Mike C.

I think the 944 NA was above average in its day - the DME was quite advanced for 1982. But technology marches on... as it should.

SamGrant951

Oh and what a wonderful gearbox it is...

Truth be told I wasnt real impressed with the S2K for the first month or so I had it...thought I made a bad choice. Oh how wrong I was, it keeps getting better and better...one must truly wring it out and drive it for awhile to get used to it.

V2Rocket

The 944 was about the same HP as TransAms and Corvettes of the day with half the cylinders and displacement.

SamGrant951

Ummm, pretty sure the Corvettes in the 80s had 200hp+ (At least after the 944 came out)

Naplesguy06

the 944 turbo was the contender for corvette and mustang,not the n/a 944, that was up against the crx and the rx-7.Even so I love my 86 944 turbo but my wifes 98 es300 with 130,000 miles and non turbo can match it.

eman930

2000 Toyota celica GTS engine specs

Engine Configuration I
Cylinders 4
Aspiration/Induction Normal
Displacement 1794.00 cc | 109.5 cu in. | 1.8 L.
Valves 16 valves.
4 valves per cylinder.
Valvetrain DOHC
Horsepower 180.00 BHP (132.5 KW) @ 7600.00 RPM
Torque 133.00 Ft-Lbs (180.3 NM) @ 6800.00 RPM
HP to Weight Ratio 13.9 LB / HP
HP / Liter 100.0 BHP / Liter
Bore 3.23 in | 82 mm.
Stroke 3.36 in | 85.3 mm.

eman930

$ bangers have come along way, Varaiable valve timing on both cams, and varaiable displacment intakes, along with lighter stronger materials, Better air metering and ECU's make them all that much better.

Now it seems they can match the 944's performance with about 1.8L-2.0L NA

Stien

My brother's '01 Celica GTS (1.8L) is a tie for my 6 Cyl Camry SE quad cam up to about redline 3rd gear, at which point the Yamaha part of his engine kicks in (lift) and he takes off like a shot of nos. Thing is sick. It def. beats my 944 but for 7 grand I would've bought a 951.

V2Rocket

I beat my friend's Celica in a race once.

He had 3 passengers though....lol. Car probably had 600lbs of human weight in it..

alordofchaos

We had the 944/vette discussion a few months ago; too lazy to look it up myself.

'83 944 > '82 Vette (there was no '83 vette)

'84 vette > '84 944... at least in torque/HP

From what I've read, in racing, it was pretty much dependent on the skill of the driver to take advantage of their car's strengths and the race track - vettes had the advantage accelerating in the straights and the 944 could go into corners faster and carry speed out of it.

But... '84+ vettes look bland; the 944 looks timeless. And we don't buy 944s out of the need to... compensate

me97ggl

Since we talk about 4 cylinder N/A cars why dont we recall BMW and Mercedes of the late 80's early 90's when the DTM was on its peak....


BMW M3 4 cylinder 2300cc 215hp

Mercedes Benz 190E 2.3-16V(185hp if my memory is right) and 2.5-16V (205hp without cat and 195hp with cat. converter

and not to mention the EVO2 version of both Brands

BMW M3 2500cc 4cyl 245hp and Mercedes 190E 2.5-16V EVOII 235hp

great cars.....












( SOrry the figures are not 100% acurate or complete with torque figuers etc, but i wrote them down as i remember them)

Scootin159

Actually the STI is a good comparison to the 951 when you figure it's in about the same price range as the 951 was new, and is a 2.5L 4cyl. Considering the STI won "Motor of the year" or something like that, and still only has ~30% more power than a 951, it's an interesting stat. Even more so when you figure the base WRX has roughly the same power as a 20 year old 951.

So we have:
Correct my figures if I'm wrong, but looks like they've been able to add just a little hp, but at the cost of reducing low end torque.

ekeeton

Sometime around the late 60s the DFV engine that was built for Colin Chapman for Lotus F1 racing put out about 400hp in a 3 l. engine, well over 2hp per cu. in.

Current F1 cars produce about 750 hp in a 2.4 l. engine (at around 20,000 rpm) which is about 5 hp / cu. in.

F1 motors were and still are designed to last for a couple of weekends of racing, at most.

Needless to say, this is state of the art in engine building.

Practically speaking, somewhere around 1 hp / cu. in. is pretty good for a road driven normally aspirated engine with a single camshaft, fixed valve timing, and fixed intake. Especially for an 80s era sports car with an engine that normally lasts at least 100, 000 miles without a rebuild. Improvements beyond this have been achieved through variable timing, variable intake, along with closer tolerances, allowing higher revs, etc.

With those engineering advances, it seems like somewhere around 1.5 hp / cu. in. (e.g. Boxster) or better (e.g. Honda s2000) is an attainable as well as generally affordable standard for similar cars today.

jaje

Engines make their peak torque at different RPMs. Gearing also plays a role in determine power to the wheels. In higher revving engines, they produce their maximum torque much higher in the RPM band in order to make use of the higher gearing. You might have to rev them to make power but they are designed to be revved and make decent torque. Just 2-3 k RPMs higher than an engine made to deliver it's torque at a lower RPM.

V2Rocket

if 1hp/CI was ideal then the 944 would be spot-on..

151 cubic inches :]