968 CS over rated, late 944 turbo under rated?
Discussion
BigR said:
Just buy a Sport then (notwithstanding that it's rare to find a real CS vs a Sport with CS stickers) - essentially the same. I wouldn't say the 944 is underrated, but the 968 is a little rarer perhaps and a lovely car tbf!
Unlikely I'd buy any 80/90's 4 cylinder performance car without a turbocharger. I had both when new (strictly, I had a used Turbo company car and then an assisted purchase new CS and I have an ‘88 now).
I gave up on this argument years ago, when 968 CSs cost £12,000. They are now double this and no one wants to listen to you. I pointed out that a Sport and a Club Sport were essentially the same and I was lambasted, and Sports were £5,000 then. Now it suits most to accept this point of view and virtually every Sport is either dressed up as a CS or is sold on the similarity.
When I tell people that a CS was an entry level poverty spec and I bought it because it was all I could afford (£30k, not £40k) I am dismissed. To f*ck with them I mention that I replaced the seats and the wheel because they didn t suit countrywide driving every day. I still have the back seat in my loft…
I gave up on this argument years ago, when 968 CSs cost £12,000. They are now double this and no one wants to listen to you. I pointed out that a Sport and a Club Sport were essentially the same and I was lambasted, and Sports were £5,000 then. Now it suits most to accept this point of view and virtually every Sport is either dressed up as a CS or is sold on the similarity.
When I tell people that a CS was an entry level poverty spec and I bought it because it was all I could afford (£30k, not £40k) I am dismissed. To f*ck with them I mention that I replaced the seats and the wheel because they didn t suit countrywide driving every day. I still have the back seat in my loft…
Edited by 944 Man on Monday 29th June 18:38
The cars are popular now with people who weren t here and they drive a narrative that suits them.
This is a good example:
I have a family connection to this car. When WB died it was sold to collectors and I have seen its fabricated story grow over 30+yrs. There is no point trying to correct them because they don t want to hear and tens and tens of thousands of pounds are tied up in it (now hundreds). The story that they embellish or cling to is what suits them.
This DB4 GT isn t as good example as it once was because its current history is closer to the truth, but still inaccurate.
It’ll either come right or the circle-jerk will continue but no amount of talking sense will affect this.
This is a good example:
I have a family connection to this car. When WB died it was sold to collectors and I have seen its fabricated story grow over 30+yrs. There is no point trying to correct them because they don t want to hear and tens and tens of thousands of pounds are tied up in it (now hundreds). The story that they embellish or cling to is what suits them.
This DB4 GT isn t as good example as it once was because its current history is closer to the truth, but still inaccurate.
It’ll either come right or the circle-jerk will continue but no amount of talking sense will affect this.
Edited by 944 Man on Thursday 9th July 22:43
944 Man said:
I had both when new (strictly, I had a used Turbo company car and then an assisted purchase new CS and I have an 88 now).
I gave up on this argument years ago, when 968 CSs cost £12,000. They are now double this and no one wants to listen to you. I pointed out that a Sport and a Club Sport were essentially the same and I was lambasted, and Sports were £5,000 then. Now it suits most to accept this point of view and virtually every Sport is either dressed up as a CS or is sold on the similarity.
When I tell people that a CS was an entry level poverty spec and I bought it because it was all I could afford (£30k, not £40k) I am dismissed. To f*ck with them I mention that I replaced the seats and the wheel because they didn t suit countrywide driving every day. I still have the back seat in my loft
The back seat....?I gave up on this argument years ago, when 968 CSs cost £12,000. They are now double this and no one wants to listen to you. I pointed out that a Sport and a Club Sport were essentially the same and I was lambasted, and Sports were £5,000 then. Now it suits most to accept this point of view and virtually every Sport is either dressed up as a CS or is sold on the similarity.
When I tell people that a CS was an entry level poverty spec and I bought it because it was all I could afford (£30k, not £40k) I am dismissed. To f*ck with them I mention that I replaced the seats and the wheel because they didn t suit countrywide driving every day. I still have the back seat in my loft
Edited by 944 Man on Monday 29th June 18:38
mollytherocker said:
How is the 944 turbo underated when good ones are selling for more than the 968CS?
Asking it, and getting it isn't the same thing. Porsche were in financial trouble, and couldn't shift 968's because the competition was cheaper. So they lowered the spec and stuck a CS badge on it, purely as a marketing exercise. Journos lapped it up, perhaps influenced by Walter Rohrl who may have been in Porsche's employ at the time. The lighter weight was a myth too, as a plain old 944 S2 was lighter. The real deal would have been a 968 with a 8v 3.0 turbo engine, but as that would have given a 964 turbo a hard time, it was never going to happen.RSstuff said:
BigR said:
Just buy a Sport then (notwithstanding that it's rare to find a real CS vs a Sport with CS stickers) - essentially the same. I wouldn't say the 944 is underrated, but the 968 is a little rarer perhaps and a lovely car tbf!
