lehtola

Can someone tell me 0-60 time and 1/4 mile time in the 968 and how they compare to the 951S? I mean...overall...found a sweet 968...need to find out if it's as sweet as I'd like. decisions decisions decisions...that or the 89 951. The 968 is less money than the 89 951 but would I regret passing the 951 up for the 968?

Matt O.

IMHO (and I haven't owned either)

The 968 and the 951 are comparable when given 0-60 times, but my guess is the 968 would be a good daily driver because it's NA but with all that power.

I still love the 951 though.

-Matt

CBass

It's tough to say which is the better DD. The 968 has VVT, and fairly good low end torque, but the 951 has better fuel economy, and boost! I'd go for the 968 with a turbo, and get the best of both worlds.

jim968

From the Owner's Manual in my '94 (should be the same for all years, AFAIK):

0-60, 6.3 sec. 1/4 mile, 14.7 sec. top speed 156 mph.

These are for the 6-speed; Tiptronic is somewhat slower. Also, I've read here & elsewhere that the factory tends to be conservative.

For a daily driver, I'll take the 968 by a very small margin; for a hot rod project, the Turbo wins hands-down. I was willing to buy a 968, 944S2, or Turbo S when I bought this car, with no strong preference for any of the three. I just found the 968 first (OK, there was a beater 150K mile Turbo, and a poorly repaired ex-wreck 968...)

Jim, "I used up all my sick days, so I called in dead."

Michael Stephenson

From Michael Cottons book “Porsche 924,944 & 968”:

Turbo S: 0-60 = 5.4 ; 0-100 = 13.5
Turbo: 0-60 = 5.9 ; 0-100 = 14.9
S2 ;-): 0-60 = 6.0 ; 0-100 = 15.5
968: 0-60 = 6.1 ; 0-100 = 15.7

An 89 Turbo would be considered a Turbo S

Figures are from roadtests done by British mags. at different times and under different conditions, so there will be some variance. (I do not think that the S2 is really faster than the 968)

Robby

Based on what I've seen, the 968 runs the 1/4 in the 14.3 - 14.5 range, while the normal turbo is in the 14.4 - 14.6 range, and the Turbo S seems to be (usually) ~14.2. The 0-60 of the 968 that I usually see is ~5.7 or so. It doesn't seem to be that far behind the Turbo S, and is EXTREMELY close to the normal turbo. Of course, simple chip upgrades in either of the turbo's would leave the 968 behind, but as for stock, the 968 is a really nice car. If it were my choice, and I could find a 968 w/the M030 set-up in a '93 or up w/Torsen LSD & 17's, then that's what I would go for. I used to think that all M030's had LSD and 17's, but I've been told both ways, so am not sure...

What about convertibles- did they offer the M030 w/Torsen & 17's, etc? If that were the case, that would be the ultimate, IMO. Then, after winning the lottery, I'd have a bad *** turbo charged 968 cab

The 968's had more options than the Turbo S, as all of the options were pretty much included on the Turbo S. Also, 968's are more unique...

Sprewell17

the 94 968 was slower than the 92. Here are the times for all related cars 1986-1992.


1986 Porsche 944 8.9 16.6
1986 Porsche 944 Turbo 6.0 14.6
1988 Porsche 944 8.7 16.6
1988 Porsche 944 S 8.0 16.2
1988 Porsche 944 Turbo 6.6 15.1
1988 Porsche 944 Turbo S 5.5 14.2
1989 Porsche 944 7.5 15.7
1989 Porsche 944 S2 6.6 14.9
1990 Porsche 944 S2 6.7 14.7

1992 Porsche 968 5.9 14.4

Damian in NJ

Daily driver choice has to be the 968. Much better torque at lower revs, and a 6th gear for more relaxed cruising. 968's can hit you bad if your pinion bearing goes, but the turbo can nickel and dime you to death. You can't get 300 hp out of a 968 without very deep pockets, and then it would be with a turbo anyway. Bang for the buck would be a chipped turbo, but I could have chose either, and am quite happy with my 968.

Tom Pultz

[quote]Originally posted by lehtola:
Can someone tell me 0-60 time and 1/4 mile time in the 968 and how they compare to the 951S?<hr></blockquote>I would not buy a car based on 0-60 or 1/4 mile times. In everyday driving they are pretty meaningless IMO. Published times are rarely achievable on the street.

