Darwantae951

With todays technology and the support of all the Tuners out there (Chris White, John Vitesse, the Lindseys, Tim Richards, Etc..) A high RWHP 951 is not a "grenade waiting to happen." Special Tool is on a completely stock bottom end (If I remember correctly). That one in particular was with John Vitesses help. It all depends on how you want to go about it. Spend a little more money and you will have one helluva powerful, rock solid, reliable engine. Don't...and it's a "grenade waiting to happen."

-Darwin

951silverblack

I realize that this is 20 year old technology, with some improvements made by the aftermarket, but I'd like to know how much improvement has been made? yes why compnay like porsche don't take back to drawing boards a new model base in 951 4 cly or 6 in line turbo, will all good stuff of today tech, I beat they can come witha afforable super car, thatc an beat almost everything in thr roads of todays I will buy one no matter what!!but I guess is beetr keep dreaming

S2cab

I had a feeling it was going to be like that. That's why I asked. That's not what I'm looking for. I had that 12 years ago in a 1987 VW 16v GTI. It sucked around town. Is the gearing on the standard turbo any better?

John Welch

Why do people need power below 3000 rpm anyway?

lleroyb

S2,

You should make every attempt to drive one before you decide. I was ready to buy a 968 until I drove a 951, which I bought that day. I would still like to own a 968, they are nice cars but a solid 951 is more fun to me. You can drive in traffic all day, it is very well mannered below 3500 rpm. The power band kind of reminds me of a two stroke dirt bike. Overall the gear ratios are near perfect, unless you are drag racing. If you want to drag race a 951 the S2 gear box is a better choice until you get a lot more power.

Lou

renvagn

S2 I had a feeling it was going to be like that. That's why I asked. That's not what I'm looking for. I had that 12 years ago in a 1987 VW 16v GTI. It sucked around town. Is the gearing on the standard turbo any better?

Transmission
In order to accomodate the additional power of the M 44/52 engine, the transmission was modified. This transmission is identified with the additional stamping of "AOR" after the stamped manufacturing date on the case. This "AOR" stamp is the only way to identify the Turbo S transmission externally. Changes include hardening of 1st and 2nd gears, and the transmission oil is externally cooled. Gearing remained the same as the conventional 944 Turbo.


Transmission Gearing 1st Gear 3.500 : 1
2nd Gear 2.059 : 1
3rd Gear 1.400 : 1
4th Gear 1.034 : 1
5th Gear 0.829 : 1

The non S has less lag and is a little friendlier to drive around town, so I'm told.

Jfrahm

I had both S and Non-S, dead stock they were both pretty poochy off the line. Forget jockeying with soccer moms for lanes when the light turns green.

-Joel.

ZPmadA

Wow I couldn't have said it better myself. I was in the same position 3 years ago when I bought my 86 944 turbo. The seller also had a 93 968 with new clutch and timing belt for close to the same price. I drove them both down the same road and highway. The 944 Turbo had my heart. It's tuned to 252rwhp, tan leather sport seats and lsd. The 968 didn't have any of that. I couldn't get over the 968's looks though. In the end, the 944's looks grew on me. I love looking at my car. They don't make retractable headlights anymore. The 951's power and sport seats won me over. While driving both cars I didn't notice a lack of low-end power in the 951. I didn't drive in traffic, but why do you need a lot of low end power in traffic? I will say a 951's low end power is pale in comparison to anything it does over 3k rpm

Dal Heger

I had an S2 and a 951 (944 turbo). I loved the linear power delivery of the S2, it was pretty quick. The turbo is in another world altogether. As for every day drivability, I drove my turbo around town as a daily driver for about 5 years. It was perfectly fine, never had a problem with traffic, or being stuck in the wrong gear. Don't listen to the naysayers. I unfortunately crashed the turbo, but I also spun a bearing on the S2 engine at nearly the same time. Did I rebuild the S2 engine? No, I took the entire drivetrain out of the turbo and put it in the S2 body.

I think that should give you and idea of how much I liked the turbo over the S2. I love the S2, but there is really no substitute for a turbo 944. It's seriously addictive. As long as you are up on the maintenance, it's totally reliable, mine NEVER even threatened to leave me stranded anywhere.

S2cab

I would suspect that the 968 would be a better choice if you wanted to stay naturally aspirated. The turbo being the choice for big power.

S2cab

What about the differential ratios in the transaxle? Are they the same?

S2cab

I wouldn't be leaving it stock for long. What I was hoping for was a bolt on 350 RWHP, with less lag via a ball bearing turbo.

DDP

I'm not sure why you're worried about power roll-on so much. Power at 3k rpm, which is easily obtainable with a 350whp goal, is plenty early. I don't see any reason for any quicker then that. Unless you don't like your tires.

M758

I don't normally daily drive my 951, but I have inthe last week.

From 2000 to 3000 RPM there is just not alot going on in the motor. Now this a relative statement. The reason the 951 seems so weak in that range in is that just above there there is so much hp.

Below 3000 rpm the car will run fine, but drive my likea 2.5L 8valve NA car. Enough power to move around stuff, but it will never feel massivly strong either. It is however east to move around and has plenty of torque to move the car and keep it going. It just does not have any kick. Once you get to 3000 RPM the power opens and comes in like bunches.

Now the intersting thing is that the 944 NA is actually just like this in terms of power delivery. 2000 to 3000 there is enough to move the car, but never set the world on fire. After 3000 in a 2.5L NA you get a nice boost of power and the car turns into a nimble sport alibeit not hugely powerfull machine. The 951 has the same power band EXCEPT the turbo takes that nimble car and makes it a monster at 3000rpm+. For that reason the 951 feels weak below 3000. I have never driven an S2, but given the similar design I would expect a similer power band with a gain at 3000 rpm+ plus, but the difference would be much that with more displacement the 2000-3000 rpm range would be slightly better than all 2.5L cars. Once in the power 3000+ rpm the S2 would start to fall behind a 951 as revs increased with the 951 peaking with greater hp and the 951 having a faster ramp up of hp.

cie_lab

To second a lot of what's said here, it really depends on what you're looking for. Turbo lag is unavoidable. The only way to get rid of it would be to a.) put in a supercharger or b.) swap the moter with an LT. Otherwise, crank up the tunes and enjoy the view.

I've been DD'ing my car all summer and it's been a blast. Off the line it is definitely a dog unless you keep the RPMs up (and like replacing clutches). In fact, I would say both my Caravan and my Wrangler would smoke it in the first 100ft.

But who cares? You'll look/feel much better in your 951 than you would in a minivan. And after 100ft, it's a whole 'nother world. This is the first turbo anything I've ever owned. The turbo lag doesn't bother me and if I'm up for a kill, it's usually on the highway where you can instantly reach the powerband with a simple downshift. The power that comes in after 3k is just freakin' amazing. It's in that realm that all the glitz that may come with the name of Porsche is stripped away and you can really feel the sense of what these guys were after when they built it. The same could probably be said about other turbo cars. But this is all I know.

You can do all the tweaking you want, but really...the car as designed is quite a piece of work. Get your hands on any turbo and you won't be sorry.