Van

Good to know - I stand corrected.


It must be the same *ratio* - not the same actual parts. The turbo boxes are 4mm longer and use a longer pinion shaft.

Oddjob

Right, the 16v head, and I would bet the turbo based trans is a few lbs heavier too. The PCA Clubrace weights based on factory curb weights have the S about 45 lbs heavier than an N/A (83-87) and about 90 lbs heavier than the 924S cars. Its not a lot, but more than nothing.

Especially when racing against N/A's running the late ('88) higher compression pistons and .829 5th gears, the 16v car didn't have much advantage. The few extra pounds and the 4-7% taller gearing in (3rd & 4th) hurt.

I always thought the car felt heavy, and would benefit a lot from a weight reduction effort, and/or shorter gearing. Took a lot to get it going. The 944S Clubsport cars, Cup based race cars imported for the Escort series in 87 and 88, were really what the street version should have been. Turbo brakes with ABS and lighter weight. It would have been more of a step up from the N/A.


Not the same case. Neither the N/A or S had the oil cooler option.

mrgreenjeans

Thanks Jim for the super detailed analysis..... GREAT commentary.

On another Porsche forum, I have been sharing some of my thoughts with Noah and either not explaining things as analytically as I could, OR ........:banghead

As one ( you ) who did compete with one ( an S ), and now do so with your unbelievably quick turbo, I thank you for your in depth expertise and wealth of knowledge on this subject !

( by the way, the '89 M030 is running beyond SPECTACULAR, and every day I drive it, the grin gets larger and harder to wipe off. Thank YOU for a GREAT 951; well preserved and honorably kept ) Missed seeing you and your family at our region's Last Fling a couple of weeks ago; the cool dry air made for some blistering times.

Noahs944

Do you think running with smaller diameter tires and short 5th would help it's performance?

SloMo228

IIRC, the S transaxle already has the short 5th gear. Shorter tires might help a bit, though.

The gearing does dampen the S a bit, but dropping weight from the car really does liven it up a lot. I've pulled about 170 pounds out of my S and it feels much quicker and nimbler. With the more extensive weight reduction you've done to your car, it should be even better.

Riz

Is the 944S more free revving compared to the base 944 2.5 and 2.7L? Does it rev smoother/faster to redline than the 944S2/968 due to its smaller displacement?
Thanks to all that responded - I learned a lot.

SloMo228

I haven't driven an S2 or 968 to compare, but I did own an 8V previously and the S definitely likes to rev more than the 8V does.

pcarfan944

Have not driven a 944S but can say that the S2 and 968 breath MUCH better at high revs. My 2.5 n/a doesn't seem to have much pull above 5500, while the larger motors pull strong and quick to redline with a very pronounced power curve. They really are big jump up from the base 8v.

Auto_Werks 3.6

The M474 Koni dampers are adjustable, but they are the old school style compress to adjust. They came on my 951 chump car project as a surprise bonus.

Arominus

The S motor does like to rev, haven't driven a 2.7L car but my S pulled hard from 4k to 6850. It liked to be spun up.

I should have put my NA box in the car at the time

ramius665

I've driven an S/S2/968 back to back many times and here are my observations:

944S: Under the curve it's pretty lazy and takes a bit to get spun up. Once you're on the cams, it pulls hard to redline and revs freely. Addition of an S2 or 968 intake makes a difference in moving the powerband to the left. Addition of a MAF makes it really come alive. Cost not withstanding, I definitely feel the S motors would benefit from lightening the rotating mass to help get to the powerband quicker.

944S2: Increased displacement makes the motor feel much more "usable" regardless of the RPM. Pulls freely to redline with a very even torque curve. Not as lazy under the torque curve. Biggest complaint is the desire for "more" during the driving experience. Would benefit from another ~30 horsepower.

968: Revised intake manifold and MAF really bring out the characteristics of a DOHC motor. Smoother than the S2, you can cruise at 4k RPM and forget to shift because the motor doesn't feel stressed at all. Addition of Variocam makes the 5500-6500 jump a lot of fun and must be repeated over and over. Unfortunately, much like the S2 it never feels "fast" but just quick. My favorite M44-series motor.

Riz

I know the base 944 and 944 turbo's have the SOHC 8v motors. Are the 944S, 944S2, and 968 motors all DOHC 16v?

ramius665

Yes. Subtle differences between the head design for each one but they're all DOHC.

Humboldtgrin

So was the 1981 944 GTP lemans race car with a 2.5 DOHC turbo. The engine that should have been put into the 951/952 models.

Raceboy

That's one of the reasons I built my 2.5 16v turbo engine and put it into 924. Quite fast