Friendly speed contest 951 vs 928
03-27-2006, 01:50 PM
#46
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Don't get all "2JZ-GTE" on me guys. I love the watercooled Porsches & am barely fond of the 928 over the 951, mostly for it's rarity. It's all love here..... 
03-27-2006, 02:56 PM
#47
Basic Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Originally Posted by MarkRobinson
Well, talk like yours is penetrating people who've never driven a 5-speed 928, so it's easier to go 951.
I loved my 951's, but the turbo 928 pulls much harder up top with less effort/boost/edginess: the extra displacement holds the torque curve longer, at least 1000rpm more during the power band, & can surpass 200mph with only 370rwhp/tq or so since the gears are taller than the 951's.
Like I said earlier, unless you've driven a boosted 5-speed 928, I don't see how you can argue your point. The 928 is not a superior car, just a completely over-looked grand touring car that proves to be quite competitive once set up. 951's are more set-up out of the box, with tons of mods available for them. Give me stock-motor'd 951 against my stock-motor'd Turbo 928, and I'm gonna beat you: 0-60, 1/4 mile, 100-150, 150-200, you name it. It's an incredible car now...it was just incredibly fun & misunderstood car before the turbo.
I'm sure there are a few 951's out there that can hang with my car, but will have at least the 6k it costs to turbo the 928.
I loved my 951's, but the turbo 928 pulls much harder up top with less effort/boost/edginess: the extra displacement holds the torque curve longer, at least 1000rpm more during the power band, & can surpass 200mph with only 370rwhp/tq or so since the gears are taller than the 951's.
Like I said earlier, unless you've driven a boosted 5-speed 928, I don't see how you can argue your point. The 928 is not a superior car, just a completely over-looked grand touring car that proves to be quite competitive once set up. 951's are more set-up out of the box, with tons of mods available for them. Give me stock-motor'd 951 against my stock-motor'd Turbo 928, and I'm gonna beat you: 0-60, 1/4 mile, 100-150, 150-200, you name it. It's an incredible car now...it was just incredibly fun & misunderstood car before the turbo.
I'm sure there are a few 951's out there that can hang with my car, but will have at least the 6k it costs to turbo the 928.
Also there are more than a few 951's that can hang with your car and leave you behind.
1. Special Tool 533WHP / 472TQ (mustang dyno)
2. DFASTEST 480WHP / 470TQ (dyno dynamics)
3. LindseyR 479WHP / 453TQ (unknown dyno)
4. Under Pressure Performance 475WHP / 392TQ (dynojet)
5. RolexNJ 461WHP / 406TQ (dynojet)
6. Bob Patterson 458WHP / 461TQ (mustang dyno)
7. Stewardx 416WHP / 388TQ (dynojet)
8. Myswiss 415WHP / 379WTQ (dynojet)
9. RKD in OKD 395WHP / 381TQ (dynojet)
10. Shaheed 371WHP / 369TQ (mustang dyno)
03-27-2006, 03:02 PM
#48
Race Director
Originally Posted by MarkRobinson
Well, talk like yours is penetrating people who've never driven a 5-speed 928, so it's easier to go 951.
Like I said earlier, unless you've driven a boosted 5-speed 928, I don't see how you can argue your point.
I'm sure there are a few 951's out there that can hang with my car, but will have at least the 6k it costs to turbo the 928.
Like I said earlier, unless you've driven a boosted 5-speed 928, I don't see how you can argue your point.
I'm sure there are a few 951's out there that can hang with my car, but will have at least the 6k it costs to turbo the 928.
I was never comparing a 944 Turbo to a turbo 928. I was comparing stock 928 S4 to a stock 944 Turbo S. Yes the S4 was an auto, but that part of it never really entered into my estimations.
What is the point of comparinga 2.5L turbo to a 5.0L turbo... you litterally have twice the motor. I figure 700 to 800 hp should be possbile from a twin turbo 5.0L 928 motor. We can easily achieve 350 to 400 hp and with some work 500 whp from a 2.5L unit so why not?
03-27-2006, 04:06 PM
#49
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
lart you really need something to do: I would take at least 1/2 the cars you posted with my increased torque & broader power bands. Come down here in 2 months when the kit is back from manufacturing & we'll go for a ride. Here's a dyno of my car against a 20k Devek stroker 928 showing the torque adtantage I have over this 6.5l beast. I hope (& so does the owner) that somethign was out of whack with his car, because this dyno is my car with 5psi w/o intercooler.
