Tabor

Didn't the 1989 944S have 951 brakes?

Ross

Okay guys I was under the impression that the 944S is NOT simply a 944NA car but a car with roughly 30 extra hp and other "S" upgrades. My experience with the 928 pre 32Valve versus the S4 cars was quite a difference. I was thinking that the change from the 8 valve 944 to the 16 valve S change would be a similar gain. If the S isn't worth it then I can find an 8 valve car for even less money. I plan on driving the car for a bit before doing the SC and thought that it would be a fun car to auto-X even before I did the SC.

What mod's should I do for the most bang for the buck to the "S" before I do the SC? The PO has already done a K&N cone addition.

Ross
Getting more confused

Longtime76

Transmission info from 924/944/968 FAQ: http://www.connact.com/~kgross/FAQ/944faq04.html

"The S also received an updated transmission that featured a larger, meatier pinion gear, the Achilles' heal of its eight-valve older brothers. It had the same gearing as the 944 Turbo, but a shorter final ratio like the eight-valve, aspiros. "

Hope this helps.

Longtime76

Here is some info on the brakes from "The Water Cooler" : http://www.cantonia.com/history.html

"The 944S arrived as a 1987 model year addition with a redesigned 16 valve dual overhead cam engine producing 190 hp. In addition to the increased number of valves and cams, the 944S came with an improved Digital Motor Electronics (DME) system with knock-sensing regulation capabilities. Also included on the base 944, the 944S benefited from the new timing belt tensioner which was implemented for the 1987 model year. As well, the 944S received the Bembo brake calipers with optional ABS. The initial 944S shared the base models bodywork until 1990."

Danno

Also check out this PCA site for performance specs: http://www.pca.org/stl/models.htm

While the 944S's power falls right in between a 944NA and 951, its performance is closer to the 944. It's a significant increase over the 944, just not as dramatic as the difference between a 944S and 951.

jim968

What I _think_ I read in Cur & Driver or Road & Truck 'way back in the mid-late '80's was that the 944S was the same chassis as the early ('86-'87) Turbo, sharing the same brakes, springs, sway bars, etc., just with the na body & 1st generation 16 valve engine. But they may have been wrong, or I may mis-remember. But I recall thinking that it sounded like a _sweet_ package for that time.

So somebody with an S go out to the parking lot & see if you have the 4-pot calipers...

Jim, 'tis better to light a single candle than sit & curse the darkness...

Lemon Yellow 87 n/a

Get the 951. It is a beast stock and is oh so easily modified, and you get that factory reassurance. I'd stay away from S's in general (before you start flaming, keep in mind I just think that there is too much risk per performance, since it performs almost like the 8v) let alone one that is going for 2 grand, has 140000 miles and needs all that work done. Just get a clean turbo, you'll be glad you did. Plus, you would be easier to classify at the track than a sleeper.

Manning

Good answer Matt, in every respect. G-d only knows what this engine has gone through (any history?) and after taking care of all the preventative maintenance and then super-charging, Ross may be better off just getting a 951. Remembering it is better to do this super-charging thing on a fresh motor that is.

That nagging desire to build a sleeper however...

Perhaps a really clean maxed out super-charged 924S might be sneaky.

Lemon Yellow 87 n/a

sneaky as hell.

Andrew

My buddy has an 87 944s and it does NOT share the same brake system as my 87 951. they are the same design as my 83 944 but they could have different brake proportioning.

As for the Tranny. The 944S does NOT have a Turbo tranny. the Gear ratios different slightly from the 944 but are not of the same strength of the turbos. That said. The 944 S2 does share the turbo transmission box (stronger) but with a different fifth gear and a different final drive ratio.

-Andrew

Lemon Yellow 87 n/a

Andrew, I have heard that there is a popular misconception that the S has the turbo tranny. Thanks for clearing that up.

Andrew

No problem, I've spent enough time resarching these stupid transmissions that i could have built one myself!

Now all I need to do is figure how to get rid of the rating thingy, how did you do it?

-Andrew

Tabor

I know the 1987 doesn't, but I though the 1989 did. Anyone?

aka 951

...cool that's about as much as a V-TEC civic with a K+N and a cat-back...lol

Here's a similar response I made on pelican parts...

No offense to S owners...I just can't stand the cars. I used to own one and am jaded forever. I won't let any of my friends even consider buying one as I know I'll be the person who has to fix it when it breaks. Now a good mechanic (like John probably is) could maintain one of these cars the way it needs to be. Nevertheless, it seems that at least once a month somebody is writing in with some serious head failure or other bs problem with their "S".

They don't idle well (often on 3 cylinders from my expeience and what others have reported (supposedly a programming issue that Porsche screwed up to pass emissions)), the heads are fragile (must be heat treated to turbocharge, lose tensioners if not replaced, chain stretches, etc, etc.), they rattle more than an 8-valve, etc.

IMHO the motor is a detriment in normal traffic. An 8 valve will probably beat the S in around town driving (stoplight to stoplight type driving). For example my 924S was as fast as my 944S up until 80 or so and was a lot easier to drive when not just accelerating.

You can find the S for about $3000-$4000 out here. From what I can tell nobody really wants them because of the problems associated with the motors and the high maintenance cost along with the similar looks to the 8 valve. Also, like I said above, the 8-valves are easier to drive around town and provide a more rewarding driving experience IMO. Additionally, the S didn't have any other performance or safety features that differntiated the turbo from the 8 valve NA. Definitely do some more research before you even consider buying one.

The S2 on the other hand is in a completely different league with its 3.0 liter and turbo suspension. Thats the car to have if you must have an NA.

BTW - no stock "S" could do 0-60 in 6.5 seconds...not in anyone's wildest dreams

Lemon Yellow 87 n/a

Andrew: check out a topic just posted, it expains the whole thing.