on. My Dad's had suspension corroded through in under three years, and you didn't want the clutch to go....
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
