944 S2 increasing in value?
Discussion
GC8 said:
Yes, fuel economy is they only aspect of S2 ownership which is superior to Turbo ownership. I get about 18mpg if Im lucky...
Not the only aspect, I was looking at both S2's and Turbo S's/89-91 Turbo, however, I found the Pro's to be in the S2's favor, the Turbo packed a punch in a straight line, however, it lacked the throttle response of the S2 and after about a year of research and talking to owners, it did transpire that the turbos really suffer in the reliability department compared to the S2, whereas the S2s are pretty much get in and go any day of the week.With a de-cat and chip, 240bhp from the S2 is realistic, the chip that most people add really smooths out the acceleration as well and makes it a very nice drive, plus with the slightly lighter weight and shorter ration gearing there isn't much between a turbo and an S2 on the road, on the track though, the turbo would have it.
The way I saw it was if you are after something to keep unmolested and take for a blast out on the sunny days(or everyday if you want), go for the S2, if you want something that you can modify and have a bit of a trackday car, go for the Turbo S/89-91 Turbo.
Marc p said:
Not the only aspect, I was looking at both S2's and Turbo S's/89-91 Turbo, however, I found the Pro's to be in the S2's favor, the Turbo packed a punch in a straight line, however, it lacked the throttle response of the S2 and after about a year of research and talking to owners, it did transpire that the turbos really suffer in the reliability department compared to the S2, whereas the S2s are pretty much get in and go any day of the week.
With a de-cat and chip, 240bhp from the S2 is realistic, the chip that most people add really smooths out the acceleration as well and makes it a very nice drive, plus with the slightly lighter weight and shorter ration gearing there isn't much between a turbo and an S2 on the road, on the track though, the turbo would have it.
The way I saw it was if you are after something to keep unmolested and take for a blast out on the sunny days(or everyday if you want), go for the S2, if you want something that you can modify and have a bit of a trackday car, go for the Turbo S/89-91 Turbo.
With a de-cat and chip, 240bhp from the S2 is realistic, the chip that most people add really smooths out the acceleration as well and makes it a very nice drive, plus with the slightly lighter weight and shorter ration gearing there isn't much between a turbo and an S2 on the road, on the track though, the turbo would have it.
The way I saw it was if you are after something to keep unmolested and take for a blast out on the sunny days(or everyday if you want), go for the S2, if you want something that you can modify and have a bit of a trackday car, go for the Turbo S/89-91 Turbo.
and I cant remember hearing of anyone changing a chipped Turbo for an S2 to use on the road and saying it was a better car. As for the reliability comment, the only part that has failed in 5 years on my turbo is a £70 fuel pressure regulator. Also the Turbo S was only made in 1988.Alex said:
DC2 0-60 6.7, 0-100 16.8, 145mph max.
So, on paper the 944 S2 is quicker in a straight line. However, what the ITR has, and I choose my words carefully, is an astonishing chassis and exceptional brakes, out of the box.
I owned an Accord Type-R and after a BMW 330i. On paper the Accord was slower than the 330i, but in reality it covered ground quicker.So, on paper the 944 S2 is quicker in a straight line. However, what the ITR has, and I choose my words carefully, is an astonishing chassis and exceptional brakes, out of the box.
The Honda was a lot faster than the on paper numbers suggested and i'm fairly confident that Honda's top speed was conservative.
I think the point is, and it is a bit like the Golf GTI MK2 8 valve versus 16 valve argument, that the S2 has its virtues and so does the Turbo, a Turbo is more powerful but it doesnt mean the S2 isnt a nice engine and possibly easier to live with. I am not bothered either way, I like my S2, it is generally plenty fast enough for what it is being a cab, a turbo cab is way to expensive and rare and I want another open car having now had one. I suspect I may mothball the 944 as most owners seem to regret selling them, and for three to four grand it isnt worth me selling it.
I have a hankering for a TVR, buy a Chimaera and you get exactly the same debate between 4.0 owners and 5.0 owners.
Anywqay, fellow 944 owners, please big up all variants so prices do go up, so yes, they are all awesome and way way better than an Escort fitted with a Transit van engine (safe to say that now as most people know that the 944 engines were all Porsche units that were never fitted to a VW van) that sell for vast sums these days.
I cant understand how Capri 2.8s go for more than a 944, nice though they are.
I have a hankering for a TVR, buy a Chimaera and you get exactly the same debate between 4.0 owners and 5.0 owners.
Anywqay, fellow 944 owners, please big up all variants so prices do go up, so yes, they are all awesome and way way better than an Escort fitted with a Transit van engine (safe to say that now as most people know that the 944 engines were all Porsche units that were never fitted to a VW van) that sell for vast sums these days.
I cant understand how Capri 2.8s go for more than a 944, nice though they are.
Edited by J4CKO on Wednesday 19th June 11:51
Alex said:
HAB said:
SidewaysSi said:
Are you sure re. the ITR? Very different cars but I would not say there is much in straight line performance. Which has the better engine and is the better drive is up for debate.
S2 0-60 6.0, 0-100 15.5, 150max. Great midrange too. Pretty sure this is a bit quicker than an ITR?So, on paper the 944 S2 is quicker in a straight line. However, what the ITR has, and I choose my words carefully, is an astonishing chassis and exceptional brakes, out of the box.
On a fast track like Silverstone I'd expect a 944S2 to at least match a 328i BMW.
Similarly at somewhere like Combe ( per chicanes ) I'd have thought an S2 would have matched, at least, a Z3 2.8 which nearly matched the DC2 ( 8/100ths of a second behind )
I think a track like Cadwell might favour an ITR more though
blade7 said:
and I cant remember hearing of anyone changing a chipped Turbo for an S2 to use on the road and saying it was a better car. As for the reliability comment, the only part that has failed in 5 years on my turbo is a £70 fuel pressure regulator. Also the Turbo S was only made in 1988.It's down to personal preference, but to say the Turbo is a better car is poppycock in my opinion, neither is better, they both have strengths and weaknesses and the fact that they are of similar pricing in the classifieds, the market also seems to think the same.
I don't know what the 'Turbo S was only made in 1988' comment was about, I know that, I was saying that I was looking at Turbo S's AND the 1989-1991 Turbo's(which is where the Turbo came with the Turbo S power as standard), as I was looking at the higher output Turbo, no point in looking at the earlier turbos which churn out similar power to the N/A S2(In my opinion, obviously varies for others)
Marc p said:
GC8 said:
Yes, fuel economy is they only aspect of S2 ownership which is superior to Turbo ownership. I get about 18mpg if Im lucky...
Not the only aspect, I was looking at both S2's and Turbo S's/89-91 Turbo, however, I found the Pro's to be in the S2's favor, the Turbo packed a punch in a straight line, however, it lacked the throttle response of the S2 and after about a year of research and talking to owners, it did transpire that the turbos really suffer in the reliability department compared to the S2, whereas the S2s are pretty much get in and go any day of the week.With a de-cat and chip, 240bhp from the S2 is realistic, the chip that most people add really smooths out the acceleration as well and makes it a very nice drive, plus with the slightly lighter weight and shorter ration gearing there isn't much between a turbo and an S2 on the road, on the track though, the turbo would have it.
The way I saw it was if you are after something to keep unmolested and take for a blast out on the sunny days(or everyday if you want), go for the S2, if you want something that you can modify and have a bit of a trackday car, go for the Turbo S/89-91 Turbo.
With regards to values: S2 prices are firming up, but there are plenty of them. 944 Turbos are far less common and it is their values which will rise first, I think.
I think a lot of comparisons are a bit skewed anyway, one of the Turbos advantages is easily available additional power, I cant imagine that many are still standard so if you get from a an old school turbo car with the boost turned up and god knows what else done into a N/A car with only two thirds the power of course it will feel a lot slower.
I do think that Turbos tend to be more expensive though, there arent that many out there and some quite ropey ones seem to go up at very strong money.
I do think that Turbos tend to be more expensive though, there arent that many out there and some quite ropey ones seem to go up at very strong money.
J4CKO said:
I cant understand how Capri 2.8s go for more than a 944, nice though they are.
It's either :-a. more people want one
b. there are less 2.8 Capris than 944s
I suspect only the best 2.8 Capris go for more than some 944s though
Same reasons as E30 M3s sell for more than S2s perhaps? Same era, same performance.....just less want for the 944
It's why I bought a 309 Gti rather than a 205 years back..... 309 cost much less because of the looks.
There's loads of examples, just take advantage to get the bargains Jacko!
s m said:
J4CKO said:
I cant understand how Capri 2.8s go for more than a 944, nice though they are.
It's either :-a. more people want one
b. there are less 2.8 Capris than 944s
I suspect only the best 2.8 Capris go for more than some 944s though
Same reasons as E30 M3s sell for more than S2s perhaps? Same era, same performance.....just less want for the 944
It's why I bought a 309 Gti rather than a 205 years back..... 309 cost much less because of the looks.
There's loads of examples, just take advantage to get the bargains Jacko!
J4CKO said:
s m said:
J4CKO said:
I cant understand how Capri 2.8s go for more than a 944, nice though they are.
It's either :-a. more people want one
b. there are less 2.8 Capris than 944s
I suspect only the best 2.8 Capris go for more than some 944s though
Same reasons as E30 M3s sell for more than S2s perhaps? Same era, same performance.....just less want for the 944
It's why I bought a 309 Gti rather than a 205 years back..... 309 cost much less because of the looks.
There's loads of examples, just take advantage to get the bargains Jacko!
Devil2575 said:
GC8 said:
Yes, fuel economy is they only aspect of S2 ownership which is superior to Turbo ownership. I get about 18mpg if Im lucky...
EVO magazine don't agree, stating that the S2 is ultimately more satisfying to drive than the Turbo.GC8 said:
Marc, in my experience it is the far from realistic. You have no chance at all of seeing 240bhp from an S2 engine with a 'chip'.
With regards to values: S2 prices are firming up, but there are plenty of them. 944 Turbos are far less common and it is their values which will rise first, I think.
Problem with being new to the 944 is that I don't have much 'fiddling/tweaking' experience yet, so unfortunately having to rely on what the internet tells me, a few people seemed to throw around the 240bhp figure, but I'm not going to argue with someone who has more experience with them than myself.With regards to values: S2 prices are firming up, but there are plenty of them. 944 Turbos are far less common and it is their values which will rise first, I think.
I will be installing a chip in the near future though as (power increase aside) everyone does say that they improve the power curve to something a little more enjoyable, I will try and get some before and after figures on a hub dyno though.
I have no doubt that the Turbos will really firm up first as(ignoring personal preference) there is definitely less of them about and rarity is always a market preference. I can see the whole 944 group increasing in value at a steady rate though, they are never going to rocket like the Escorts or the E30 M3s, but I believe anyone who buys one(providing they look after it) will always be able to sell on for more a year down the line.
s m said:
J4CKO said:
s m said:
J4CKO said:
I cant understand how Capri 2.8s go for more than a 944, nice though they are.
It's either :-a. more people want one
b. there are less 2.8 Capris than 944s
I suspect only the best 2.8 Capris go for more than some 944s though
Same reasons as E30 M3s sell for more than S2s perhaps? Same era, same performance.....just less want for the 944
It's why I bought a 309 Gti rather than a 205 years back..... 309 cost much less because of the looks.
There's loads of examples, just take advantage to get the bargains Jacko!
Alex said:
The Capri 2.8 Injection is an iconic model in the UK. Prices start to go up as the supply dwindles and 40-somethings who lusted after one in their teens get nostalgic.
When new, the 944 was more of a businessman's express, so the nostalgia is not so strong.
Do you reckon the older Porsche fans would rather have an older 911 instead...as the 944 didn't sit at the top of the range like the 2.8i did with the Capri.When new, the 944 was more of a businessman's express, so the nostalgia is not so strong.
Marc p said:
GC8 said:
Marc, in my experience it is the far from realistic. You have no chance at all of seeing 240bhp from an S2 engine with a 'chip'.
With regards to values: S2 prices are firming up, but there are plenty of them. 944 Turbos are far less common and it is their values which will rise first, I think.
Problem with being new to the 944 is that I don't have much 'fiddling/tweaking' experience yet, so unfortunately having to rely on what the internet tells me, a few people seemed to throw around the 240bhp figure, but I'm not going to argue with someone who has more experience with them than myself.With regards to values: S2 prices are firming up, but there are plenty of them. 944 Turbos are far less common and it is their values which will rise first, I think.
I will be installing a chip in the near future though as (power increase aside) everyone does say that they improve the power curve to something a little more enjoyable, I will try and get some before and after figures on a hub dyno though.
I have no doubt that the Turbos will really firm up first as(ignoring personal preference) there is definitely less of them about and rarity is always a market preference. I can see the whole 944 group increasing in value at a steady rate though, they are never going to rocket like the Escorts or the E30 M3s, but I believe anyone who buys one(providing they look after it) will always be able to sell on for more a year down the line.
Any normally aspirated Frontrunner is very difficult to improve upon. The reason is a combination of inlet tract, cam characteristics and the limited DME (the cylinder heads are fantastic, so you can see that Porsche has deliberately traded ultimate performance for drivability). Replacement DME ICs make small gains and smooth everything out, but youll only see large figures like 240bhp by replacing the DME (which may be possible soon if Tom Barker adapts Augtronic to S2s) altogether.
J4CKO said:
Yes, true, but, difficult to say how much difference that makes, I personally dont take a lot of notice of competition history, Volvo T5's, Toyota Carinas, Vauxhall Vectras, Calibra's, Cavaliers, Clios, Various modern MG's, Mondeos, Audi 200's, imprezas, Legacies, Celicas, Supras, 300 ZXs, Skodas, Mantas, Asconas, Golfs, Novas etc etc etc have all had competition history, yet there are only the E30 M3 (none of the other M3's), Integrales, Escorts and a few others that have acheived this stratospheric level of adulation and attendant price rise.
Means there are some 'bargains' to be enjoyed at least!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff