944 Turbo vs. S2
Discussion
I'm surprised this hasn't been a topic before, but here it is:
I'm thinking about buying either an 944 S2 or Turbo - not really sure which is best.
Here are the pros & cons as I see it:
- S2s are quite plentiful (in the UK at least).
- Most turbos are the 220bhp ones, and these are not much more powerful than an S2, and older.
- S2s are probably much safer to 'have fun' in. How hard is a turbo to handle?
- BUT S2s are almost untunable.
- Turbos are easy to tune.
- Turbos have better brakes and suspension.
- S2s are a worry to buy given the condition of the chain and spacer running the 2nd cam.
I have a feeling I won't have the choice - I'll have to go for a good one when it comes along. But just for askings sake I'd love to hear opinions.
Chris
I'm thinking about buying either an 944 S2 or Turbo - not really sure which is best.
Here are the pros & cons as I see it:
- S2s are quite plentiful (in the UK at least).
- Most turbos are the 220bhp ones, and these are not much more powerful than an S2, and older.
- S2s are probably much safer to 'have fun' in. How hard is a turbo to handle?
- BUT S2s are almost untunable.
- Turbos are easy to tune.
- Turbos have better brakes and suspension.
- S2s are a worry to buy given the condition of the chain and spacer running the 2nd cam.
I have a feeling I won't have the choice - I'll have to go for a good one when it comes along. But just for askings sake I'd love to hear opinions.
Chris
I had a 1990 250 Turbo a few years back and absolutely loved it. I had a drive in an S2 but it seemed a bit tame after the turbo. Mine had the M030 suspension option and the handling was fantastic.
A big plus point with the turbos is that they can be easily tuned for very little outlay but even in standard form they are pretty rapid above 3000 RPM though rather lethargic off boost.
The only downside was a rather bland engine note though a decent sports exhaust would proberbly sort that.
Geoff
A big plus point with the turbos is that they can be easily tuned for very little outlay but even in standard form they are pretty rapid above 3000 RPM though rather lethargic off boost.
The only downside was a rather bland engine note though a decent sports exhaust would proberbly sort that.
Geoff
porschegeoff said:
I had a 1990 250 Turbo a few years back and absolutely loved it. I had a drive in an S2 but it seemed a bit tame after the turbo. Mine had the M030 suspension option and the handling was fantastic.
A big plus point with the turbos is that they can be easily tuned for very little outlay but even in standard form they are pretty rapid above 3000 RPM though rather lethargic off boost.
The only downside was a rather bland engine note though a decent sports exhaust would proberbly sort that.
Geoff
So is it hard keep on boost? Does the tail kick out viciously when the turbo spools up? Do you often get caught out by lag?
I should put this in context: previously I've owned a MkIII Capri 2.8i (in the UK) and a 96 Mustang GT (in the US) - in my opinion neither are predictable when driven very hard. I want a car that I can enjoy at speed - not one that scares me.
In standard form the S2 is the better car, smooth power delivery and feels lighter and nimbler on its thinner socks.
Turbo very easy to tune up to 300 bhp and keep reliability, but even then no throttle response like that of the S2.
Turbo can feel a bit of a truck as it's heavier than S2, also because of wider tyres. Off boost it's a dog.
I'd have a turbo for fast motorway and track day use, but an S2 for the twisties.
In case it matters, S2 is unbeatable for fuel economy.
>> Edited by Thom on Wednesday 30th June 19:54
Turbo very easy to tune up to 300 bhp and keep reliability, but even then no throttle response like that of the S2.
Turbo can feel a bit of a truck as it's heavier than S2, also because of wider tyres. Off boost it's a dog.
I'd have a turbo for fast motorway and track day use, but an S2 for the twisties.
In case it matters, S2 is unbeatable for fuel economy.
>> Edited by Thom on Wednesday 30th June 19:54
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No I don't. I guess there isn't much more than 50 kgs between both cars.
S2 feels lighter and easier to adjust because of thinner tyres and lighter steering, just in my humble experience with having driven 11 variants of turbo (from model year '85 to '91).
87/88 Turbo 220 has the exactl same chassis as S2, by the way.
>> Edited by Thom on Wednesday 30th June 14:42
Thom said:Thom, being in the metric world myself I find difficult to think in miles per gallon. What do you manage in the S2? When travelling sometimes I even get 8,5 ltr/100km but in town is much worse obviously. In a combined cycle I guess probably 12ltrs/100Km to be the average.
In case it matters, S2 is unbeatable for fuel economy.
raftom said:
Thom, being in the metric world myself I find difficult to think in miles per gallon. What do you manage in the S2? When travelling sometimes I even get 8,5 ltr/100km but in town is much worse obviously. In a combined cycle I guess probably 12ltrs/100Km to be the average.
In combined average it never needs more than 10 L/100 kms.
Fuel consumption on an S2 is "binary" :
- below 4000 revs it will be hard to get worse than 10 L/100 kms. In fact if driven at too low revs (eg 2000) it will consume more petrol than at a sustained 3000 revs.
- above 4000 revs it will be more around 15 L/100 kms (eg sustained high speeds on motorways)
Fuel consumption on the turbo is more "linear", I guess.
all in my experience with various S2/turbo.
PS :
X L/100 kms x Y mpg = 285
So 28.5 mpg = 10 L/100 kms
>> Edited by Thom on Wednesday 30th June 15:37
"The turbo would lose an S2 on most roads."
Hmm, depends on the road. On a very straight A road or d/carriageway then yes.
As soon as it gets twisty the Turbo requires a very skilled pilot. I had a turbo modded to 290bhp and although it was a missile it was a bit of a handfull.
An S2 on the other hand drives itself in comparison.
Coming out of tight corners the S2 would pull a car length with it's comparatively instant torque, before the turbo's dominance made itself felt. The Turbo theoretically would make ground under braking but overall on a twisty B road I think the S2 wouldn't be overwhelmed at all.
Hmm, depends on the road. On a very straight A road or d/carriageway then yes.
As soon as it gets twisty the Turbo requires a very skilled pilot. I had a turbo modded to 290bhp and although it was a missile it was a bit of a handfull.
An S2 on the other hand drives itself in comparison.
Coming out of tight corners the S2 would pull a car length with it's comparatively instant torque, before the turbo's dominance made itself felt. The Turbo theoretically would make ground under braking but overall on a twisty B road I think the S2 wouldn't be overwhelmed at all.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Thanks guys. This has been very informative. The upshot is I'm pretty sure I'm gonna go for an S2. I'd love to have the extra power, but experience suggests its unwise. Maybe in a couple of years - if an S2 becomes a bit tame I'll go for a Turbo. But I *might* be able to afford a 911 by then (say a 3.0CS or 3.2 even) and if the turbos really are a handful, then why not? However, I think I need to mature a bit first!
Right now I drive a '98 1.4 Fiesta (it was my unemployment car, alright?) & I have to say that several of my drives back to my folks place in west wales have been amongst the most fun I've had. This suggests that I enjoy a well balanced car (and believe me it is!) rather than outright power. I think I'm an S2 guy, don't you?!
cheers,
Chris
p.s. I've found the previous threads - and a working my way thru them.
p.p.s. found a couple of S2s to (just!) look at on Sat.
I've got an S2 and I've often thought about what a turbo might be like to live with, but I never regret buying the S2! I'm sure the turbo is quick, but I like instant throttle response and I can't help thinking that I'd for ever be in the wrong gear in a turbo when in a typical road situation and then get all the power at once when it might not be desirable! Then there is all the extra complexity under the bonnet and having to buy all these bits to make it even faster! 
ambrose said:
But I *might* be able to afford a 911 by then (say a 3.0CS or 3.2 even) and if the turbos really are a handful, then why not? However, I think I need to mature a bit first!
cheers,
Chris
Why downgrade to a carrera 3.2 or even the 911SC??? Both will be slower then the 944 S2 OR Turbo in every dimension. They are less comfortable, carry less, slower around a track, have heating which does'nt really work, more expensive to maintain and far more obvious to the undesirable elements???
I'll stick to my 300 bhp 944 Turbo, thanks.
williamp said:
Why downgrade to a carrera 3.2 or even the 911SC??? Both will be slower then the 944 S2 OR Turbo in every dimension. They are less comfortable, carry less, slower around a track, have heating which does'nt really work, more expensive to maintain and far more obvious to the undesirable elements???
