how competitive are the e36 M3s? I sent from a 944S2 and a 951S to one more for DE and a back seat that my kid can fit in thatn for autox. 240hp six thats the same weight as a 944S2, modern ergonomics etc...... plus they are stupid cheap right now. stupid is the operative word that describes many of the current owners - including me.

 

Much appreciated. I'm in Needham; am familiar with EPE, but haven't had the opportunity to work with them yet.

Lee

 

how about a nice n/a? i ran in the stock class and in I class autox w/ PCA for a couple years and did very well. Get into SCCA and you'll be in w/ the miatas. I ran both my 89 n/a and my wifes 924s - both did very well.

 

if it just for autocross an 944 NA will work. They are too softly sprung stock, but have good balance. A little suspension work and weight redcution and they fine autocross cars. SCCA classing will not be kind, but for PCA and general fun they are great. Cheaper than a Turbo as well. At an autocross the NA with 150 hp vs 200+ will be as fast as just about any 944 Turbo. The reason is the gearing. The Turbo just can't get into the power band in most autocrosses. You are either spinning the rear tires in 1st gear or lugging in 2nd. By the time the boost build in 2nd you need to slow down. I perferd autocrossing a stock 83 944 vs stock 88 Turbo S.



Now on the track the story sif

 

Funny, when I bought my 944 in january I kept telling everyone I just want to daily drive it. Now that I have been driving it for a while I keep muttering under my breath *it sure would be nice to take it to the track*

I agree with the N/A. I had the option to pick up a cheap turbo but to be honest, I would rather have a N/A for autocrossing/track days. I am not sure the one I have now is good for this but you never know.

 

Be sure to sit in one first. Mine still has stock seats.. but I will say, compared to my 914, Boxster and 911SC, the 944, for me, is the least comfortable when AXing. I imagine its because I like to sit quite upright, but with a helmet, the 944 is too small, hence I am forced to lean back more than I am comfortable with. And it doesn't matter if I remove the sunroof, because my helmet really wants to sit infront of the opening to begin with.

 

I hate the 968 for autocross. It's fat and has no bottom end torque. The 944 NA does AX much better. But then, the 968 is good on the track.

Overall it depends on what you will do most often with the car. All I can say is, go test drive some. The 944 is called slow by some, but my brother beats my 968 with an early NA 944 in AX. And it's much cheaper and easier to maintain.

He also beats me with his mkII GTI (even before he got the vr6 swapped in). So perhaps a vw is worth considering.

 

[QUOTE=odurandina;7689256]cockster (cayman) turbo...



Hmm, somehow that doesn't look much like 520bhp to me. Also sounds absolutely ****ehouse!! Slippery roads didn't help the driver's moderate talents.

 

Um - maybe it's the driver....

-Z

 

Maybe it is! My brother is pretty good behind the wheel. I'd like to see us compete with the same car and see what happens. At our first AX (both started together) we both drove the 968, and I was faster, but it was my own car.

Either way, our skill levels are close, so I still think the car plays a big part.

A friend of mine is an AX fiend and he loves his 968 m030. He usually ranks very high overall, and wins his class. So a driver's ability to like the car / acclimate to a car is a big factor too.

 

the lack of low end torque is fixed by the 6-speed box so long as you're not afraid to lean on it.

then of course, the supercharger. still a reasonably priced racecar in the end.

 

Um - all 968's have a 6-speed gearbox. Unless you are referring to getting custom gears.

Incidentally, to me, it feels like my 944S2 has some decent low end torque. I don't know if a 968's vario-cam setup diminishes this, since the two motors are essentailly the same (minus the variocam on the S2).

BTW: My buddy and I attended a DE @ Thunderbolt, NJ last year -- he was driving his 968, and I was in my 944S2. Both had stock motors, upgraded suspension. When we got on the front straight, my buddy was amazed by my car's power -- I gave him a pass, but he couldn't gain any ground on me until I lifted a little half way down the straight. Now bad for being down 30hp vs. the 968...

-Z-man.

 

The level in which you want to compete in autoX is major factor here. There are some great autoX capable cars out there, cheapers ones are easier to risk pushing them to the limits. I do agree that the NA is more fun on the tight tracks compared to a turbo. (I've done both with the same car)

Don't ask me what I would prefer. My sig says what I have raced the most with. Nuf said.

 

the lack of low end torque [of the 9-6-8] is fixed by the [stock] 6-speed box so long as you're not afraid to lean on it.

[allowing the driver to keep the car closer to the red-line in the turns]


then of course, the supercharger. [nullified by the cost of obtaining a good running example].

 

Lee, look at my autocrosser 944 S2 for sale in the For Sale Ads... (Member to Member Classifieds). search for subject title, FS:1991 944S2 Rare motorpsort M030 M220