Pass on a 944 S?
 

I'm exploring the possibility of buying a 944 and I've been reading a few buyer's guides on the net. A couple of them disparaged the 944 S with the following comments:

"The 190bhp, 16-valve 944 S didn't sell in any great numbers mainly because the performance was disappointing and it didn't sound much like a twin-cam should,"

"Because engine parts for the original 944 S are costly, and also because its engine doesn’t have the effortless muscle of the later models, these earlier cars are best avoided."

Is there any truth to these statements? Is the 944 S a red-headed stepchild?

on its own a 944S is fun.
easy to use around town, it does actually make more torque everywhere than the 8v model, and there's a big kick in the pants when it comes on cam at 4000rpm+.

as a range-middler between 944 and 951 it "works"...but the problem was that by 1987, the regular 944 was a slow car compared to competitors, and the 944S wasn't more-powerful-enough to make much of a difference.
believe some testing found a 16-valve GOLF to be faster in acceleration and around a track than a 16-valve 944.

they do have a lot of mod potential if you're into that.

Thanks, and I agree that condition is the most important thing. I know these cars aren't fast, but that just means I get to spend more time accelerating and listening to the engine's soundtrack. Although I have a 911, the most fun car I own is a 1960 MGA roadster weighing 2000 lbs and making 82 hp. 0-60 probably takes 20 seconds in that thing but the sound is glorious and I can red line it in all 4 gears without fear of being arrested. It's a hoot.

But the main reason for my post was to get responses to the specific comments that I quoted. Are the 16V engines more problematic than the 8V ones? Should the S "be avoided"?

And this one makes no sense - "The 190bhp, 16-valve 944 S didn't sell in any great numbers mainly because the performance was disappointing..." The 8V that came before it was even more disappointing but yet it sold in huge numbers. :rolleyes:

Since it wont be your daily driver, and if you are not tracking it, go by the old rule and buy the cleanest example you find. If it is a 8V or a 16V, get the best.

We weren't looking for a S when we got the S. I was asking if anyone knew about a 924S on Craigslist when someone local (and on the board here) offered to look at the car, and mentioned he was selling his S that had more modifications we could use on the track. You get the idea The S was fine around town even at altitude. On the track it was as slow as molasses when a C7 or GT3 approached.

S is a great car and one of, if not the most rare of all 944 lineup.

T

I have 2 track prepared 944 normals ... one done at Weissach that I special ordered , the other a 'sunroof delete' light weight ordered that way from Porsche new by a driving instructor for PCA. Later bought used by me. I love the 944 n/a for it's balance and braking; it's effortless control. I love keeping it in the meatiness of it's torque band.

One must understand these are 'momentum' cars, best appreciated on curving mountain roads or lake country drives, using all the rpms and braking potential they afford. Which is even more enjoyed in a technical track setting.

The 'S' on the other hand needs to be held on cam and above that 4000 mark to gain it's full value; thus running quickly to redline with a short range of energy before the next shift change. Some folks find this narrow power band a bit disconcerting. When the issues arise with head failure and cost/availability of good replacement heads, more feelings arise of a disapproving nature. Many folks stay away from them for these two reasons alone.

I also own an M030 - '89 turbo and can honestly say with it's optional Porsche supplied chip putting h.p. and torque at 300, it is a much more invigorating and spirited drive than any 16 valve S I have driven in 944 packaging. ( the difference in power alone is huge, but that chassis and suspension are sweeter still. ) It has nearly no turbo lag and entry/exit on apexes on track are great fun. Can't say I ever had that enjoyment level from driving an 'S' on track or street, that either a n/a or turbo ( especially the '88.2 or '89 ) will produce. If you wish to just leapfrog over these 'S' models and go right into a turbo, I think you will not be too disappointed.

Most of the people I know from our local club which had the 'S' in either iteration, failed to keep them very long. On the other hand, quite a few more original owners of normally aspirated 944s in 8 valve configuration, still own their cars. Far fewer 951s remained with first owner, but there are some in the group. Turbo lag was the issue for those that autocrossed them, not so much the reliability factor, altho they are much more higher maint. cars than a n/a. Likewise is somewhat true for the 'S'.

The one thing I did really like about the 'S' 16 valves was the great set of forged alloy FUCHS that came pretty much standard on them. I own a couple sets of those wheels as spares and love them. (The Club Sports which were a development off those wheels and came on the '88.2 turbo and '89 turbo are even more cherished.)

Continue to read all you can on the differences of these models and take heart in those who share their positive and negative experiences. One thing is for sure, they are a small in number of production 944s and parts are going to be tough to source. Prices on cars are all over the board, and just as in the selection of n/a 944s, there are some really crappy cars out there.
Buy the best you can afford.

"Is the 944 S a red-headed step child?"
I believe all the 944 variants are of the genus redheadeous stepchildeous…
I love them all equally and un conditionally☺!

You sure about the Fuchs? I thought they came with phone dials. every 16V was a late offset (87 &88 for S 89+ for S2 which had D90s).

I believe mrgreenjeans is referring to the gulleydeckel wheel, aka. seven slot, manhole, etc., etc. that was made by Fuchs.

I have had my s2 for almost 11 years. The car is reliable and very fun to drive. With 200+ hp and no lag I feel the car has a nice power band from star. I dont understand what is being said by others. I most assume they are meaning the 2.5 L S. I agree that finding one with records and good condition will save you money in the long run. I can always get the parts I need from Ian and Steve at 944 online. I have had issues getting the right parts from others that dont understand the difference

The S2 is a totally different animal with a whole different personality and comes with great torque. Great performance. They are a nice development along the lines of 16 valve Porsche power. They don't have the peaky rev range of the S cars at all. Smooth and silken.

And yes, the reference I made of the FUCHS appearing on S cars was about the Gullydeckel wheel. Nearly every one I have driven or even seen was wearing them. Only several have had phone dials.

The D90s were more commonly seen on the S2 variant.

That comparison was touted by VW in their 16V Scirroco advertising. It was advertised as quicker from 0-60 than the 944. I know, I bought a new one in 87 :) With 1.8 liters, 123 HP and torque at 122 Ft lbs. a 16V VW Scirroco (2250-2300 lbs.) tackling a 190 HP 944S which was only 300-400 pounds heavier would be tough. The VW 16V engine was down on low end torque compared to the 84 8V Scirroco that I traded on the 87 but the top end power surge once it came on cams around 4000 RPM (sound familiar) made up for it clear to red line around 6800 RPM. The 3 liter S2 with 500 cc more engine, different cams and better ECU timing control is a different animal with low end torque and power from idle to red line :) Don't pass on a sweet S, just keep her wound up a little :) but latch onto an S2 if you want more grunt.YMMV

It's an interesting era, The Cosworth Merc in the 190E was also a horse in that 16V i4 race at the time.

T

if Porsche had spent a few extra bucks and used a MAF on the 944S instead of the AFM (like they were already using on the 928) it would've been a whole nuther story...


:)