William, you don't understand that "911 thing" I'm afraid ... (
)Thom said:
Why downgrade to a carrera 3.2 or even the 911SC??? Both will be slower then the 944 S2 OR Turbo in every dimension. They are less comfortable, carry less, slower around a track, have heating which does'nt really work, more expensive to maintain and far more obvious to the undesirable elements???
William, you don't understand that "911 thing" I'm afraid ... (
William when are we going to see how well your 300bhp
monster fares on the tracK??
Over the last three years I have had a lightly tweaked 964, a moderately tweaked 944 turbo and now a 968CS
The 944 is blisteringly fast on the open road and with the right tyres on a dry road it is lovely in sweeping corners. On tight corners where he average dirver is off boost I found the 'very slow then very fast' thing a real frustration. On the track it was superb except in the wet when it was absolutley horrilbe. The lack of ABS (it was an early car) and the wall of torque once boost came on made for great hilarity and two spectacular offs. There are things you can do to dramatically reduce lag, and with hindight I probably should have looked at this.
In more experiencerd hands they are trully very diffiuclt to beat.
The 968 is very much stiffer which is a big improvment, and feels fantastically poised goining into corners. whilst its better torque profile means it picks up better out of the slow stuff it just never seems to get going properly compared to the turbo. Mine may be down on power and is booked in for a dnyo session next week, though it does feel about the same as a couple of S2s I looked at.
The 964 was differntn again, torque from 1000 rpm then a fantistic powerband from 4,000. I never threw it around like I have with the other two - though the grip was just unreal. It did feel more of a handful going into tighter corners but just blasted out so strong I was happy to go in a bit slower.
Objectivley the 944 was fastest (under the right conditions) 968 and hence 944S2 is easist but the 964 by far the most satisfying and therefore the best.
Rationally on a limited budget the front engined cars are probably better, but cars are emotional not rational I think.
Now a 968 with a 964 engine would be a very interesing....
James
The 944 is blisteringly fast on the open road and with the right tyres on a dry road it is lovely in sweeping corners. On tight corners where he average dirver is off boost I found the 'very slow then very fast' thing a real frustration. On the track it was superb except in the wet when it was absolutley horrilbe. The lack of ABS (it was an early car) and the wall of torque once boost came on made for great hilarity and two spectacular offs. There are things you can do to dramatically reduce lag, and with hindight I probably should have looked at this.
In more experiencerd hands they are trully very diffiuclt to beat.
The 968 is very much stiffer which is a big improvment, and feels fantastically poised goining into corners. whilst its better torque profile means it picks up better out of the slow stuff it just never seems to get going properly compared to the turbo. Mine may be down on power and is booked in for a dnyo session next week, though it does feel about the same as a couple of S2s I looked at.
The 964 was differntn again, torque from 1000 rpm then a fantistic powerband from 4,000. I never threw it around like I have with the other two - though the grip was just unreal. It did feel more of a handful going into tighter corners but just blasted out so strong I was happy to go in a bit slower.
Objectivley the 944 was fastest (under the right conditions) 968 and hence 944S2 is easist but the 964 by far the most satisfying and therefore the best.
Rationally on a limited budget the front engined cars are probably better, but cars are emotional not rational I think.
Now a 968 with a 964 engine would be a very interesing....
James
Did a few laps yesterday at Snetterton in my recently purchased S2 -
My thoughts:-
It was quicker than I expected, 125mph on the backstraight and cornered very quickly but far far far too much body roll. Turbo has better suspension in this respect.
No LSD was really frustrating as it spun off 2nd gear power through the inside wheel in the tight bends. ...Turbo has an LSD.
S2 a cracking car to drive on the roads though and incredibly smooth power delivery
My thoughts:-
It was quicker than I expected, 125mph on the backstraight and cornered very quickly but far far far too much body roll. Turbo has better suspension in this respect.
No LSD was really frustrating as it spun off 2nd gear power through the inside wheel in the tight bends. ...Turbo has an LSD.
S2 a cracking car to drive on the roads though and incredibly smooth power delivery
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff