944 Models - Why does everyone dislike the 2.5 16v so much.

[porka944s]

i know none of the history, however i do own one, what is the deal? most people see them as bottom of the pile but when i was looking about on paper they seemed better than most? i saw it as 2.5 8v LUX 165 bhp nasty interior 2.5 16v 190bhp black leather everything? obviously there is more to this so can i please be filled in!

[hartech]

Hi

We've found they lack the bottom end grunt which the 8v 944 has. There's the additional weak spot of the cam chain drive (which is in the 944 S2 & 968 also but not as expensive to address in relation to the value of the car - 2 cams plus chain etc fitted is inexcess of £1000 which is difficult to justify on a low value car).

Grant

[911perv]

Some parts (p/s pump, air flow meter) are only for that model and makes parts extremly expensive

[pauljmcnulty]

I had a good long drive in one. It took a good while to get used to the peaky power delivery, in fact it was quite scary at first until I got used to changing down more gears than I'd ever need to in my Lux. By the end of the day I was grinning from ear to ear every time I got it right, but to me I just preferred the torquier 8V. The S2 I have now is in a different league power-wise, without the need to keep it revving like a v-tec Civic.

It's true that they are seen as the least desireable 944, but they are still great cars. I'd go as far as saying they are one of the best-kept secrets, as long as the 16V bits are checked they are fine. You can pick them up for silly money, and I prefer the early body shape anyway.

[was8v]

hartech said:

Hi

We've found they lack the bottom end grunt which the 8v 944 has. There's the additional weak spot of the cam chain drive (which is in the 944 S2 & 968 also but not as expensive to address in relation to the value of the car - 2 cams plus chain etc fitted is inexcess of £1000 which is difficult to justify on a low value car).

Grant

2.5 16v = 944S?

I'd be interested to see a torque curve plot of an 2.5 8v vs a 2.5 16v. Are these on the web anywhere?

When I was into Mk2 Golf GTIs, lots of people went around saying they preferred the way the 8v drives - the most common reason given was that they had more bottom end grunt. However on comparison of torque and power curves, at no point in the rev range does the 16v has less than the 8v........

I've driven neither so wouldn't comment, I'd just be interested to see it.

[DKL]

My first 944 was an S and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I bought it slightly unknowingly and had I readup more probably wouldn't have but it was a decent car.
I haven't driven a n 8v na or an S2 so can't really say but apparently the torque low down is poor and you have to get over 4K to get it going. Added to that is the 16V complexity and cost but without the performance of the S2.
Mine was a bit like a mini turbo in that there was definitely a kick at 4k.
I wouldn't cross one off a list if a good example came along.

[porka944s]

very true about the 4k rpm bit its rapid after that, its good to hear about it as i'd not heard anything about it until recently.

[williamp]

My first was a 944S and I really enjoyed it. Peaky yes, but in my own, small mind I thought it was like a Turbo above 4k rpm.

But then I got a 944 Turbo which was in a different league. All 944 are great, but everyone would agree the 944S2 and Turbo are the best. And dont forget the rare 2.7.

[lindsayhbrown]

i have a 944S also, i have driven a later 8V and found that there didn't seem much difference at low revs, but as stated there is definately a kick at 4k revs in the 16V, i think the comparison is with the earlier (square dash) which was slightly quicker as it was a bit lighter. as long as the cam chain and tensioner are replaced regularily there should be no issues in this area

[richieboy3008]

My dads 87 944S has had nothing go wrong with it ever and almost every part on it is original. As long as it has been serviced properly, you won't have any problems.

[Rarefied Brains]

On my 2.7 there was a definite shift in delivery above 4k rpm as you got into the steeper part of the power curve. Not driven an 'S' for comparison though.

[porka944s]

its good to hear some opinions, i quite wanna drive a lux now to see for myself.

[shoestring7]

hartech said:

Hi

We've found they lack the bottom end grunt which the 8v 944 has. There's the additional weak spot of the cam chain drive (which is in the 944 S2 & 968 also but not as expensive to address in relation to the value of the car - 2 cams plus chain etc fitted is inexcess of £1000 which is difficult to justify on a low value car).

Grant

In addtion they use the 'old' body shape, not the more attractive S2/turbo one. Contemporary road tests were also pretty damning; ISTR CAR found a Golf Gti 16v faster.

SS7

[pauljmcnulty]

shoestring7 said:

In addtion they use the 'old' body shape, not the more attractive S2/turbo one.

SS7

I prefer the simpler body shape myself. The heavy-looking bluff front is a step backwards in my eyes, and I like a toast-rack spoiler more than the S2/turbo one. Didn't stop me changing to an S2, but I'd have preferred the older shape with the newer engine.

[speedyman]

I had my old 944S for seven years, i had a remapped ecu (Promax) chip installed for a more smoother power delivery and the servicing costs through out my ownership were low. As long as you have the the car regularly serviced there is nothing to worry about.

Speedyman

[diver944]

I have some scans of the power graphs from the handbook of a 16v S and an 8v Lux. Unfortunatly they use completely different scales so it's very difficult to easily compare. However if you look at the torque and BHP numbers at every 1000rpm increment you can see that under 2000rpm they are identical, after that the S has more everywhere. For example at 4000rpm the Lux has 104bhp, the S has 125bhp.



I think there are two main reasons why the S is now regarded as a little lacklustre. One, it has a higher ratio gearbox which dulls down the extra oomph that the engine undoubtedly has. Two, after 22 years most S cars are well down on power due to excess wear in the valve guides. Something that Barry at Hartech has commented on numerous times. Every S that I have seen Dyno'd has always been about 30bhp down on its original 190bhp. A simple head rebuild would gain far more extra ponies than chips, filters and Zorsts would provide - obviously a rebuild costs more

[porka944s]

wow thats really interesting about the golf gti article and the bit about the valves, i often wondered how many horses it has left? i didnt realise that was why the head rebuild seems a common job. any one know where these old articles can be viewed?