Unlikely I'd buy any 80/90's 4 cylinder performance car without a turbocharger. I see both sides of the argument. In some ways the Sport is the smart purchase, as it is technically a CS in all but name
However, when it came to spending my own money, I really wanted a “proper” CS as I love the original seats and the lack of toys. Does this make logical sense? Absolutely not, but I don’t really buy fun cars with my sensible hat on
Mine also had the M030 pack and a ProMax chip added early in its life, so for me it doesn’t need any more performance, it gets driven to the best of my ability with what it has, and that’s where the fun is for me. It’s not a lightweight, in fact in many ways it’s quite heavy in its controls until up to speed, but when I get into the zone with it on my favourite roads everything comes together and I love it
As always each to their own, but they’re not overrated in my eyes
However, when it came to spending my own money, I really wanted a “proper” CS as I love the original seats and the lack of toys. Does this make logical sense? Absolutely not, but I don’t really buy fun cars with my sensible hat on
Mine also had the M030 pack and a ProMax chip added early in its life, so for me it doesn’t need any more performance, it gets driven to the best of my ability with what it has, and that’s where the fun is for me. It’s not a lightweight, in fact in many ways it’s quite heavy in its controls until up to speed, but when I get into the zone with it on my favourite roads everything comes together and I love it
As always each to their own, but they’re not overrated in my eyes
RSstuff said:
mollytherocker said:
How is the 944 turbo underated when good ones are selling for more than the 968CS?
Asking it, and getting it isn't the same thing. Porsche were in financial trouble, and couldn't shift 968's because the competition was cheaper. So they lowered the spec and stuck a CS badge on it, purely as a marketing exercise. Journos lapped it up, perhaps influenced by Walter Rohrl who may have been in Porsche's employ at the time. The lighter weight was a myth too, as a plain old 944 S2 was lighter. The real deal would have been a 968 with a 8v 3.0 turbo engine, but as that would have given a 964 turbo a hard time, it was never going to happen.They did make a 968 Turbo, but very few were made (14, I think), which is a shame.
The 968CS was a superb drivers cars and loved by many. I had a 968 Sport for 6 years which was a UK only CS with a few options added back.
Both 944 turbo and 968CS are probably £25k-£30k cars now.
I had a test drive in a 968, and I'd thought it would be faster. I also had a drive in a 944 turbo, more power, bigger brakes a LSD, admittedly it was a bit flat until it came on boost. But a basic remap gave it around 300 bhp. It is a shame Porsche didn't build a road version of the 968 turbo, especially as they already had most of the required bits, in their parts bins.
Edited by RSstuff on Wednesday 8th July 22:49
944 Man said:
The brakes are the same. You cannot remap a 944. Sorry but this is b
ks.
I thought the later 944 Turbos had M030 brakes as standard, which are bigger than the 968 standard brakes? Regarding remapping, I think this requires a replacement chip in the DME, but is still a remap?ks. 944 Man said:
The brakes are the same. You cannot remap a 944. Sorry but this is bks.
ks. No need to apologise, every old git knows 944 turbo's could be chipped, I wrote mapped for the benefit of younger readers. I'm not an authority on 968 brakes, did they come as standard with the same MO30 parts that 250 bhp Turbo's did?
The 1989> Turbo came with the larger brakes. 968s all had 220 and S2 brakes unless they had M030. I am not convinced that the brakes are immediately obviously better. The Turbo was developed on 15" wheels with the same cast ATE callipers fitted to the 944, 924 Turbo, 928, 3.0L 911 Turbo. Brembos and staggered 16" wheels were a marketing thing. Porsche brakes are always impressive and a new 944 felt like it could do a stoppy. Whenever brakes on a different model feel better it usually means the the car with the inferior brakes needs work.
944 Man said:
The 1989> Turbo came with the larger brakes. 968s all had 220 and S2 brakes unless they had M030. I am not convinced that the brakes are immediately obviously better. The Turbo was developed on 15" wheels with the same cast ATE callipers fitted to the 944, 924 Turbo, 928, 3.0L 911 Turbo. Brembos and staggered 16" wheels were a marketing thing. Porsche brakes are always impressive and a new 944 felt like it could do a stoppy. Whenever brakes on a different model feel better it usually means the the car with the inferior brakes needs work.
This is like 2 bald men fighting over a comb 
. I know you're well aware the 1988 Turbo S had the MO30 hubs and brakes. IMO the main benefit of the MO30 is the big red radial calipers bolt straight on, allowing use of the bigger 965 discs. Edited by RSstuff on Thursday 9th July 16:13
Edited by RSstuff on Thursday 9th July 16:16
RSstuff said:
I don't really get the prices for the 968 CS. Throw out the rear seats from the turbo, fit some Recaro Pole Positions, and I reckon there would be nothing between them on road or track. Except of course the big shouty Clubsport sticker.
I think that they finessed it a little but it certainly wasn t the second automotive coming which is both how PCGB trumpeted it at the time and how people who weren t there / didn t have one at the time like to regard them now. Edited by RSstuff on Sunday 28th June 11:04
I think that the nicest drive / best handling was the 931! Alloy replaced steel for 1986 but the suspension remained the same - it wasn t fundamentally improved whilst the cars got fatter. The rear suspension is based on a Typ.181 (VW Thing) and is a triumph of development over design.
People parrot the 968 s amazing handling but it isn t any different to any other FrontRunners, just tweaked. The rear suspension is a massive impediment to real handling and club racers come up against this pretty quickly. Porsche ditched the standard setup on its first competition car and they d have gone multi-link if the rules had allowed. Google the rear arms from a 924/933 D-Prod.
Edited by 944 Man on Thursday 9th July 23:22
Gassing Station | Front Engined Porsches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff