Jfrahm

I have my SC off the car right now, diagnosing an idle problem and getting smogged. I have not driven it much due to the weather and other time constraints. Drove the car today naturally aspirated and I find I am at full throttle a lot more often just getting around on the 45mph-55mph roads around me. With the SC, full throttle is a lot more dramatic and not something you can use all the time.

I've given my impressions elsewhere in this thread so I won't go into detail again here, but I've owned two 951s and prefer this sort of power delivery. The rush of the 951 is fun but the big hole you have to crawl out of while waiting for boost is annoying. I was looking into building a high compression low boost 3.0 turbo to mitigate that lag but the SC is much easier. The SC does not have the HP headroom of the 3.0 turbo but for me that's probably good as I won't keep spending money on it. My budget for the 3.0 was around $20k so this setup is a bargain.

This kit to me really makes the 968 work. Instead of wondering if I should take the fast car or the cabrio, I just pick hardtop or convertible. The cabrio is now as fast if not faster than the 928 and more fun to drive.

A 2.7L 951 is likely to be a lot faster assuming it's tuned properly, 325-350whp is attainable with a 2.7 while this kit is only 285whp or so I think. The 2.7 is probably 2-3x more money though.

-Joel.

odb812

I wasn't trying to turn this into a pissing contest or anything and definitely not trying to put Carl down. The thing is the 968 community seems to have this "We're better than everyone else" attitude from time to time, especially when it comes to 944s. Just because a car one car is older than another or precedes another car in an evolution, does not mean the newer car is faster. I want to keep things realistic here. I'd hope if someone posted that they are going to buy this kit and go out and smoke a 997 GT2 or a Z06 that someone would step in and say a 285whp 968 has no chance at doing this.
If you want to post some speculation about a 2.7 951, go over to the 951 forum and do a search and see what a 2.7 951 does in real life.

Ok, Joel, now imagine you're the guy that put 2-3x more money into a 2.7 turbo and you see people saying that this 285whp 968 supercharger kit produces a faster car. Would you have some motivation to clarify things.

BTW, most of the dynos for 2.7s I've seen have been around if not over 400whp. 325-350 is easily achieved on a 2.5 with bolt-ons and more boost.

Jfrahm

Did someone make such a claim?

Yes I am sure many 2.7 or 2.8L 951s are built for high HP but I know there are some out there that are built conservatively for reliability and torque. My brother had a 2.8L with a 360 kit, I think it had been built for a very modest HP level, maybe 300whp, and at some point he put on a 360HP kit but I do not think the full potential was ever realized. I would not care to guess at the average HP of 2.7L 951s, particularly as the modest builds are probably not bragged about on the internet, but I bet there are a fair few under 350whp.

The 2.8L or 3.0L might be a better comparison as the stroke would boost torque.

If there is any point to this thread direction it would be to compare 951s built with a wider torque curve in mind to the supercharged 968. My plan for the 968 turbo cab was something like a K27/8 turbo or similar making 325whp out of an 8v 3.0. I never built the thing but I imagine the current supercharger setup has better low end but less top end, straightforward installation, and 1/4 the cost. Much quicker to get it running also.

A clean V8 swap might be a better solution for me but that's pretty expensive and the timeline is quite long. I can't afford the time or money right now and I'm still not sure the V8 car would not irritate me when I was done with the swap. A better option might be a twinscrew 968 kit, which would cost 10 grand and maybe require a hood blister. If someone makes one of these please call me in a couple years and we'll see how my stocks are doing.

In the meantime, the SC delivers the goods and takes the car from the slowest in my stable to maybe the fastest or at least in the game. That'll do. If I wanted it to catch my Ducati I should expect to bring another twenty grand and a year of building.

-Joel.

odb812

Good point and good post time btw.

Another member made the claim. I wasn't trying to direct that part of the message at you but it certainly sounded so.

I think the thing that upsets me is it seems like someone said a "951 could never be as fast as a supercharged 968, it needs more *****, but a 3.0 turbo 951 would would be much faster, so lets just split the difference and say 2.7," no knowing anything about what it takes to build a 2.7 turbo or what a 2.7 turbo can do. I've seen charts with over double the horsepower out of a 2.5, there is no need to bring up the 2.7. Someone figured if the 951 with a larger displacement was faster than the supercharged 968, it wouldn't be as hard on the 968 ego as if a 2.5 with just boltons out performed the 968.

There are plenty of other factors here like price and ease of installation and everything, I'm just talking about performance. I'm putting a Vitesse stage 2 kit on my 951 and it is going to add about the same amount of power over what the car currently has as Carl's kit adds to a stock 968. The kit also costs pretty close to what Carl's kit costs. The VR kit requires a lot of other parts that I've had to order over the past few weeks where Carl's kit seems to be complete. Also, I'm going to be under my car cussing and bleeding while the guy who started his 968 supercharger install at the same time as me has already testdriven his car and is drinking beers and laughing at me. There are plenty of other factors that swing this debate either way, but when it comes to performance, the 951 is no joke.

Jfrahm

Did someone actually say anything like what you are arguing? All I saw was this:

"[Originally Posted by rgs944] I would like to see how a SC 968 compares to a 2.7L 951. Has anyone had both cars for comparison? My 944's have been NA's so the 968 feels real fast to me without the SC."

All I recall was that people pointed out a 951 can be built to make more HP for less money than this SC kit can provide, so you may be arguing with no one about something that has not been said. Then again this is the internet so please carry on. :-)

-Joel.

Highlander2

I agree with most of your comments, though I believe to get more out of a 951 you need to do more than change the turbo, such as changing to an upgraded head gasket and wastegate, so I´m not sure that the cost will be lower. My point was that this thread was a discussion as to what was the value of Carl´s product to existing 968 owners. If you want to compare the performance of this kit to a tuned 951, it should be done in another thread, where you can compare actual output vs actual cost, real data, rather than a hearsay discussion. Personally I don´t care if my 968 is faster than a 951 or a 997. I want my car to be the fastest I can make it on the road, and also on occasional track days without going to a full race car. Something that I can use every day but still enjoy on the track, having also upgraded the suspension and the brakes.

H2

odb812

That's precisely what I am arguing. I'm not trying to say the 951 is better, I'm not trying to say that turbos are better, I'm not trying to put anyone's products down. All I am saying is comparing a 2.7l 951 to a supercharged 968 is a dumb comparison.

Let's compare real data. Last week I put down within 8hp and 8ft-lbs of Carl's dyno with a stock head gasket and a stock turbo with boost leaks and a destroyed BOV. I replaced the BOV and I'll bet right now I'm around 300whp. There are plenty of other people who have put down some impressive numbers on stock turbos. I encourage you to search the turbo forum before you give us advise on what can or cannot be achieved on a 951.

If someone posts something that is inaccurate/dumb, I'm going to address it then and there, not start another thread about it. I wasn't trying to take this on a tangent of cost/performance at the end of my last post, but it sounds like I'm saying hands down the 951 is better and that I'm flaming on Carl's kit, which is not the case, and I wanted to show the other side of things.

John Etnier

548 posts and coming soon...

Jfrahm

Maybe the person who posted that request:

Doesn't know a 951 is only 2.5L stock
Doesn't know a 2.7L build is quite expensive and likely very fast

odb812

You had to give it away, John. I was only a few more posts from dropping the Adolf bomb.

Well this person has shown an interest in 951s recently and could not take the advise that he received over on the 951 forum.

So just because someone is ignorant about something, anyone who tries to correct it is totally out of line? I guess I'll just keep my mouth shut next time.

SpeedBump

Even for the 968 community this is one of the stupider thread derailments I've seen of a forum sponsor's product development and announcement threads.
Apologies to Carl once again for what is going to be my contribution to the derailment.

Smartest thing you've posted in this thread. You created an issue where there wasn't one. Chip on your shoulder?

Considering that I would guess at least 1/2 of the 968 people here either had a 944 before the 968 or still have one that's pretty damn funny. I did not own a 944 but did have a 911 before the 968s and a 914 before the 911 so I'm use to driving VWs and Audi under the P name. At least people know what a 944 is.

My recommendation is to take one of these and stay away from the internet for awhile.

ernie9468

+1 & my hat to Carl for coming up with something decent that you can live with on a daily basis ,LOL 80% of us wouldn't know what to do with 400-500 hp. So let's clear the BS here & get back on track for people who are really interested by what Carl has achieve.

odb812

Mark, I've been a member of the 968 community for 7 years. I've met you at Hershey a few times. I know that most 968 owners have had 944s and my statement about the "we're better than everyone else" attitude is from my observations in the community over the last 7 years.

There may be a chip on my shoulder but that's because it's not necessary for the peanut gallery to argue points that I am not making. I had a problem with one thing that one person said and I quoted that statement and posed my correction. It would not have snowballed into this fiasco had everyone else not chimed in with arguments to points that I was not even addressing.

I know the community is stoked that someone is finally making a new part for the 968 but we can still be analytical about things. The forums are for us, not the sponsors. The sponsors can advertise elsewhere, this place is a technical forum and I am participating in a technical discussion. I've said in almost every post that I have nothing against Carl or his kit.

SpeedBump

Todd if you've met me you know I am an *** but you made a mountain out of a molehill. Someone who has not had the pleasure of driving a boosted 944 or 968 has every reason to wonder about a comparison. Personally I would not know what was standard in a 951, a 2.5 or 2.7, but I don't own one, never have had a desire to own own and never will own one.** That stuff just makes me think of the part of Mr.Mom where they talk about voltage in the house
Ron Richardson: Yeah? Are you gonna make it all 220?
Jack Butler: Yeah. 220... 221, whatever it takes.


Might see you again at a 968 gathering if my wife let's me borrow her car or if I ever put mine back together again.

** Not because I'm better than the 944 people but I just like the 968 styling and don't like the 944 styling much which is the exact opposite of many 944 people.

odb812

See Mark, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I made one comment about one post and then came back a couple days later and I've got everyone here flaming on me. I didn't really make the mountain, I made the mole hill and all the comments about my post grew it into a mountain.

I get what you are saying about not knowing about the other cars, but the guy who made the comparison in the first place already tried to compare the 968 to the 951 in a thread on the 951 forum and I guess he didn't like the answer he got. It's one thing to not know something. It's another thing to ask something, be given an answer, and then ask the question in a different way to a different audience hoping for a different response-which I find to be undermining and insulting to the people who were asked in the first place. (ie. Kid: Mommy can I go out and play? Mommy: No. Kid: Daddy, can I go out and play)

I'm not really buying the "he may not have known the displacement of a 951" argument because why else would he need to specify a 2.7 951 instead of just saying a 951.

Each of my posts I provide some sort of facts gained by my experience owning and working on these cars. Most of the arguments against my posts are just speculations and don't provide any technical insight, but I'm the one deteriorating this technical discussion and full of bs. Maybe if I searched the web for pictures that make someone else look like they are out of line and post them up I'll be making a worthwhile contribution to the community.

Maybe I'll see you at Hershey this year, I'll have both cars in my sig there.

BTW everyone may be telling me to calm down, but I have no bad blood towards any of you. This is a discussion and people are not going to agree on things, it's nothing to hold a grudge over.