Peter Turner

The s2 is the better choice in my opinion. It makes more power and torque, weighs the same as the turbo s, and it doesn't have to deal with the issues the turbo brings. I've heard so much about the turbos overheating and breaking. I wouldn't want to deal with maintenance. Anyways, If it were only between the s2 and the turbo, go for the s2. But if I had to tell you which 944 I think is the best 944, it would be the 1983 944 base with manual steering and the 5 speed stick. Here's the method to my madness. The 944 makes 50 less horse power and torque than the s2, but it hit peak torque at 3k rpm and peak hp at 5,5k rpm, where as the s2 makes peak torque at 4,1k rpm and peak hp at 5,8k. Both engines rev slower than you'd like, so hitting peak torque and power at lower rpms is a blessing with these cars. The 944 also weighs 500 pounds less than the s2. Giving it the advantage in the corners with its low weight and its low rpm power. Modding a s2 is great because of the power you can get out of it, but you don't need all that power. It's a great car, even if it only has 150 hp and torque. You can mod the engine in the 944 if you'd like, but you don't need to. Rather than spending money under the hood, you should invest in some firmer suspension and lower profile and wider tires. I have the wheels off of a 928 on my 944, and with the coil overs I have m, it rides like it is on rails. This car handles like no bodies business. I've only spent 5k on my 944. And it is fully restored and has koni coil overs with the original fuchs and the aluminum alloy 928 wheels. It's a dream for the price.

JustinL

The original poster put this question up 17 years ago.

Christopher Zach

And it's every bit as relevant. I'd recommend a 944S. :-)

MAGK944

“I wish I had an S2” said nobody who owns a Porsche Turbo.

</thread>

Peter Turner

yeah I know, but I like replying to posts. Even if the user has had their question answered long ago.

Tom R.

I am a nobody, and I am that nobody. I preferred my S2 at sea level to my modified turbo at sea level or my 89 951 at altitude (velvet one in sig pic). In fact one of my least favorite cars was the 89 951 as a daily driver. Not so with the S2.
Note the OP's post count. Even I can count to 1
My wife was pregnant with our daughter when the OP asked this question. To put the time of the first question to today in better perspective, she started her junior year in HS today, drives a manual E46 coupe, and has autocrossed and driven on two tracks. No, Im not going to update the pictures

CyCloNe!

After owning a 944S and a Turbo they are both great. I am sure a S2 is the better choice stock vs stock. Even my 944S doesn’t feel much slower than my 951 did in stock trim, noticable difference is the torque but really not much. They are both good, I feel if your keeping it stock the S2 is the more refined machine, if you want to mod and push the limits the Turbo is the better choice. Or just put a v8 in either lol.

MAGK944

Yes my post was a sort of jovial take and it really depends on what type of driving you plan on doing. I agree the S2 makes the better daily, but for modding and performance it can’t touch a 951, they are just so easy to make masses of reliable power on. Let’s face it they are both great cars

bonus12

I really like the turbo because the more you accelerate, the more you accelerate. It's kind of like an exponential acceleration curve. It gives that whooshing feel of extreme acceleration you can only get with a turbo, because it's acceleration squared. More than NA engines, it's a non-linear acceleration upon an acceleration. This is all because boost is building. It's just wild and never gets old.

968to986

I have neither owned nor driven an S2, but I did have the privilege of owning a 968 manual coupe for about three years. It was a marvel of engineering, one that amazed me more each time I drove it. But I kept thinking about what it would be like with even more power, and turbocharging was pretty much the only viable solution. So the car that I’ve dreamed about owning for decades, a 951, kept coming to mind. Unfortunately the 968 was totaled, because otherwise I’m sure I would still own it. Insurance payout led to an early Boxster, which I still own, but when a needy 87 951 came up for sale close by, I bought it. It took some work, but once I got that car boosting right, I feel in love, it was just so engaging. It reminded me of much of what I loved about the 968, but with a more thrilling and demanding (from the drivers perspective) power delivery. Tial wastegate and Lindsey Racing chips enhanced that effect even more, and future plans for K26-8 and MAF should take it up another notch. For myself, a person who has tuned practically any car I’ve ever owned, the 951 is the choice.

Oh and BTW, bring back all the old threads you want. Let’s keep those informative conversations going!

JackMan

I own a highly modified 944S2 race car built to NASA GTS2 specs with McMann cage, GoodAero in the rear and modified Jim Stevens splitter in the front, and more go fast goodies, primarily suspension, two way adjustable moton's and 1000 springs in the rear and 850 in the front. Engine is built strong as is the gearbox. I run a square set up with 285 x 18 R7s at the track. I've been instructing for more than 10 years in various organizations. Plain and simple the S2 or 968 (An S2 with variocam) is the best bang for the buck vs a turbo. Turbo engines run hot, blow head gaskets, can make HUGE power but lack reliability. However, the S2 engine is super strong and goes on forever. I'm getting 209 hp to the rear wheels and yes I could get more, but it's built to rules specs, and that's why the engine has lasted so long. Yes, you have to keep the head properly tensioned, but beyond that I just change the lower engine bearings after every major wreck and change the oil after every event. The engine has been in three major wrecks and the car has survived each time ie cheaper to rebuild that get a new chassis and move all the parts to the new chassis: rolled four times at 100 mph at the end of the back stretch at Mid Ohio, lost the brakes at the same place four years later and shot off the track at 120 mph+ skipped a few times in CB and hit the fence with the driver's side, and I spun it exiting Carousel at Mid O and caught it, lost it, caught it, and wrecked it on the inside wall. The engine has more than 300 hours on it over the past 9 years and still has 209 rwhp. It is a well maintained engine.

Turbo cars are really fun to drive, especially the 944 series. But once you get beyond 350 hp+ you really start stressing all the bits and pieces of the car -- esp head gaskets. Be warned, everytime you twist that boost **** up a click, mentally put $1000 into the bank for a future engine build. Just my two cents. (I have a friend that puts his boost control **** in the glovebox and he locks the glove box. This eliminates the temptation to turn up the wick a bit to make a pass. The downside of my build is the cost of consumables. Probably the same for higher HP turbo 944s. Front brake pads last a friday open lapping session, then six to eight 20 min sessions. I run the Hawk DTC ? in the front and rear. (Once the pads have 50% or less remaining I toss them.) . I cryo my front rotors. Front rotors last for four to five three day weekends. Oil changes are essential to keeping everything inside the engine happy. I also do an oil analysis after every event to measure the levels and types of metals in the oil. This helps determine if I have something that broke loose or a bearing that is about to let go. I also manually screen the oil post oil change just to see if a piston ring land broke off a wee bit of material or something like that -- this happend on my 1989 911 that I used to track. I don't track it anymore, too expensive of a car to wad up.

Hope this helps. Both cars are great, but if you want a good low hp and lower maintenance than a turbo, go with the S2 or the 968. The 968 in GTS2 trim is great because the gearing is perfect.

CyCloNe!

My 951 made 380hp and was daily driven for 7yrs. Reliability wasn’t an issue but I also focused on maintenance first which I believe is the main difference. NA motors have less varibles which is honestly nice and provides consistancy. But, thats my opinion.

Tom R.

HelpMeHelpU

Best line I've read all day.

JackMan

Pls don't get me wrong, turbos are great for daily drivers, but on the track I recommend a non turbo car just because of the potential kablooey issues in the engine when its wound up tight and the turbo is blowing and the driver reaches for just a wee bit more boost. But you can push a NA engine much harder than a turbo. I'd driven 400+ HP turbo 951s and they are fantastic, but each time you push the gas pedal you are shortening the fuse to the bomb in the engine bay. Just my two cents. @Cyclone, if I"m picking a daily driver I'll take a modified turbo but for the track turbo chargers make great power, too much heat and lessen the life span of your connecting rods/crank and all sorts of parts in the engine. Oh, and have you ever watched a turbo detonate.... in the words of David Hobbs. Kablooooey. Modern turbo cars with their electronically controlled valve timing and all sorts of super duper cooling stuff make for incredible track cars. I have never been a fan over overly stressed engines. I spend so much time/effort/frustration and money to get to the track the last thing I want is a mechanical issue. In my experience I see more turbo 951s being fiddled with in the garage trackside than the NA cars. One caviat, the LS3 engine swap into an S2 or Turbo is the cat's meow. For track work it requires a dry sump oiling system but OMG its what we all wanted.... torque ouy your ying yang to reel in the 911s.