StoogeMoe

I owned an '84 Carrerra and most of your observations are correct. The shifting was the weak link. But I loved the responsive steering. You could feel every crack in the road as if you had your palms on the pavement. The brakes were super hard like there was no brake fluid at all. And being like a true race car, you could adjust the pedals the way you like them. I wish the 944 had that.

Handling was ok, but once that back end breaks loose, it's a bit tougher to bring back than in the 944. And I do miss that flat 6 pounding away behind my head. I almost never had the radio on, because why?

Maybe one day I'll get another. Or look at some 993s. There's just something about them.

Blue S2

Thats one thing i did notice...the 911 pedals felt Italian! They were sooooo close! Personally the 944 pedals are perfect, and exactly where i want them. It also has a MUCH better foot rest. I felt i didnt have a good place to put my left foot when i wasnt working the clutch in the 911.

Oddjob

Ive owned 4 various model 944s over the past 11 years. I have a lot of appreciation for the 944 series and am very familiar with their strengths and weaknesses, in terms of street driving, track use and maintenance.

In the past year I bought a 964 (RSA). Not as a replacement for the 944s, but as an addition. It’s a different car and has a different appeal.

My 89 944T is smoother, quieter, easier to drive than the newer 93 RSA. On the street, 944s make a great daily driver. They are relaxing and effortless on long trips. Ive made trips to Home Depot to pickup lumber; Im lucky if I can get my toothbrush and toothpaste in my 911. In the 944, speed is deceptive, meaning you are going faster than it feels. So in order to have some fun driving it and to get a thrill, I have to be going pretty fast. 944s are an easy and forgiving car to race on a track, not difficult to set up, and in comparison to 911s its cheap to build and therefore easier to write off in case of an accident.

A quote in a recent Car and Driver article on the 997 references an old article written by PJ O’Rourke when he called a 911 an “***-engined, **** slot car”….which is probably about right. It brings out an emotion, you either like it or you don’t. It has the engine in the wrong place, they forgot the coolant, the key is on the wrong side, its noisy, smells, more difficult to shift, stiffer clutch, harder steering, takes more effort and attention to drive. You feel every bump in the road and I feel more aware of the speed the car is going. Red with bug headlights and whale tail gets a lot of looks and it sticks out in a crowd. I don’t feel like I have to drive the car fast to have fun with it. Kind of like driving a Harley around, you don’t have to be going fast to get respect, everyone already knows what it is just from the sound.

I don’t intend to track or race my 964, I am sticking with an 87 944T for that. But I have no doubt that it could be as fast or faster than my 951s. No lag or lack of low end, it pulls from 1000 rpm to 3k, hard from 3 to 5000, then it just starts howling until it hits the limiter at 7k. Ive been on track with way too many fast 911s (from 75 Carreras, 84-89 Carreras, C2s, RSAs) to think that 944s can significantly out corner a well prepared and well driven 911. A 944 will not out brake a 911 and a 944S2 or turbo wont out accelerate an equal classed one either. But with that said, the 911 crowd should also know not to dismiss the capability of the 4 bangers.

I think a 911 is more of an acquired taste or appreciation. Many people learn to overlook its quirks or eventually become enamored with them, some never do. The 944 is a very nice driving, good looking, solid performing car. Its very obvious why they are liked by almost anyone that drives one. But a 911, is a 911….

AndyK

My bro-in-law had a '97 993 C4s. Black, black interior. I drove it a few times, and remember how bare-bones it felt! The clutch was heavy (but not as bad as an older 911), and aside from the creaks, groans, rattles and wind noise, you had the engine against your back, howling! Very much the go-cart everyone says the early 944's are like. And the engines are MUCH louder in the 993's compared to our 944s!

Compared to my older S2, that 993 seemed like a 1970's racing machine to me! Loud, bumpy, stiff...but a killer Porsche! Just not a daily driver. My sister always complained about getting her internal organs battered everytime she rode in the car.

My brother in law sold the car last year, and bought an automatic SLK 55. He hates it, and wants his Porsche back!

Go figure!

billatlanta

I share all of your impressions. I have 3 Porsches each one unique and impressive in different ways. First the 944. It is an 1985.5 N/A. Super easy car to drive with amazing handling. Even though the car is approaching 20 years old it is modern in all aspects. My daughter and I have great fun autocrossing it. The weight is perfecctly balanced, it goes where you point it and feels like it is an extension of your body. Very intuitive driving experience.

I also own a 1978 911. Again like others have noted built like a tank. It is a hard car to drive. Non hydrolyic clutch, no power steering, and very limited power assisted brakes. The engine is its soul. The tranny it's weak point. The 915 tranny feels primitive compared to the 944. It's other weak point is the A/C/Heat/Ventilation. As difficult this car is to drive it is also the most rewarding. It is appeals to the senses. The looks, the sounds, the smell of oil and leather. It has to be experienced and like the other poster has said it is an acquired taste.

My other car is a GT3. As appealing to the senses the 911 is, this car is that cubed. Mind blowing power, acceleration, looks, sounds... way more car then I can ever dream of using. However I certainly can try...

All Porsches are great!

KLR

I thought that this comment from Marc was interesting. I can think of a couple of reasons for this:

1. Manual steering makes the car feel much more substantial and "connected." I definitely feel that the power steering in my 951 is somewhat isolating, and I'd probably be happier without it.

2. Better brakes. I suppose that this is a function of the weight distribution, and for the early cars, the fact that they are much lighter. This weekend, on the NY/NJ get together drive, I was heading down bear mountain behind a couple of 996s and a long nose 911 at about 90. Someone jammed on the brakes up front. The 996s (one a turbo and one a GT2) have ABS and monster brakes, so their ability to stop on a dime did not surprise me. The early 911, though, hauled down to about 40 shockingly fast as well. I saw it coming and got on the brakes plenty early, which turned out to be a great thing, as I proceeded to lock 'em up. Ironically, Marc was a star witness to that affair. Fortunately, the car tracked straight and true and I think that I frightened the guys behind me a lot more than I perturbed myself -- it was more frustrating than frightening, which I suppose ultimately says something about the quality of the car and how secure it is at the limit.

Blue S2

You gotta love those new brakes! I wish i could mount 350mm+ 8-piston brembos on the 944! That would be amazing!

DM

In my year search for a P car I looked at and drove about a dozen '78 - '88 911's and a few 944's. I ended up going with a '90 944S2 because the 911's I was looking at were just not that solid in the $12k to $15K price point. I really felt like I got a lot more for less money with the S2. Some people say all 911's are $20k cars, and I think there is some truth to that. Maybe the cars in the high teens are better maintained than the ones under $15k.