944 vs 944S
#1
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
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.
#2
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.
#3
Rennlist Member
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.
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.
#5
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.
#6
Rennlist Member
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".
#7
Race Car
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Austin TX, drinking beer in the garage
Posts: 3,602
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
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.
Trending Topics
#8
I stand corrected.
#10
Rennlist Member
#12
Rennlist Member
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.
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.
#13
Rennlist Member
How are they heavier? Same everything as a 87 NA but 16v motor and a slightly different tranny.
#14
Drifting
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.
The following users liked this post:
di0gr (05-31-2023)