Oh, & show me one of those above cars with less than 6k retail on total mods/engine/mangement/fuel work on an original shortblock since you're so set on dissing my 928 There may be one or two, but rare.
I would have to drive across town to grab the dyno chart on my old turbo S as it was done in July-ish of '98. 3" B&B exhaust, K27/60-1 wheel/08, polished & o-ring'd head, stock cam, stock shortblock, Cup-car clutch, 1.1 bar AA chips, Bored TB, extruded intake. Yes, I'm fully aware that some of these mods have long-since been out-dated, but the car did dyno 365/345rw (dynojet 248e) with no tuning whatsoever. Here's a picture of the car just before I sold it. i do miss it.
You need to relax Lart, & stop pulling numbers on me. Maybe just stop talking crap all together until you have a chance to ride in my car. I love the 951's...did you miss that in earlier posts? I'm not dissing the 951 at all, I just know from experience that the 928 is much stronger on the low/mid/big-end. My turbo S weighted 3012 nearly dry, my 928 weighs 3270 nearly dry, but very confident that my increased torque curve pulls past my 270# weight disadvantage.
Stop getting mad at me & lets go for a ride.
Joe, 928's have 10:1, 951's have 8:1 Can't put the same boost into it as you can a 951. I have a new shortblock that arrived Friday that will get 951 pistons & rod/crank work so that I can run the same boost, & make about double a normally enhanced 951 as it should do that. Keep in mind, I only run 6-7psi, never took the chance to raise it further before I committed the kit to manufacturing.
I agree: there's no reason not to boost the hell of out a 951: they were made for it: best bang-for-the buck out there hands-down. If you *like* 928's & want a GT cruiser with a crap-load of power as well, be original & turbocharge a 928.
Pic: 928SC 6psi dyno vs my kit @ 5psi, no IC
Pic: my turbo S. Does anyone know Greg Vespers in CA? He bought it from me in '98
Pic: my 911 turbo
Pic: my old SC 928
Pic, my old SC 928
Pic, my turbo 928
Oh, & show me one of those above cars with less than 6k retail on total mods/engine/mangement/fuel work on an original shortblock since you're so set on dissing my 928
There may be one or two, but rare. I would have to drive across town to grab the dyno chart on my old turbo S as it was done in July-ish of '98. 3" B&B exhaust, K27/60-1 wheel/08, polished & o-ring'd head, stock cam, stock shortblock, Cup-car clutch, 1.1 bar AA chips, Bored TB, extruded intake. Yes, I'm fully aware that some of these mods have long-since been out-dated, but the car did dyno 365/345rw (dynojet 248e) with no tuning whatsoever. Here's a picture of the car just before I sold it. i do miss it.
You need to relax Lart, & stop pulling numbers on me. Maybe just stop talking crap all together until you have a chance to ride in my car. I love the 951's...did you miss that in earlier posts? I'm not dissing the 951 at all, I just know from experience that the 928 is much stronger on the low/mid/big-end. My turbo S weighted 3012 nearly dry, my 928 weighs 3270 nearly dry, but very confident that my increased torque curve pulls past my 270# weight disadvantage.
Stop getting mad at me & lets go for a ride.
Joe, 928's have 10:1, 951's have 8:1 Can't put the same boost into it as you can a 951. I have a new shortblock that arrived Friday that will get 951 pistons & rod/crank work so that I can run the same boost, & make about double a normally enhanced 951 as it should do that. Keep in mind, I only run 6-7psi, never took the chance to raise it further before I committed the kit to manufacturing.
I agree: there's no reason not to boost the hell of out a 951: they were made for it: best bang-for-the buck out there hands-down. If you *like* 928's & want a GT cruiser with a crap-load of power as well, be original & turbocharge a 928.
Pic: 928SC 6psi dyno vs my kit @ 5psi, no IC
Pic: my turbo S. Does anyone know Greg Vespers in CA? He bought it from me in '98
Pic: my 911 turbo
Pic: my old SC 928
Pic, my old SC 928
Pic, my turbo 928
03-27-2006, 04:50 PM
#51
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Those were the euro foglights with PIAA 100w H3's in both housings.
Yes, loved the 928, but that one didn't love me.
Did most everything on that car at least 2x as I had issues with everything...don't try to ressurrect a dead car. I bet I lost 20k on that car not including time..lesson learned I hope.
Yes, loved the 928, but that one didn't love me.
