Notices
924/931/944/951/968 Forum Porsche 924, 924S, 931, 944, 944S, 944S2, 951, and 968 discussion, how-to guides, and technical help. (1976-1995)
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

944 vs 944S

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-06-2015, 04:38 PM
  #1  
Riz
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
Riz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes on 39 Posts
Default 944 vs 944S

I have owned a 1986 944 in the past. Looking into a 944S that a friend is selling. It is well maintained with over 130k miles. How much better is the 944S compared to the plain 944? Is it just more top end power? Is the stock suspension different between the two? I can probably pick up a regular 944 in nicer condition with lower miles for less money if the difference is not significant.
Old 11-06-2015, 05:51 PM
  #2  
Arominus
Race Car
 
Arominus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,103
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

The 30hp up top is nice, it has a little more torque than the NA but not much. Get the 16v, its more fun to drive than the 8v IMO, revs much better and really is sneaky quick. It will pull the 8v every time.
Old 11-06-2015, 05:56 PM
  #3  
SloMo228
Rennlist Member
 
SloMo228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Condition is everything with 944s. All else being equal, I'll take an S over an 8-valve any day. But I'd much rather have a nicely kept 8V than a ragged out S.

More to your question - the S and the NA are largely the same except for the engine and transaxle. The suspension, body, brakes, interior, and basically everything else is what you'd find on an 8-valve.

Maintenance wise, they're about the same, except the S has an additional timing component to worry about - the cam chain tensioner pads. Not a huge deal to swap out the pads, though.
Old 11-06-2015, 06:27 PM
  #4  
Riz
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
Riz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

What is the difference in the transaxle? thanks
Old 11-06-2015, 06:46 PM
  #5  
Arominus
Race Car
 
Arominus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,103
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

The S transaxle is stronger (based on the turbo trans with less hardened parts), its 1-4 ratios are a little taller than the NA box but 5th is the same as the late NA box.
Old 11-06-2015, 06:51 PM
  #6  
Van
Rennlist Member
 
Van's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 12,008
Received 94 Likes on 64 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Arominus
The S transaxle is stronger (based on the turbo trans with less hardened parts), its 1-4 ratios are a little taller than the NA box but 5th is the same as the late NA box.
I don't believe this is true. It has a different ring and pinion ratio, but the R&P teeth are roughly the same size as an NA box, so it's not really any "stronger".
Old 11-06-2015, 06:54 PM
  #7  
Dougs951S
Race Car
 
Dougs951S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Austin TX, drinking beer in the garage
Posts: 3,602
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Also the S had some unique/desirable factory suspension parts such as heaviest factory front springs available and a factory 18mm rear sway; or if equipped with the M030 package; a 23mm front sway, 25.5mm torsion bars (heaviest available from factory), and an optional 20mm rear sway (the heaviest factory bar available). Many S cars were equipped with M474 option, which was front/rear non adjustable koni yellow shocks/struts. If you wanted a clean, factory car to keep stock and enjoy, I'd pick a clean higher mileage 16v over an 8v any day. The extra maintenance in the timing area is no big deal.
Old 11-06-2015, 06:59 PM
  #8  
Arominus
Race Car
 
Arominus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,103
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Van
I don't believe this is true. It has a different ring and pinion ratio, but the R&P teeth are roughly the same size as an NA box, so it's not really any "stronger".
Here i was thinking i knew what i was talking about. I thought the S box used the turbo architecture in that it used the case and had the larger diameter bearings vs the NA box.

I stand corrected.
Old 11-06-2015, 07:19 PM
  #9  
V2Rocket
Rainman
Rennlist Member
 
V2Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 45,576
Received 655 Likes on 508 Posts
Default

My understanding is the "S" box is an "NA" case/R&P, with the turbo gear ratios.

Turbo ratios vs NA ratios are so close that you probably would never notice a difference.
Old 11-06-2015, 08:22 PM
  #10  
Van
Rennlist Member
 
Van's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 12,008
Received 94 Likes on 64 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Arominus
I stand corrected.
I'n not 100% sure - Kevin Gross would be the man to ask.

But I think the S box is *not* the longer turbo box.
Old 11-06-2015, 08:37 PM
  #11  
Noahs944
Race Car
 
Noahs944's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 4,015
Received 230 Likes on 169 Posts
Default

READ: http://www.cannell.co.uk/Road_tests/..._944_Range.pdf
Old 11-07-2015, 12:45 AM
  #12  
Oddjob
Rennlist Member
 
Oddjob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Midwest - US
Posts: 4,677
Received 77 Likes on 59 Posts
Default

The S box is the turbo gearbox, not the N/A. It has the turbo case, gears, bearings, & input shaft. The 3.889 R/P is the same ratio as the N/A R/P, but its not the same parts. It's supposed to be somewhat stronger than the N/A R/P, but not certain by how much. I thought there were some dimensions of the parts in the FSM - possible that the S ring gear diameter and pinion head are larger than the N/A. But I am too lazy to look it up...

The 16v 2.5 motor is ok, but the S cars are a little heavier, and with the fractionally taller gearing, you really have to push the car to see any more performance than an N/A. I used to do a lot of racing against the straight N/A's when I had my S. And it really didn't start pulling them much until above 100mph. I liked the higher red line, and it did really wind up well. Wished it had the turbo brembo calipers, and weighed a couple hundred pounds less. Then it would have been a much funner car, and a significant upgrade from the N/A. But in stock form, they don't offer much over the 8v cars. And condition/price would be very important factors when comparing an S to N/A.
Old 11-07-2015, 12:56 AM
  #13  
odonnell
Rennlist Member
 
odonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 4,773
Received 68 Likes on 49 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Oddjob
The 16v 2.5 motor is ok, but the S cars are a little heavier, and with the fractionally taller gearing, you really have to push the car to see any more performance than an N/A.
How are they heavier? Same everything as a 87 NA but 16v motor and a slightly different tranny.
Old 11-07-2015, 02:22 AM
  #14  
Humboldtgrin
Drifting
 
Humboldtgrin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Posts: 2,268
Received 18 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Regarding the transaxle. The 944S 16v has the same ring and pinion as the 8v. It shares the 1-5 gear ratio as the turbo. That is why you hear about the "S2" swap into a turbo trany and it slows it down at the top end.
Old 11-07-2015, 02:24 AM
  #15  
Humboldtgrin
Drifting
 
Humboldtgrin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Posts: 2,268
Received 18 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

And there the same transaxle case. But the side diff cover plate will be different if it has an oil cooler.
The following users liked this post:
di0gr (05-31-2023)


Quick Reply: 944 vs 944S



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 04:28 PM.