RE: SOTW: Porsche 944

[s m]

s m said:

Dr Z said:

seismic22 said:

Following all this talk of the 924S being a better option than a NA 2.5 944 due to reduced weight and drag, has anyone got any figures to back this up?

Anyone know the KG difference between a runout model 924 and pre and post face lift 944 NA's?

Well, according to carfolio, the early 944 and 924S have almost identical power to weight

924 S = 1180kg plays 160 bhp

Early 944 = 1180 kg plays 161 bhp

Late 944 = 1260 kg plays 160 bhp

Late 944 2.7 = 1290 kg plays 162 bhp

Can somebody confirm these figures?

Autocar tested a 924S in Feb 86 - quoted 150bhp and Kerb wt 1205kg

0-60 8.2 0-120 44.4 ss 1/4 16.1 Top Speed on Millbrook bowl 135mph
Tested a 944 Lux a couple of months before - quoted 163bhp and Kerb wt 1274kg

0-60 8.2 0-120 36.9 ss 1/4 15.9 Top Speed on Millbrook bowl 137mph


I'm sure there are differing figures from many, many other tests

Motor also tested a 924S ( back before it merged with Autocar )

Their example was quoted at 1172kg with no fuel on board.

0-60 7.8 ss 1/4 16.1 Top speed on Millbrook bowl 137mph ( very similar to Autocar's figures )

[GC8]

seismic22 said:

Right.... glad the weight thing is cleared up a little. I could never understand the 944 vs 924s thing. To me, unless the 924 has been lowered and fitted some wider rubber (at the risk of spoiling the handling a little??) the 924 looks pretty limp. I much prefer the 944's more muscular looks and if the performance is pretty much the same then theres no question what I would have!

In lieu of getting a company car v.soon I have been pondering a 944 for a weekend/evening/track day car that I can enjoy maintaining (repairing) and improving over time......I notice that you can get a lexan rear window that loses a good chunk of weight and im sure this along with an A/C delete, some buckets and rear seat removal to create a kind of Club sport version, this could help liven a basic 944 up a little....

In my experience/opinion, by far the smartest Frontrunner is the 924 Turbo. Even two two tone green or metallic 'brown' cars look 'right' in a way which no other car manages - certainly not whilst keeping true to the original design.

I say this as someone who has tried to buy more than opne 937 / 924 Carrara GT too.

[scm924s]

GC8 said:

Only in a series two 944. The series one is all steel. What people fail to grasp is that the only real difference is the width of the wings and 1" wider wheels. Other than that a 924S is a series one 944 with a kilo less wing panel..

I think that it is the other way round, the 944 is an overweight 924S with a greater drag coefficient. The reason Porsche detuned the 944 engine in the early S was because it outperformed the 944 on equal power output, not a good advertisement when buyers were looking at the far more expensive 944. The run out S had the same engine as the 1988 2.5 944 and should easily be the better performer, but Porsche always kept the advertised performance figures identical.

All academic really, it is whatever floats your particular boat.

[GC8]

Youre teaching your granny to suck eggs here Stan.

[HAB]

Early 944's are quicker and a good chunk lighter (100+kg) than the facelift 2.5. In fact, when Autocar tested the facelift they thought Porsche had changed the gearing as the times were so off the original. I've had 3 944's (Early 2.5, face lift 2.5 & S2) and my favourite was easily the early 2.5.

[GC8]

There are some disparities in those figures, but they show that Porsche always understates their cars performance. This is why the testers bettered factory figures two up with at least 30-40kgs of fuel.

Notice that its a 1988 model year 924S with the 160bhp worldwide motor. Earlier models were less impressive.

[s m]

GC8 said:

Notice that its a 1988 model year 924S with the 160bhp worldwide motor. Earlier models were less impressive.

As you say, there's always some disparities with road tests but interesting that the torquier 2.7 944 with only 5bhp more but more weight is still a match for the 160bhp 924S. ( as is the earlier 163bhp 944 with a smidgen more weight than a 924 S )

Also, the 220bhp Turbo max speed wasn't recorded on a speed bowl as with the others, but on a long straight

Edited by s m on Monday 4th February 23:43

[GC8]

The 2.7l is a nicer drive, but Im surprised to see it 0-60ing in seven seconds dead.

[Dr Z]

s m said:

As you say, there's always some disparities with road tests but interesting that the torquier 2.7 944 with only 5bhp more but more weight is still a match for the 160bhp 924S. ( as is the earlier 163bhp 944 with a smidgen more weight than a 924 S )

Indeed! Very surprising and reassuring for me.

ETA: The 7.0 sec 0-60 mph time for the 2.7 is believable though as I think it can hit 60 in second on a decent launch.

Edited by Dr Z on Monday 4th February 23:57

[GC8]

Remember that those tests were all two-up with fuel and test gear too.

That said youd have to really cane a 220PS 944 Turbo to get to sixty in under six seconds (full throttle power shifts and no mechanical sympathy).

[s m]

GC8 said:

Remember that those tests were all two-up with fuel and test gear too.

That said youd have to really cane a 220PS 944 Turbo to get to sixty in under six seconds (full throttle power shifts and no mechanical sympathy).

Think that's how most of the Autocar ones are done to be fair

[GC8]

Yes, my point was though, that factory figures were substantially bettered by magazine testers in heavy cars.

[s m]

GC8 said:

Yes, my point was though, that factory figures were substantially bettered by magazine testers in heavy cars.

Did you ever weigh any of yours ( assuming they were standard spec )?

[slevin911]

looks wise I think the 944 in A sense is A better looking car but the 924 is much prettier if that makes sense! here is mine.

[GC8]

s m said:

GC8 said:

Yes, my point was though, that factory figures were substantially bettered by magazine testers in heavy cars.

Did you ever weigh any of yours ( assuming they were standard spec )?

Only more recently, but unfortunately I didnt weigh any of my earlier cars. The 968CS might have disappointed its current fanbois here, though...

My seriously lightweight (5kg seats, fixed polycarbonate windows & hatch and spartan trim)series one 944 track day car weighed in at 1050 kilos and my porky 944 Turbo weighs 1,400 kilos with every option.

[GC8]

I weighed an '87 a long time ago too and it was within 20kilos of Porsches stated weight, as the 951 is now. After you allow for the fuel - both are spot on.

[blade7]

slevin911 said:

looks wise I think the 944 in A sense is A better looking car but the 924 is much prettier if that makes sense! here is mine.

I remember when the 924 Carrera GT and the 944 came out, I thought they looked the dogs danglies, still do. A standard 924 has too much whiff of VW coupe about it to me

[GC8]

The 924 Turbo is the prettiest for me, and the 924 Carrera GT the most purposeful.

[s m]

GC8 said:

The 924 Turbo is the prettiest for me, and the 924 Carrera GT the most purposeful.

Always liked the look of Derek Bell's 924 Carrera GTS - my favourite 924 - made me smile in the 'CAR' video when they bump-started it for him to drive home

[HAB]

s m said:

Always liked the look of Derek Bell's 924 Carrera GTS - my favourite 924 - made me smile in the 'CAR' video when they bump-started it for him to drive home

Back in 2007 it was a ~£15k toss-up between a 924CGT or 964C2. Went for the 911 in the end, but I drove a couple of CGT's and they were fantastic & quick, O-100 in 13.5 two up with lots of fuel is still pretty respectable. Still really, really want one.