Did most everything on that car at least 2x as I had issues with everything...don't try to ressurrect a dead car. I bet I lost 20k on that car not including time..lesson learned I hope.
03-27-2006, 04:59 PM
#52
Race Director
Mark still you are comparing a 2.5L 8v Turbo car to a 5.0L 16v Turbo car Hell they even have the same basic engine design.
What is your point? You can make more hp in 5.0L 16v turbo V8 than in 2.5L 8v turbo 4? I'd say your right!
Why is it that 928 guys seem so defensive about their cars? Even when some else says something nice about the 928 they get bashed? Really... the 928 is a wonderfull car. It always has been. It biggest enemy is weight. The 944/951/968 are also wonderfull cars, but sort of inbetween. Not nearly as nice or refine as a 928. The NA's are nimble, but slow. Turbos are faster and have potential, but also limits. Neither car as the following of the 911. The 944 line has the"not really a Porsche" stigma and 928 has the "too big and auto" stigma.
Well neither car is a 911, but both are Porsches. The 928 was never intended to be a high rpm track maching. The 928 was desgned from day 1 as much more of GT type car. In fact the large V8 was chosen to reduce RPMs while providing hp. The 944 was in some ways a parts bin car. Started as an Audi/VW design, but quickly turned into a "Porsche". With the intent of entry level car few purpose designed parts were on it. Most parts were bin parts from VW, Audi, the 911 and of course the rear tranny design was borrowed from the in work 928. Then when the 944 came along the 944 got its engine as a left over from the 928 V8. Lots of development went into the 928 engine and once Porsche found that a 4cyl version fit in the 924 engine bay and provided reasonble hp that was natural choice. As a result the 944 is really saddled with a low RPM motor design. The #2 rod bearing problem is really a direct result of the 928 engine development. Since it was to be a "low rpm" motor I don't believe all the oiling was worked out for sustained RPM use. Same with the head design. In the 928 development having highflow head and high rpm valve train was ditched since it was to be a low RPM motor.
So those weak spots in the 944 motor are direct result of the 928 development plans. The reason Porsche never optimized the 944 engine internals is simple. 1/2 of the 928 motor provided enough HP to meet the the target marked hp levels by doing simple "tuner tricks" like headers and intake. So no need to redesign the combustion chambers, valve sizes, or redesign for "high RPM" when what was easy provided ennouhg hp for the market.
Of course when more hp was needed they turbo'ed the car first and then when to 16v again as an offshoot of the 928 16v engine design.
Remember also that from a market Persepective the 928 was the Flagship of the Porsche line and always occupied that level. The 944 was either entry level or mid-range at best. The fact that the "mid-range" 944 Turbo is so potent is marvel of design over marketing. My "expensive" 944 Turbo S was 47k when new, but the 924S4 was some 70k new. What that 20k got you over the 951 was not so much speed as comfort and luxury. In 1988 if you wanted a fast Porsche you had 3 options.
Classic & Raw 930
Fast and Balanced = 944 Turbo S
Fast and Luxurious = 928S4
Really today is no different. What a raw hair beast? Get 930!
Want a fast and balanced machine ? Get 944 Turbo
Want speed with luxury and comfort? Get the 928.
Want a drag strip car? Get Mustang or a Camaro.
What is your point? You can make more hp in 5.0L 16v turbo V8 than in 2.5L 8v turbo 4? I'd say your right!
Why is it that 928 guys seem so defensive about their cars? Even when some else says something nice about the 928 they get bashed? Really... the 928 is a wonderfull car. It always has been. It biggest enemy is weight. The 944/951/968 are also wonderfull cars, but sort of inbetween. Not nearly as nice or refine as a 928. The NA's are nimble, but slow. Turbos are faster and have potential, but also limits. Neither car as the following of the 911. The 944 line has the"not really a Porsche" stigma and 928 has the "too big and auto" stigma.
Well neither car is a 911, but both are Porsches. The 928 was never intended to be a high rpm track maching. The 928 was desgned from day 1 as much more of GT type car. In fact the large V8 was chosen to reduce RPMs while providing hp. The 944 was in some ways a parts bin car. Started as an Audi/VW design, but quickly turned into a "Porsche". With the intent of entry level car few purpose designed parts were on it. Most parts were bin parts from VW, Audi, the 911 and of course the rear tranny design was borrowed from the in work 928. Then when the 944 came along the 944 got its engine as a left over from the 928 V8. Lots of development went into the 928 engine and once Porsche found that a 4cyl version fit in the 924 engine bay and provided reasonble hp that was natural choice. As a result the 944 is really saddled with a low RPM motor design. The #2 rod bearing problem is really a direct result of the 928 engine development. Since it was to be a "low rpm" motor I don't believe all the oiling was worked out for sustained RPM use. Same with the head design. In the 928 development having highflow head and high rpm valve train was ditched since it was to be a low RPM motor.
