944 2.5 cnonversion to 3.0 back to 2.5
Discussion
speedyman said:
The early problems with the s1 were mainly due to the cam chain tensioner being a non maintenance item and failing. Soon as I got my car when it was 13 years old and 49k on the clock was change it, Plus all belts and tensioners. Belts and tensioners were replaced at three year intervals after that. By the time the s2 was on the scene this issue was more understood by owners who followed this as a maintenance schedule.
Wasn't my talking about what happened in the early-mid nineties a clue that I didn't need telling what the problem was?Also: 'S1' is a made-up name. It is a 944S, or Super. Calling anything S1 only encourages the S2 means series two therefor all cars which precede it are S1 wallys.
GC8 said:
binsie2003 said:
He's right you know, and an engine number will tell me all I need to know.
I only run a M44/50 engined Turbo myself, never been a fan of the 16v set up. Its my neighbours project I'm just lending an eye and hand!
Id be interested to see this, along with the build sticker, VIN and date of production if you have it.I only run a M44/50 engined Turbo myself, never been a fan of the 16v set up. Its my neighbours project I'm just lending an eye and hand!
I was only teasing, I guessed you were. I reckon I could learn a lot from you as I always knew my car was an early example but 2 years ago I was a Porsche meet at Hedingham Castle when a knowledgeable fella approached me and declared he had never seen an earlier 944 turbo. My registration document says it's an 86, but I rummaged around in my box file where I found the original West German registration document (its a LHD import by the way) which shows its manufacturing date as 26/04/85 and registration as 29/10/1985 the Porsche certificate of authenticity records it as an M44/50 engine. I believe this car to be one of the original 178 first manufactured and the M44/50 being one of only 400 engines manufactured. Perhaps you can correct these figures if I'm mistaken? I have owned the car since 2006. I'm thinking this is quite a special car, and was wondering how many 0f the original 178 were left?
Regards
Steve
Regards
Steve
GC8 said:
speedyman said:
The early problems with the s1 were mainly due to the cam chain tensioner being a non maintenance item and failing. Soon as I got my car when it was 13 years old and 49k on the clock was change it, Plus all belts and tensioners. Belts and tensioners were replaced at three year intervals after that. By the time the s2 was on the scene this issue was more understood by owners who followed this as a maintenance schedule.
Wasn't my talking about what happened in the early-mid nineties a clue that I didn't need telling what the problem was?Also: 'S1' is a made-up name. It is a 944S, or Super. Calling anything S1 only encourages the S2 means series two therefor all cars which precede it are S1 wallys.
GC8 said:
No they weren't. Lux was a trim level.
Źzzzzzzzzz only if your an anorak, http://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-germancars/944-...speedyman said:
GC8 said:
No they weren't. Lux was a trim level.
?zzzzzzzzz only if your an anorak, http://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-germancars/944-...You're an idiot: be quiet.
binsie2003 said:
Last 5 numbers of VIN read 40185.
Regards
Steve
185th car, less pre-prods, so possibly the 168th production car built. Regards
Steve
Im not surprised to see that theyre 1986 model year cars, but it is nice to have the theory confirmed.
The M44/50 is the most interesting part, for me. I have seen your similar thread on TIPEC it would be great if you could post a little about your car either there or on the PCGB 944 forum.
GC8 said:
speedyman said:
GC8 said:
No they weren't. Lux was a trim level.
?zzzzzzzzz only if your an anorak, http://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-germancars/944-...You're an idiot: be quiet.
Gassing Station | Front Engined Porsches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff