944 2.5 cnonversion to 3.0 back to 2.5

[GC8]

I agree with him Paul: it is quite a special car.

[blade7]

IMO it's the 968 CS nonsense again Simon.

[binsie2003]

blade7 said:

binsie2003 said:

I'm thinking this is quite a special car,

Its a forum about cars where we talk about...... CARS! Unsurprisingly!

[binsie2003]

GC8 said:

binsie2003 said:

Last 5 numbers of VIN read 40185.

Regards

Steve

185th car, less pre-prods, so possibly the 168th production car built.

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.

I did try to get some info on it from PCGC via the membership specialist in Porsche Post and forum I think, it never really went anywhere, if you inbox me personally off forum I'll workout some info for you.

[binsie2003]

blade7 said:

Maybe the car has been a 2.5 16v from day one...

Sorry to disappoint but no it has not. Its an 88 registered vehicle and within the history file there are documents from Essex police regarding a court case and the case being that the 3litre was from a stolen car. So some skulduggery was afoot in 1993 when the swap happened!

[binsie2003]

So its your forum and you make the rules eh! I'm sure site admin would be very impressed. You are exactly the type of person we sign up a user agreements for when joining sites like these!

If you must know though I have been a regular contributor to the forum on Clarks Garage for 15 years and was well known there. My username became suspended due to hackers and I've not been able to log on to the site for a while. Clark himself does not seem to be involved any more and admin haven't renewed my forum membership. I've been looking to find another group to bounce off. But the unfriendly welcome from this site makes me think the opposite!

[GC8]

I will PM you through TIPEC later Steve. I know just the fellow to tell you about the car, at Porsche.

[binsie2003]

Hi, GC8 I tried the info you gave me via pm to no avail, can you check the email addy (are the spaces and capitals correct) and resend as now I cant locate the pm.

Thanks

Steve

[GC8]

allonewordnocapitals

[binsie2003]

GC8 I got thru eventually and he confirmed what it was.

It was a 1st production year and my car was the 123rd Turbo in a total production year of 178.

I wonder how may of the original 178 are still running?

Do you think this make my car any more special than other Turbos running around? Is it the M44/50 engine that makes it special or is it the whole package from the short build programme that year?

Is value likely to be an issue could I possibly be under insuring?

Regards

Steve

[GC8]

For me Steve, its the almost pre-production status that makes it interesting, and that it is a 1986 model year car and marked as such, built during the 1985 production year, and with the Gp.B homologation engine. There is lots of waffle on forums and now on FB about 'thicker blocks' and 'stronger rods' in '86 engines, but 1986 was the biggest production year for 951s and almost all of them had M44/51s, whereas yours is the M44/50 that actually has them.

Value-wise I have no idea, sorry.

[blade7]

GC8 said:

There is lots of waffle on forums and now on FB about 'thicker blocks' and 'stronger rods'

Quite, and unless you're building a 500+ bhp engine or entering some historic competition it's anorak material.