951Badger

Ok, for those of you who read (or have read) Porsche GT magazine, I have a questions regarding the specs the list in the back of every issue.

If you look up the 944 Turbo you'll see weight, torque, and horsepower listed. You'll also see 0-60 times and top speed.

The 1988 Turbo "S" is listed at 0-60 in 5.7 seconds with the 1989 Turbo 0-60 in 5.9 seconds. Top speeds are identical.

What gives? Weight, horsepower, torque, top speed ALL THE SAME yet they say the "S" is quicker. How can this be?

Porsh-uh

COULD be gearing. I'm not sure that it is, but it certainly could be.

PCinDC

It has an "S" at the end of the name -
Thats good for .2 Seconds off 0-60 right there...

Jeff928S4

Isn't the Turbo "S" a 16-valve car???

944S Boyeee

DangerIsland

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by 944S Boyeee:
<strong>Isn't the Turbo "S" a 16-valve car???

944S Boyeee</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Nope. Turbo S started in '88 along side the regular Turbo. Then in '89 all cars were Turbo S spec (even though they weren't labeled as such) I don't think there was ever a factory-made production 16 valve turbo car (except the first le mans car, which wasn't a production car.)

Turbo S has a 26/8 turbo and different suspension/brakes (among other things), but it's still 8 valve.

PorscheG96

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by 951Badger:
<strong>What gives?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">That magazine sucks. And it's $10/issue.

Jeff928S4

Thanks - always was curious about that one. I just figured the "S" had 16-valves, thus the Turbo S would follow suit.

I wonder if anyone has Turbo'ed or Supercharged an S yet???? I'm thinking of Supercharging someday.....once my 6 numbers come in, or I quit smoking - whichever comes first!!!

944S Boyeee

Z-man

While turbo charging or supercharing an S engine is possible, most tuners are too afraid of the 16 valve head to offer anything really good for it.

The perception is that the 16V 944/968 head is too fragile to handle a turbo or blower.

Heck, even the factory was afraid to turbo the 944/968 16v head: when they made the ultra rare 968 Club Sport Turbo, while they used a 968 bottom end, they grafted an 8 valve 944 turbo head to it!

Thus, the only 4 valve per cyl. 924/944/968 cars are:
944S
944S2
968
968 Club Sport (Euro-spec only: Never avail in US)

Just a bit of Porsche trivia for ya,
-Z.

pete944

Were the figures from factory specs or road tests of specific cars? No two like cars will post the exact same speeds due to driver, weight, weather, engine tolerances, etc. If those are factory specs I think there are a few differences between the '88 Turbo S and the '89 Turbo that would explain the difference. One example being that the 'S' had forged Clubsport wheels whereas the '89 has cast Design 90(heavier) wheels. I believe the '89 outwieghs the '88 'S' by 100 to 200 pounds.

Porsh-uh

Hey 944S Boyee...
I have really thought about eventually supercharging mine, but I would really like to try and go turbo. I juts haven't seen any turbo solutions. As for the S head being to fragile, I don't know why. It's not like the turbo or supercharger puts any more strain on the timing chain and belt. You might be advised to keep the redline lower though.

Jeff928S4

Scott - let's split on a Supercharger.

You can have it on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
I'll take it Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
We'll let it cool down on Sunday!!

I don't understand how the head would really come into play as much as the bottom end if it was super-charged - all that really moves up there is the valves and cam tensioner (oh, and the cams!).

Forcing more air into the car wouldn't effect the head as much, would it?? And wouldn't 16 valves be a plus in this situation? More valves = more movement of exhausts/intakes=less stress on head during supercharing, no?

944S Boyeee

PorscheG96

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>most tuners are too afraid of the 16 valve head to offer anything really good for it.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Afraid?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>Thus, the only 4 valve per cyl. 924/944/968 cars are:
944S
944S2
968
968 Club Sport (Euro-spec only: Never avail in US)</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">944 GTP had a 4 valve/cylinder turbocharged engine.

PrerYDoG

From all the numbers I've seen, in every publications I've looked at, the 88 Turbo S had 250 HP while the 89 was putting out only a meager 247 HP, I always wondered what the damn difference was.

More food for thought.

Sami951

I think I read somewhere that the factory used the 8-valve head because they were aiming the Turbo RS the for some specific class which had a HP limit that they could match without going 16-valve.

Of course it was also cheaper, as everything they needed could be picked up straight from the 951... and then there was the 911 issue as well, the 968 turbo still was the "cheap" car and shouldn't out-perform the flagship (at least by much)

On the original topic, I think they have an error somewhere; either the 0-60 times should be identical, or then the 89 turbo should be heavier. The engines are same in both models, as is the transmission AFAIK.

944Fest (aka Dan P)

Nevermind, I missread the Question.