So those weak spots in the 944 motor are direct result of the 928 development plans. The reason Porsche never optimized the 944 engine internals is simple. 1/2 of the 928 motor provided enough HP to meet the the target marked hp levels by doing simple "tuner tricks" like headers and intake. So no need to redesign the combustion chambers, valve sizes, or redesign for "high RPM" when what was easy provided ennouhg hp for the market.
Of course when more hp was needed they turbo'ed the car first and then when to 16v again as an offshoot of the 928 16v engine design.
Remember also that from a market Persepective the 928 was the Flagship of the Porsche line and always occupied that level. The 944 was either entry level or mid-range at best. The fact that the "mid-range" 944 Turbo is so potent is marvel of design over marketing. My "expensive" 944 Turbo S was 47k when new, but the 924S4 was some 70k new. What that 20k got you over the 951 was not so much speed as comfort and luxury. In 1988 if you wanted a fast Porsche you had 3 options.
Classic & Raw 930
Fast and Balanced = 944 Turbo S
Fast and Luxurious = 928S4
Really today is no different. What a raw hair beast? Get 930!
Want a fast and balanced machine ? Get 944 Turbo
Want speed with luxury and comfort? Get the 928.
Want a drag strip car? Get Mustang or a Camaro.
03-27-2006, 05:08 PM
#53
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Hey Joe, I couldn't agree more.
When talking about tunability, most have dismissed the 928 thinking 5-speed were too rare & maintenace too high, not to mention weight. Those things can be overcome like any engineering obstacle, including cross-drilling to get proper high-rpm oiling (course, with a turbo, you don't need to.
Maintenance fear has primarily has caused the horrible 928 depreciation...not very fair for the car, but great for it's followers.
When talking about tunability, most have dismissed the 928 thinking 5-speed were too rare & maintenace too high, not to mention weight. Those things can be overcome like any engineering obstacle, including cross-drilling to get proper high-rpm oiling (course, with a turbo, you don't need to.
Maintenance fear has primarily has caused the horrible 928 depreciation...not very fair for the car, but great for it's followers.
03-27-2006, 05:29 PM
#54
Drive-by provocation guy
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NAS PAX River, by way of Orlando
Posts: 10,439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkRobinson
I wish more people could compare a 5-speed 928S to a 951. 80% of 928's are autos, & autos, for the most part, are pigs by comparison.
I had an 86.5 928S auto and it was great off the line, but mid/top end is not what my 951 is.
A buddy had a 5 speed S4 and said it was a moster. The rear end would squat on accell/launch and just slam you back in the seat.
He said he pulled out of a parking lot one time making a right turn and hit the gas hard turning at the same time....he said the passenger side front tire actually pulled off the ground enough to where he had the "loss of feel" on the steering wheel and then it jerked back, when the front tire regained traction.
Does Mark Anderson still race his 928?
03-27-2006, 11:32 PM
#55
Captain Obvious
Super User
Super User
Originally Posted by lart951
Man, I am sorry but I am going to call BS on your story.
I dare you to show me. where I can buy a turbo kit or SC kit for the 928 under $ 2000.00.
I dare you to show me. where I can buy a turbo kit or SC kit for the 928 under $ 2000.00.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I bought a kit. For some strange reason you always seems to have a tendency to misunderstand others posts.
Unlike you, I do all my own wrenching and fabricating. Anyone can take a car to a mechanic, throw enough $$$$ at it and have a fast car at the end.
I have a lot more respect for those that build their own cars, and make their own parts, be that a 951 or a 928.
Here is a link to my SC build webpage: http://norcal928.org/DIYSC/ It's not yet updated with the complete intercooler build and the cat delete pipe install.
The intercooler project on my page was not successful and I had to double up the cores. I've fabricated a double core intercooler from two Volvo IC cores. It will be capable to support past 500 hp. and it is at the welder right now (I don't have a TIG so I had to take it to a pro.). The cat. delete H-pipe is already in the garage and installing it myself this week.
As I said before, total cost of the ENTIRE supercharger build up to date is ~$1500 and NOT $2000.
Also, 1/4 mile racing has nothing to do with the movie "F&F". That move is so inaccurate that it's not even funny.
Ohh and you can take RolexNJ's car of your list.....it sadly doesn't exist anymore.
Last edited by Imo000; 03-28-2006 at 10:33 AM.
03-29-2006, 02:58 AM
#56
Monkeys Removed by Request
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by M758
Mark still you are comparing a 2.5L 8v Turbo car to a 5.0L 16v Turbo car Hell they even have the same basic engine design.
What is your point? You can make more hp in 5.0L 16v turbo V8 than in 2.5L 8v turbo 4? I'd say your right!
Why is it that 928 guys seem so defensive about their cars? Even when some else says something nice about the 928 they get bashed? Really... the 928 is a wonderfull car. It always has been. It biggest enemy is weight. The 944/951/968 are also wonderfull cars, but sort of inbetween. Not nearly as nice or refine as a 928. The NA's are nimble, but slow. Turbos are faster and have potential, but also limits. Neither car as the following of the 911. The 944 line has the"not really a Porsche" stigma and 928 has the "too big and auto" stigma.
Well neither car is a 911, but both are Porsches. The 928 was never intended to be a high rpm track maching. The 928 was desgned from day 1 as much more of GT type car. In fact the large V8 was chosen to reduce RPMs while providing hp. The 944 was in some ways a parts bin car. Started as an Audi/VW design, but quickly turned into a "Porsche". With the intent of entry level car few purpose designed parts were on it. Most parts were bin parts from VW, Audi, the 911 and of course the rear tranny design was borrowed from the in work 928. Then when the 944 came along the 944 got its engine as a left over from the 928 V8. Lots of development went into the 928 engine and once Porsche found that a 4cyl version fit in the 924 engine bay and provided reasonble hp that was natural choice. As a result the 944 is really saddled with a low RPM motor design. The #2 rod bearing problem is really a direct result of the 928 engine development. Since it was to be a "low rpm" motor I don't believe all the oiling was worked out for sustained RPM use. Same with the head design. In the 928 development having highflow head and high rpm valve train was ditched since it was to be a low RPM motor.
So those weak spots in the 944 motor are direct result of the 928 development plans. The reason Porsche never optimized the 944 engine internals is simple. 1/2 of the 928 motor provided enough HP to meet the the target marked hp levels by doing simple "tuner tricks" like headers and intake. So no need to redesign the combustion chambers, valve sizes, or redesign for "high RPM" when what was easy provided ennouhg hp for the market.
Of course when more hp was needed they turbo'ed the car first and then when to 16v again as an offshoot of the 928 16v engine design.
Remember also that from a market Persepective the 928 was the Flagship of the Porsche line and always occupied that level. The 944 was either entry level or mid-range at best. The fact that the "mid-range" 944 Turbo is so potent is marvel of design over marketing. My "expensive" 944 Turbo S was 47k when new, but the 924S4 was some 70k new. What that 20k got you over the 951 was not so much speed as comfort and luxury. In 1988 if you wanted a fast Porsche you had 3 options.
Classic & Raw 930
Fast and Balanced = 944 Turbo S
Fast and Luxurious = 928S4
Really today is no different. What a raw hair beast? Get 930!
Want a fast and balanced machine ? Get 944 Turbo
Want speed with luxury and comfort? Get the 928.
Want a drag strip car? Get Mustang or a Camaro.
What is your point? You can make more hp in 5.0L 16v turbo V8 than in 2.5L 8v turbo 4? I'd say your right!
Why is it that 928 guys seem so defensive about their cars? Even when some else says something nice about the 928 they get bashed? Really... the 928 is a wonderfull car. It always has been. It biggest enemy is weight. The 944/951/968 are also wonderfull cars, but sort of inbetween. Not nearly as nice or refine as a 928. The NA's are nimble, but slow. Turbos are faster and have potential, but also limits. Neither car as the following of the 911. The 944 line has the"not really a Porsche" stigma and 928 has the "too big and auto" stigma.
Well neither car is a 911, but both are Porsches. The 928 was never intended to be a high rpm track maching. The 928 was desgned from day 1 as much more of GT type car. In fact the large V8 was chosen to reduce RPMs while providing hp. The 944 was in some ways a parts bin car. Started as an Audi/VW design, but quickly turned into a "Porsche". With the intent of entry level car few purpose designed parts were on it. Most parts were bin parts from VW, Audi, the 911 and of course the rear tranny design was borrowed from the in work 928. Then when the 944 came along the 944 got its engine as a left over from the 928 V8. Lots of development went into the 928 engine and once Porsche found that a 4cyl version fit in the 924 engine bay and provided reasonble hp that was natural choice. As a result the 944 is really saddled with a low RPM motor design. The #2 rod bearing problem is really a direct result of the 928 engine development. Since it was to be a "low rpm" motor I don't believe all the oiling was worked out for sustained RPM use. Same with the head design. In the 928 development having highflow head and high rpm valve train was ditched since it was to be a low RPM motor.
So those weak spots in the 944 motor are direct result of the 928 development plans. The reason Porsche never optimized the 944 engine internals is simple. 1/2 of the 928 motor provided enough HP to meet the the target marked hp levels by doing simple "tuner tricks" like headers and intake. So no need to redesign the combustion chambers, valve sizes, or redesign for "high RPM" when what was easy provided ennouhg hp for the market.
Of course when more hp was needed they turbo'ed the car first and then when to 16v again as an offshoot of the 928 16v engine design.
Remember also that from a market Persepective the 928 was the Flagship of the Porsche line and always occupied that level. The 944 was either entry level or mid-range at best. The fact that the "mid-range" 944 Turbo is so potent is marvel of design over marketing. My "expensive" 944 Turbo S was 47k when new, but the 924S4 was some 70k new. What that 20k got you over the 951 was not so much speed as comfort and luxury. In 1988 if you wanted a fast Porsche you had 3 options.
Classic & Raw 930
Fast and Balanced = 944 Turbo S
Fast and Luxurious = 928S4
Really today is no different. What a raw hair beast? Get 930!
Want a fast and balanced machine ? Get 944 Turbo
Want speed with luxury and comfort? Get the 928.
Want a drag strip car? Get Mustang or a Camaro.
couldnt have said it better myself
bottem line. There is no replacement for displacement. A larger engine will make more power with less effort...plain and simple. To get 400rwhp outta a 928 with a turbo is alot easier than outta a 951. Hence why your making upper 300's to the wheels on 6psi. The results speak for themselves.
by the way guys we are all friends here no need to get defensive. I love the 928 its a great GT car. I also love the 951 its a fun nimble car.
928-to the resturant in style
951-to the track.
I'll take both in a turbo application please
03-29-2006, 03:16 AM
#57
TRB0 GUY
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Daphne, AL
Posts: 3,769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good posts, you guys. Very well said, Joe!
There are still a few 928s racing out there. I know of one in particluar that still is avidly club raced. It actually was featured in a 1999 issue of Excellence, and right now is sporting a 6.0l stroker with a blower on it. It tops the scales at 2800ish, and has a pretty slick aero setup on it.
There are a few more out there, but the fact is that you don't see many because that's just not what the car was ever intended for.
That being said, I'm a big fan of 5-spd sharks... I wonder if Normy is watching this thread. His Euro "S2" is a slick beast. I still remember watching Melbourne, FL bystandards jump with his pipe-ignition at the light.brrWWAAAAHH--- BAM!! Ahhh, good times.
There are still a few 928s racing out there. I know of one in particluar that still is avidly club raced. It actually was featured in a 1999 issue of Excellence, and right now is sporting a 6.0l stroker with a blower on it. It tops the scales at 2800ish, and has a pretty slick aero setup on it.
There are a few more out there, but the fact is that you don't see many because that's just not what the car was ever intended for.
That being said, I'm a big fan of 5-spd sharks... I wonder if Normy is watching this thread. His Euro "S2" is a slick beast. I still remember watching Melbourne, FL bystandards jump with his pipe-ignition at the light.brrWWAAAAHH--- BAM!! Ahhh, good times.
03-29-2006, 06:12 PM
#59
Hi I have an 86 951 with to4b, 3 lindsey exhaust, guru map, lindsey wastegate. The car is awsome and love every minute of it. I just bought an 1986.5 auto 928 for a daily driver and was impressed. Unfortunately on St. Patricks it was totalled. I just bought a perfect 87 928s4 5speed. Wow what an incredible car. The v8 is very impessive and the five speed makes all the difference. I am going to supercharge or turbo it, this car definitely deserves it. I will say in my opinion that in stock form the 5 speed 928s4 is faster than a stock 951, or at least it feels that way. I can say I never really liked the 928 until I drove one and I was instantly converted. I actually drive the 928 much more.