I'd would worry more about the intended use. Daily driver? Track car? Autox? Weekend cruiser? For autox or daily commuting I'd probably prefer the 968, but could certainly live with the turbo If you are a big HP lover there is no way to beat the turbo. The downside is many people get addicted to more and more power and dump huge sums of money into the engine. Having the 968 could save you a lot since there isn't a whole lot you can do, or need to do.

I think you also need to consider whether you plan to make modifications to the suspension, brakes, etc, or make any upgrades at all. If you don't, the '89 turbo is a better handling car than the non M030 968.

In my mind, the '89 turbo is starting to look a bit dated. That can be fixed of course with some 968 add-ons like mirrors and door handles, plus 17 or 18" wheels, etc. You get the picture. The '89 is also older. A really clean '95 968 would be ideal as it's the best of the breed for the 944 based line as far as maturity goes, and one clutch change in the 968 could convince you it was the better choice

[quote]would I regret passing the 951 up for the 968?<hr></blockquote>Before I bought my S2 I really wanted a turbo, but couldn't find a decent one at the time. I'm very happy with the S2... but I've changed nearly everything about it to get it where it is today. There are times I regret not having the power of the turbo, but not that many.

If you haven't driven both cars you really need to do that before you can make an informed decision. Both cars have their own pluses and minuses.

Good luck and have fun.

adrial

I had to make the same decision in June of 2001.

I went with the 89 951 just because I found one first. In order to get a 968 the way I wanted it, it would have been ~$20k (m030, 17"'ers and LSD)...which was too much cash at the time.

They are both rare beasts, the 951 slightly more so...but nobody will know its rare because they'll think it's just another 86-88 951 (unless they know their stuff). While the 968 everybody will ooh and ahh a lot more...and wonder what the heck it is....or if its a new model even...

It's a tough choice...and really comes down to what you're looking for (like others have said). Getting a 951 and not spending crazy $$ on the motor is tough...if you have the self-control (which I have, kind of)..go for the 951 if its what you want.

Robby

Damian- 6th gear in a 968 is still SHORTER than 5th is in a 951. That's the only problem w/the 968- it's the most ridiculous gearing for a 6-speed that I've ever seen. Of course, if you find a nice 968 w/Torsen, MO30, etc, it would be crazy to pass up b/c of the gearing alone- you can have a custom gear or two installed by a place like Powerhaus II for a few hundred bucks. I'd opt for changing 2-6 if I could afford to turbo charge it (1st is almost impossible from what I've been told). If the power were going to stay pretty much stock, then I might just change 5th & 6th or just 6th, but I would HAVE to change 6th at least. Hell, even 5th in the 951 is a little too short- it all depends on what you want it for- mine's a daily driver that MAY see some light track use if I can ever afford it...

BTW, as for speed's pf different years, they should really be almost exactly the same. The difference is in the typical variables, like the driver, track, test conditions, AND, the assembly line differences. I believe that one of the Turbo's showed a 15.1 in the list above- that's the worst I've ever seen for a 951- I do have a Turbo S that ran a 15.1- it was tested in MT way back then- I believe it's 0-60 was 6.7. That's the worst I've EVER seen for ANY 951. Also, Porsche's claim for the 13.5 sec Turbo S was HIGHLY optimistic, AND, they were using their test car w/the shorter FD. The C&D test of the Turbo S used the same shorter gearing (5th redlined at ~145) and got a 13.9. It just goes to show that there are many variables, so keep that in mind when comparing magazine times...

Damian in NJ

Adrial, they made a shade over 25,000 turbo's, and a shade under 13,000 968's. Given the fact that the turbo's don't look all that much different from the 150,000 944/S/S2's you really can't compare them for rarity.

adrial

Damian, like I said most people will see a 88 951S or 89 951 and be like "oh..another one of those dam 951's!" Actually, most don't know the difference between a turbo and a n/a...

The enthusiasts see a 89 951 and think "wow, thats 1 of 1500 in the USA that year" '88 turbo S's are a similar number / year in the USA I think.

Like i said...the 968 definetely has more "wow" factor for the average joe.

Damian in NJ

Hey, let's all be happy we're driving cars that are pretty uncommon. I think the fact that our models got to be so expensive when new that it hurt sales compared to the earlier cars. Good for us now, they are both performance bargains.