87' 951 or 88' 944 S turbo/ 951 S
08-02-2002, 07:10 PM
#16
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bryan,
I'd have to go with TonyG on this. I guess that's because that's what I did with my car.
'88 non S purchased for $6000. My signature reveals about $4000 in upgrades. The car is pretty functional on the track, and I've got a spare $5000 to go racing.
I'd have to go with TonyG on this. I guess that's because that's what I did with my car.
'88 non S purchased for $6000. My signature reveals about $4000 in upgrades. The car is pretty functional on the track, and I've got a spare $5000 to go racing.
08-03-2002, 03:56 AM
#17
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Performance figures: Go find me a stock US turboS that turns those numbers and I'll buy it sight unseen. Everyone should be aware those numbers were turned out by a euro turboS with an optional shorter final drive than US cars"
No kidding- I've never seen a stock 951 EVER that could run a 13.5 (what Porsche's manufactured data normally showed) much less a 13.1! C&D tested one back then WITH the shorter FD and got a 13.9, so even w/the shorter gearing, the quoted 13.5 by Porsche was highly optimistic- think about it- the power to weigh ratios just don't add up AND EVERYONE knows these cars have trouble launching- add that together w/tires that are little small to be in the low 13 league, and it's not hard to see. I'm not grilling anyone though- I know those stats were just copied from some place- the TQ spec was wrong too though- I've always seen 258- and when dynoed, the dif becomes even more. The turbo itself is actually worth about 10HP and not really much TQ at all- the chips and slightly higher boost were the rest, which are moot points if you plan to use better, more modern, aftermarket chips anyway.
As for the buy an '86 idea- if you don't care about ABS, then that's decent advice, but if you want ABS, and still want to track it, then buy an '87 w/both the LSD and ABS options, OR, just the ABS- as someone else already mentioned, there are better LSD's avaiable now anyway- hell, even the 968 had both the ZF and Torsen to choose from in '92 and dropped the ZF for '93 and up...
Still, lot's of good info and advice in this thread- it really comes down to the specific car in question (asking price, etc) IMO. For a good enough price vs condition, I wouldn't let ANY of the years turn me away...
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
No kidding- I've never seen a stock 951 EVER that could run a 13.5 (what Porsche's manufactured data normally showed) much less a 13.1! C&D tested one back then WITH the shorter FD and got a 13.9, so even w/the shorter gearing, the quoted 13.5 by Porsche was highly optimistic- think about it- the power to weigh ratios just don't add up AND EVERYONE knows these cars have trouble launching- add that together w/tires that are little small to be in the low 13 league, and it's not hard to see. I'm not grilling anyone though- I know those stats were just copied from some place- the TQ spec was wrong too though- I've always seen 258- and when dynoed, the dif becomes even more. The turbo itself is actually worth about 10HP and not really much TQ at all- the chips and slightly higher boost were the rest, which are moot points if you plan to use better, more modern, aftermarket chips anyway.
As for the buy an '86 idea- if you don't care about ABS, then that's decent advice, but if you want ABS, and still want to track it, then buy an '87 w/both the LSD and ABS options, OR, just the ABS- as someone else already mentioned, there are better LSD's avaiable now anyway- hell, even the 968 had both the ZF and Torsen to choose from in '92 and dropped the ZF for '93 and up...
Still, lot's of good info and advice in this thread- it really comes down to the specific car in question (asking price, etc) IMO. For a good enough price vs condition, I wouldn't let ANY of the years turn me away...
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
08-04-2002, 02:09 AM
#18
Unaffiliated
More food for thought:
How many people would actually go out and add those 5K in mods to a non-s Turbo? OK, lots of you out there in Rennlistland, but in the real world, not many. I track a turbo S, (8 years now) and let me tell you, the combination of ABS, limited slip, more HP, and the S brakes is a huge advantage over a non-S car. I've never seen a Turbo S have brake problems at a drivers ed, but guys I've run with who have the stock Turbo brakes (in the faster run groups) are constantly bleeding and having other problems.
For the average (weekend use with some track fun) owner, the S is a heck of a deal and a step up in almost all catagories. As the original question said, if money is no object.. There is no argument.
I'll take it one step further and say that my TS running on Hoosiers with stock suspension (just camberplates) and some healthy engine mods (280HP at the wheels) runs in A group at the drivers eds, and is yet to be passed by another 4 cyl Pcar. ('cept you, CUZ!) I've still got my full interior and hang with full gutted race 951s. Yes, there are some highly modded non S's, and I'll be the first to admit driver makes all the diff. (Tires too) My point is the S's are a HIGHLY competent track car in nearly stock form. Porsche built them that way for just that purpose.
The S's are more car, which should be desirable unless you actually want less car, which very well may be the case if you want to start from scratch.
Lotsa good info in this thread..
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
How many people would actually go out and add those 5K in mods to a non-s Turbo? OK, lots of you out there in Rennlistland, but in the real world, not many. I track a turbo S, (8 years now) and let me tell you, the combination of ABS, limited slip, more HP, and the S brakes is a huge advantage over a non-S car. I've never seen a Turbo S have brake problems at a drivers ed, but guys I've run with who have the stock Turbo brakes (in the faster run groups) are constantly bleeding and having other problems.
For the average (weekend use with some track fun) owner, the S is a heck of a deal and a step up in almost all catagories. As the original question said, if money is no object.. There is no argument.
I'll take it one step further and say that my TS running on Hoosiers with stock suspension (just camberplates) and some healthy engine mods (280HP at the wheels) runs in A group at the drivers eds, and is yet to be passed by another 4 cyl Pcar. ('cept you, CUZ!) I've still got my full interior and hang with full gutted race 951s. Yes, there are some highly modded non S's, and I'll be the first to admit driver makes all the diff. (Tires too) My point is the S's are a HIGHLY competent track car in nearly stock form. Porsche built them that way for just that purpose.
The S's are more car, which should be desirable unless you actually want less car, which very well may be the case if you want to start from scratch.
Lotsa good info in this thread..
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
08-04-2002, 04:02 PM
#20
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry Tony- I just edited what I wrote- I got your reply mixed up w/Christian's- read point #9 in his reply... As I said though- I realize it was just copied info anyway, so I hope that even HE doesn't believe a stock Turbo S would run 13.1- even the 13.5 quotes were highly optimistic, even w/the shorter FD that many used in Europe. Oh well- 5.4 to 60 is possible, as many of them DID run 5.5, but the shorter gearing wouldn't help there anyway since the shift into 3rd comes right before 60 to reverse any advantage one might have recieved.
BTW Tony- have you ever actually driven a 951 w/that suspension set-up you mentioned (Huntley coil-over at all 4 wheels)? Would it be nice on the street?
Also, despite the fact that in the end, the non-S would be exactly even w/the S- exact same potential- stock vs stock, the Turbo s blew it away around tracks- I have a test where Derek Bell ran a Turbo S around Willow Springs in the normal 1:41 time (that's what all the tests showed for pro test pilots at WS)- he had run a regular turbo there the year before and it had been 5 seconds slower
He also stated that the regular Turbo felt MUCh twitchier and more unstable while doing it. This put's the regular turbo right beside a Jetta VR6, SVT Contour, Eagle Talon AWD Turbo, etc.
Also, a 968 was tested there as part of a comparison test for R&T w/Supra TT, RX-7TT, 300ZXTT, 3000GTVR4, & C4 Vette- the 968 was a CS w/LSD and 17's M030, etc- it ran a 1:43.something as the second slowest car there that day- other than the 3000GTVR4- the 300ZXTT was a hair slower than a Turbo S while the RX-7 was a second faster- the Vette was a hair below 1:40 and the Supra blew them ALL away at a 1:38! Of course, according to Danno, who runs the track regularly, it is mostly a "power track" which would make some sense. Also, the dyno's have always shown a much bigger dif b/t TQ and HP on the Turbo s AND both a decent bit higher (more than the factory flywheel #'s would suggest) than the normal Turbo. This based on the ones I've seen, so it would seem that the TQ of the S was slightly underated- this, again, doesn't matter too much if one plans to do any mods, like simple chips for instance...
BTW Tony- have you ever actually driven a 951 w/that suspension set-up you mentioned (Huntley coil-over at all 4 wheels)? Would it be nice on the street?
Also, despite the fact that in the end, the non-S would be exactly even w/the S- exact same potential- stock vs stock, the Turbo s blew it away around tracks- I have a test where Derek Bell ran a Turbo S around Willow Springs in the normal 1:41 time (that's what all the tests showed for pro test pilots at WS)- he had run a regular turbo there the year before and it had been 5 seconds slower
He also stated that the regular Turbo felt MUCh twitchier and more unstable while doing it. This put's the regular turbo right beside a Jetta VR6, SVT Contour, Eagle Talon AWD Turbo, etc. Also, a 968 was tested there as part of a comparison test for R&T w/Supra TT, RX-7TT, 300ZXTT, 3000GTVR4, & C4 Vette- the 968 was a CS w/LSD and 17's M030, etc- it ran a 1:43.something as the second slowest car there that day- other than the 3000GTVR4- the 300ZXTT was a hair slower than a Turbo S while the RX-7 was a second faster- the Vette was a hair below 1:40 and the Supra blew them ALL away at a 1:38!
Of course, according to Danno, who runs the track regularly, it is mostly a "power track" which would make some sense. Also, the dyno's have always shown a much bigger dif b/t TQ and HP on the Turbo s AND both a decent bit higher (more than the factory flywheel #'s would suggest) than the normal Turbo. This based on the ones I've seen, so it would seem that the TQ of the S was slightly underated- this, again, doesn't matter too much if one plans to do any mods, like simple chips for instance...
08-04-2002, 05:36 PM
#21
Rennlist Junkie Forever
Your points are well taken.
But...
With respect to racing, again, the modified non S car would be much much faster around not only a track, but much faster on the street. Again... for about the same price.
You have to drive one of these cars that's modified. They are SOOOOO fast, it's silly. Probably too fast for the street. I know mine is so fast that it's dangerous to drive full throttle, on the street, in anything but 3,4, and 5th gears. 1 & 2 are a wreck waiting to happen...
They [the modified cars] come on sooner [than the S or even chipped S), and make more HP (and a lot more of it)longer.
The difference is not small... it's HUGE.
So... agreeing with your summary.. if you plan to keep the car stock, then I too would go with a S car. If you're like me, and most of the people on this list who can't keep their hands off things... you'll be upgrading most, if not all of the parts that make the S car an S.
Again... I hate to sound like I'm discounting the S cars. They are the turbo, but better. It's just that with so much on these cars having gained so much age, milage, and wear and tear, it just doesn't make as much sense to go for the S just because it's an S.
TonyG
But...
With respect to racing, again, the modified non S car would be much much faster around not only a track, but much faster on the street. Again... for about the same price.
You have to drive one of these cars that's modified. They are SOOOOO fast, it's silly. Probably too fast for the street. I know mine is so fast that it's dangerous to drive full throttle, on the street, in anything but 3,4, and 5th gears. 1 & 2 are a wreck waiting to happen...
They [the modified cars] come on sooner [than the S or even chipped S), and make more HP (and a lot more of it)longer.
The difference is not small... it's HUGE.
So... agreeing with your summary.. if you plan to keep the car stock, then I too would go with a S car. If you're like me, and most of the people on this list who can't keep their hands off things... you'll be upgrading most, if not all of the parts that make the S car an S.
Again... I hate to sound like I'm discounting the S cars. They are the turbo, but better. It's just that with so much on these cars having gained so much age, milage, and wear and tear, it just doesn't make as much sense to go for the S just because it's an S.
TonyG
08-04-2002, 06:24 PM
#22
Rennlist Junkie Forever
..."have you ever driven the Huntley setup on all 4 corners".
Yes. The handling of these cars is amazing when you dump the stock non S or S suspension.
Huntley has many different setups. From full race/spherical bearings,camber/caster plates, to full street with urethane bushings, factory rubber stuts mounts. Some with non-adjustable, to single adjustable, to double adjustable.
I've just purchased the double adjustable front and slit valve rear for my 951, with urethane bushings and stock rubber strut tops.
Also, if you're going to use coil over setups on the street, you can't go crazy with the spring/damping rates.
The setup that I've got is the double adjustable struts, setup with the inital damping rates fairly soft and 250 lbs springs (about 70lbs-90lbs stiffer than the non S / S), and the split valve rear shocks (meaning that with one ****, you adjust both the compression and rebound together.. vs the Koni setup where you can only adjust the reboud), and 350 lbs springs on the rear.. again with urethane bushings.
This should be stiffer than the S, but much softer than full race....with full adjustablity with respect to ride height w/o having to mess with torsion bars, the ability to adjust both the rebound and compression, easy to change spring rates, and the elimination of the weight of the torsion bars.
Yes. The handling of these cars is amazing when you dump the stock non S or S suspension.
Huntley has many different setups. From full race/spherical bearings,camber/caster plates, to full street with urethane bushings, factory rubber stuts mounts. Some with non-adjustable, to single adjustable, to double adjustable.
I've just purchased the double adjustable front and slit valve rear for my 951, with urethane bushings and stock rubber strut tops.
Also, if you're going to use coil over setups on the street, you can't go crazy with the spring/damping rates.
The setup that I've got is the double adjustable struts, setup with the inital damping rates fairly soft and 250 lbs springs (about 70lbs-90lbs stiffer than the non S / S), and the split valve rear shocks (meaning that with one ****, you adjust both the compression and rebound together.. vs the Koni setup where you can only adjust the reboud), and 350 lbs springs on the rear.. again with urethane bushings.
This should be stiffer than the S, but much softer than full race....with full adjustablity with respect to ride height w/o having to mess with torsion bars, the ability to adjust both the rebound and compression, easy to change spring rates, and the elimination of the weight of the torsion bars.
08-04-2002, 07:31 PM
#23
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony- I agree w/what you're saying w/respect to buying an S just for the sake of haveing an S, assuming you're going to mod it anyway- unless you just find a really good deal on an S, then it's not worth it usually. But, you said the non-S can be made much faster for much less $- I'm sure it can be made faster for less, but, BOTH the S and non-S cars SHOULD have the same end all limit shouldn't they? The only dif should be a couple of pounds- MAYBE 50, and some of that is due to having larger wheels/tires, w/some susp improvements, etc- the ABS isn't much at all, nor are the air baqs- I've pulled my driver one and want to eliminate the passenger one too, soon. If you stripped them both down though, they should weigh the exact same, unless the S received a few extrsa welds, and that would just be a couple of ounces anyway- I'm not sure they did that though- I know the 968 turbo got some extra ones...
08-04-2002, 08:59 PM
#24
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: richmond
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supposedly the S cars have some extra chasis stiffening.
Paul, If one gets good enough with their brakes all the ABS accomplishes is extra weight. You notice that top level race cars do not have ABS.
Paul, If one gets good enough with their brakes all the ABS accomplishes is extra weight. You notice that top level race cars do not have ABS.
08-04-2002, 10:25 PM
#25
Rennlist Junkie Forever
With respect to the "end all"...
Once both cars are upgraded, they both end up at the exact same level .. all things being equal.
Weight differences are trivial due to options.
TonyG
Once both cars are upgraded, they both end up at the exact same level .. all things being equal.
Weight differences are trivial due to options.
TonyG
08-04-2002, 10:26 PM
#26
Rennlist Junkie Forever
Carter..
Yes they are supposed to have "some extra chassis stiffening"... but it can't be much...
I've never been able to feel it, not have I ever been able to see it (or... them).
TonyG
Yes they are supposed to have "some extra chassis stiffening"... but it can't be much...
I've never been able to feel it, not have I ever been able to see it (or... them).
TonyG
08-05-2002, 12:08 AM
#27
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was only a limited number of S cars produced. This means that they will be much more desireable in the future. You can take a 73 911T and pump 40,000 dollars into it, make a better car than a RS or RSR, but guess what, all the money blown through the chimney when you are trying to sell the car.
08-05-2002, 01:27 AM
#28
Rennlist Junkie Forever
There maybe a "limited number produced"... but that number was pretty large. There just are too many, and the mechanical differences are not exactly huge (in 20 years, everything that differentiates the S from the non S would have to have been replaced due to age/milage/wear and tear) , there are no cosmetic differences, and there are no interior differences.
Further, the 951 will never achieve "cult status" that the 911 enjoys...
They [the S vs. the non S] maybe more desirable in the future, which they already are, but they will never bring in the dollar difference that the 911RS brings over the 911S.
Lastly.. the 944 turbo doesn't have the prestigious lineage that the 911 enjoys... "Let's see... this is the evolution of the 924...". Not exactly good.. pretty much embarrassing.
I love these cars, and I've owned 3 of them, and a 968 (I currently own 968 and a 944 turbo as well as other non P cars), but unfortunately, I don't think they will ever bring what a 911S will bring in 20 years, let alone a 911RS. Now... the 968Turbo/968Turbo RS is a different story... THAT was a rare car.
TonyG
Further, the 951 will never achieve "cult status" that the 911 enjoys...
They [the S vs. the non S] maybe more desirable in the future, which they already are, but they will never bring in the dollar difference that the 911RS brings over the 911S.
Lastly.. the 944 turbo doesn't have the prestigious lineage that the 911 enjoys... "Let's see... this is the evolution of the 924...". Not exactly good.. pretty much embarrassing.
I love these cars, and I've owned 3 of them, and a 968 (I currently own 968 and a 944 turbo as well as other non P cars), but unfortunately, I don't think they will ever bring what a 911S will bring in 20 years, let alone a 911RS. Now... the 968Turbo/968Turbo RS is a different story... THAT was a rare car.
TonyG
08-05-2002, 09:25 AM
#29
Unaffiliated
[quote]Originally posted by TonyG:
<strong>(in 20 years, everything that differentiates the S from the non S would have to have been replaced due to age/milage/wear and tear) , and there are no interior differences.
TonyG</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's see, the interior is different because there are additional speakers in the door panels, and I can't imagine replacing the ABS because of age/mileage/ OR wear and tear.
Dan P
89 951
2002 Mini Cooper S
<strong>(in 20 years, everything that differentiates the S from the non S would have to have been replaced due to age/milage/wear and tear) , and there are no interior differences.
TonyG</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's see, the interior is different because there are additional speakers in the door panels, and I can't imagine replacing the ABS because of age/mileage/ OR wear and tear.
Dan P
89 951
2002 Mini Cooper S
08-05-2002, 02:43 PM
#30
Rennlist Junkie Forever
Let's see:
My 1988 turbo with 83K miles nees an ABS brain as we speak. It's shot. ABS doesn't work as a result.
Speakers: The speakers that come in these cars were absolute JUNK when they were new. Now a good percentage of them don't work or have torn paper drivers.
1/2 of the speakers I've removed from all three of my 944 turbos and my 968 didn't work. Of the 1/2 remaining, probably 1/2 of those had the foam rubber surrounding the paper driver rotted out and broken up. Yes those speakers still worked... but they sure didn't sound good.
TonyG
My 1988 turbo with 83K miles nees an ABS brain as we speak. It's shot. ABS doesn't work as a result.
Speakers: The speakers that come in these cars were absolute JUNK when they were new. Now a good percentage of them don't work or have torn paper drivers.
1/2 of the speakers I've removed from all three of my 944 turbos and my 968 didn't work. Of the 1/2 remaining, probably 1/2 of those had the foam rubber surrounding the paper driver rotted out and broken up. Yes those speakers still worked... but they sure didn't sound good.
TonyG