User 52121

That's just because all your cars are equipped with fancy devices to hold them down to the earth. Otherwise they'd float up into space, what with you guys being upside down and all. Those devices HAVE to be expensive.



Completely agree. I think this happens a LOT. It's pretty common here to find running 944t's for $5-6k. I saw a bunch of them back when I was shopping for mine. All owned by guys who bought it because it was a "cheap Porsche." They fall into the scenario you describe, and fail to acknowledge that it was once a $40,000 car.... and $40,000 cars come with $40,000 car maintenance expenses. They want to drive it like they drive their Civic. Gas and oil in it for 100k. Maybe they read up a little, find out the timing belt has regular service intervals, take it into a shop and find out it's a $1,500 job... and decide they'd rather spend that money on chips and exhaust. Or cool rims. Maybe a big turbo and a boost controller so they can turn the boost way up (on pump gas of course) and chase down their friend with the Evo. I looked at a couple like this back when I was still shopping for mine - cars had worn out suspension, unknown maintenance, drove down the road like a frickin' death trap - but it had chips, boost controller set to 18psi, no gauges other than boost, Lindsey exhaust... and all the seller could really tell me was, "It's a ROCKET! It's a *turbo* Porsche!!"

Ditto - same here.

Carlsbergas

i was like this at the first few weeks of my ownership, then i had some time to chill out and read while i was on vacation in europe, i got called dumb, and insane by you guys, but that only helped me to understand what this car is all about, maintanance comes first then the goodies, not alot of youngsters like me are intrested in these cars espcialy to work on, but i love to work on mine, geting the car up to shape is the most rewarding thing, btw for People saying: "its a 944 its a poor mans porsche" my answer is this "yes its a poor mans porsche because owning one and maintaining it makes you poor"

DirkSx1

Judge for yourself, read the 1988 article about a test drive in a factory supplied 944 Turbo.

lee101315

Do you have a link to it?

DirkSx1

The article is attached to the message as a PDF file. Just select , press and the article will be downloaded

EVOMMM

I feel the same way about my black 944T/S great article thanks for the awesome read
Mike
now where's my keys

Voith

Nice pdf, Thanks!

Paulyy

I feel that every car is detuned. or most cars with turbos can be tuned for more power.

the 996 turbo for example, after a new tune, you can push another 80hp out of it with a tune alone.

A car running everything at its limits won't last as long when it's not running at it's limits

Chris White

My solution is simple....bad drivers should not try and drive fast. The original 930 just helped to clear out the bad driver gene pool as fast as possible!

lee101315

Yes, Mr. Darwin reincarnated himself into the 930 to thin the herd....

That's a car I always drive with respect and concentration, just like a sport bike.

lart951

as much as darwin's spirit was vested upon the 930, I also know that Ray Charles himself contributed to the design of the 928

Dash01

Some years back, about 30 water-cooled Porsche guys ratraced about 500 miles through southern British Columbia, at high speed. One guy (Bryan) ran his 944 Turbo to top speed, to see how fast it would go. 162 mph, as I recall There were about 15-18 944 Turbos of one age or another, a few NA 944s, and about half dozen 928s. At the start of the day, the 928 guys seemed pretty cocky. By lunch, not so much. By the end of the day, it was obvious that the 944 Turbo was hands-down the best of the lot, more agile, faster, far better at altitude, more economical on fuel. All that extra weight and bulk on a 928 is just excess baggage.

993GT

+996
And for the forum, I agree the 951 is a great car, and currently the best bang-for-buck Porsche, but putting down all other Porsche's/cars doesn't make it any better...anyone who says a 911/911TT/930/etc is 'bad' handling chassis clearly isn't a true driver or hasn't experienced one in person, they are very talented and nimble chassis where the 951 is very balanced and neutral in character, very different but both strong in different regards/driving styles.
now to unsubscribe, the thread updates make me embarrassed to be a (now-ex)951 owner...

Dash01

Well, I wish I could afford a brand new Porsche, including the rear engine models.

Regardless of price and factory fine tuning of the 911 series, the laws of physics are basically irreconcilable with two basic facts about such cars: First, putting a large mass at the back end of the car (especially behind the rear axle) is inherently unstable: It's like putting a large and heavy mass at the back end of an arrow--which will try and swap ends midflight given much disturbance. Second, air cooling can only do so much to extract heat from the innards of the engine. To do that efficiently you must reach down into the engine and pull the heat out and put it where it can efficiently dissipate. Otherwise, you must waste fuel with over-rich mixture in a vain attempt at evaporative cooling. The weight saved in coolant is many times eclipsed by the extra weight and cost of fuel otherwise wasted in cooling. Both issues are ancient debates in aircraft design.

As for detuning the 944 Turbo, consider also the ongoing parallel with water-cooled and mid-engined Cayman vs. 911 cars. Factory people have effectively admitted that Porsche detunes the less expensive Cayman rather than eclipse the more expensive but more profitable 911 series cars, which are Porsche's habitual cash cow to be very profitably milked as long as people pay bigger bucks for otherwise inferior cars. That's apparently what much of the buyer pool still wants (logic and physics notwithstanding), and Porsche may be more than happy to overcharge for it.

As for being a "true driver," given variables such as weather and road conditions, it seems to me the designers should produce cars as easy and predicable to drive as possible. There are parallels in aviation, where the best fighter planes are those easiest, most predictable, and most intuitive to fly. There are enough unknown variables to deal with without having to fight with your own plane. Same story with inherently unstable car design. Notice that the best high performance cars such as Ferrari, Lotus, McLaren, etc. have not gone the unstable rear-engine route of the 911 cars, which started out and remain essentially VW bugs.

Chris White

Maybe you haven't driven either design on the track - but here is a general tip;

Unstable can also mean quick to turn in, easy to rotate and generally responsive (in the right hands)
Stable can also mean slow to turn in, not responsive to trail braking and, in general, just too stable to be quick.

Now obviously I like the 944 chassis but to say that cars that have anything other than a 50/50 weight distribution are 'bad' is just not true. Unless you have driven a well set up 911 at the track you just are just recycling internet 'intelligence'.

BTW - the reason I say at the track is that you cannot get anywhere near the capabilities of a well set up 944 or 911 on the street. Ask anybody that has had the chance to drive around the track in a Porsche - they will all agree that the limit is not approachable on the street.