AZ520

Thats what I'm talking about^^ An N/a with a few bolt ons and well kept can still
surprise a few modern rides. My wife has a low mile 2006 corolla and I would spank that thing, I hate taking it anywhere. 8 seconds 0-60 is not too bad in the modern car world, add some curves and its over, 944 = gone!

odurandina

one (or two) of you will drive her.... you'll discover there is no war. no lies... just pride and prejudice. everything i've posted from pages 4-6 is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth....

your cars are John the Baptist, and the road is the Roman barbarians.....

the years pass and the avatars change.... the V8 is the Resurrection.

neunfünfeins

I bolded that last bit for you... it seemed appropriate.
Okay, so if I'm being honest maybe you did get a little pedantic on the genuine parts discussion, but... this other fella is in a league of his own. Not sure who he's trying so hard to convince (himself?) but I'm not really even reading his posts anymore.

neilll

The 944 and a 2.5 Impreza run similar 0-60 if it's a manual-manual comparison. A manual 944 should pretty handily own an auto 2.5 Impreza. The 2.5 rs cars are not bad cars though, light, more or less WRX suspension, and a not so bad 165 hp.

One thing I thought some would appreciate. Mr regular put his now finished ford falcon project on the Dyno. It's got a somewhat modernized Windsor V8 under the hood, and it put down a whole 140hp, and the car weighs a good 400 pounds more than a 944s. So very likely, his V8 project which he emphasizes feels so quick is likely way slower than the 944s he was so hard on for being slow.

Voith

I like v8 in 928, but not as much as turbo in 951. Turbo rush is a drug.

morghen

haha, what an idiot.

Jfrahm

He's probably got 30-40HP tuned out of the motor for run-in, once tuned it should give a 944 (125 rwhp?) a run in a straight line. The 1960 Falcon is obviously not a performance car and the carb'd 302 with a stock cam is not likely to impress much. He's got a single exhaust, skinny whitewalls and moon discs. Maybe it's doing what he built it to do? It looks like a nostalgia build.

The 302HO crank HP numbers changed a bit over time and I do not know what version this was. Ford also had to stop cherry picking to find sweet engines for the advertised HP in the same timeframe. So we are talking about an engine that was about 210 HP when fuel injected, then converted to carb, but I bet he could get it back close to 210-ish at the crank if they bother.

Even as-is that V8 torque might be hard to beat with a 944. That Falcon looks like it'd run about even with a 1983 or 84 Mustang GT, which in the low 15's was more than a match for a 944.

-Joel.

V2Rocket

The great thing about those old lumps (Windsor) is that they drive really nice whether you tune it to 140hp or 340hp...

With the EFI versions 300-350hp is pretty trivial to get.

morghen

So is that all that's different from a 140motor to a 340 one? the fuel injection?

911Königin

V2Rocket

no lol...cam, intake manifold, exhaust manifold, for starters...maybe heads, but those are easy to find and low-priced as needed.

its just that the EFI in the later versions (mid 80s-2000) is super easy to tweak/tune.

for example...in the 1990s one of the first mods people would do when trying to get more power would be a larger MAF sensor, because the stock one is very small (much smaller than throttle body in fact) so they figured that a bigger MAF would mean it was no longer the restriction...and they were right, to the extent of a few horsepower here and there.

of course, a larger MAF with an unchanged ECU would mean that more air flows through without being measured, so the engine runs lean...the solution? calculate the difference in cross-sectional area (flow area) of the 2 MAFS (new vs old), and fit new injectors that were approximately that same percentage greater in flow vs stock ones.

for example...if your new MAF is 25% bigger than the old one, you would find injectors that flow 25% more than stock...stock ford injectors are 19lb/hr, so they would bump up to a different Ford 24lb/hr injector. lots of folks would (and some still do) talk about their MAF being "calibrated" for a certain set of injectors...by which they would modify the actual metering orifice size of the MAF to more precisely match the injector flow.

now they can support 25% more airflow and the ECU doesn't know the difference...

Jfrahm

Carbs are actually pretty good for WOT performance if tuned decently but EFI is sooo much better for driveability. I ran some car'b high HP cars but recently sold the last carburetor for a car I had laying around... although I might have a Fiat Weber or two in a bin somewhere.

For a time I considered building a junkyard dog 944 V8 with a carb'd motor just for fun but it'd be such a hassle to smog... it was mainly an idea I got from watching too much Roadkill.

I have had a couple 302 Windsor motors, a speed density EFI Mustang GT and a carb'd van I used for windsurfing, camping, hauling a boat and a dirt bike trailer. Great motors, even stock the 5.0GT had excellent power and total reliability. Sadly the car was rearended hard by a Volvo 240 and while it survived I decided to move on.

V2Rocket

shoulda bought the Volvo and put the 302 in that...

Jfrahm

The Volvo was a LOT shorter after the crash, it did the Volvo thing where the motor and trans submarined under the cabin and the whole engine bay crushed like beer can. I reset my EFI pump cutoff and drove my car home, mad and with a sore neck. The Volvo never moved again under it's own power.

I have to give the Volvo credit, it was a heck of a hit and the person driving was not belted in and she was pretty much OK. It also helped that I saw it coming, lifted off the brakes and got punted a good ways forward. I was waiting to turn left.

The Volvo looked like an $800 car before the wreck so even then I would not have been inclined to mod it. I have some ideas for Volvo builds but they do not include the old 240 and it's ilk.