Who likes the 944 Turbos?

I have had mine since 1996. I have enjoyed it alot. The timing belt is the biggest thing to worry about.They are quick cars and handle pretty good also.Here is a website that has a lot of good info.

http://www.clarks-garage.com/

 

I'm thinking of getting one too, so I have the same questions, thanks.

 

I think Wayne at PelicanParts posts here every so often. He'd be the man to point you in the right direction.

Craig

 

944 turbo's are great cars...fast...handle well...cheap to buy. 8-10k should get a nice clean driver. The cars has timing chains, not belts, from what I recall. I sold mine with 120k miles and got more than I paid for it, 2 years after I bought it. The 944 turbo is FASTER than the same year 911 turbo...0-60 in 6.0 or so....

Buy one, you will like it. Check out rennlist.org for all of the info you could possibly want....

 

I was with Ed Pimm (former Super Vee and CART racer) this evening discussing some work on a German car I own. Ed runs Ed Pimm Racing in Plain City, OH near Columbus primarily a Porsche restoration place although he also runs a Testarossa.

He was working on a 944 Turbo tonight and I mentioned that I thought it was the biggest bang for the buck in a cheap track/sports car outside of a spec Miata. He said that they're wonderfully reliable cars and he loves to work on them because only a few things go wrong, timing belt, motor mounts, and a couple of electrical relays that run the headlights/fog lights/headlight doors.

Can't beat them for a lightweight 200+hp car for under $10grand.

 

911 Turbos were in the 4's 0-60. I owned them throughout the 80's.

 

I had a 944 turbo back in the day and it was a blast. From what I remember, it had water pump issues and motor mount issues and that was it for me. Make sure you get a 87 or newer to get the dual airbags. 86 didn't have them. Not many turbo s's were made, probably a hard find. Good luck.

 

I had a high-mileage one that was not trouble-free. Header stud broke, oil cooler leaks, electrical problems, etc. The problem with sub-10 grand porsches is the prices for repair and parts are the same as 30 grand porsches. When it ran well it was fun though, fast and nimble.

 

Had an '89 for a while, great track car for a great price, lots of aftermarket goodies available.

 

I think the early ones had belts and later had chains {I can never remember}. Just make sure you get the history of the car. If the service has been kept up, then there shouldn't be too many problems at all. Drive as many as you can so you can get a feel for the good and the bad.

 

I think the 944 Turbo might have been the better handler, definitely not faster though. Just what I was told, so definitely not a credible source...

 

I dont dispute that at all. I was just commenting on the statement that the 944's time was faster 0-60.

 

Sorry about the boo boo, the 944 turbo does have belts, and I seem to remeber I catually changed them myself, so I should have remembered that. AH, going without sleep, does bad things to your memory. My bad.

With the zero to sixty times, though, I really dont think the 930 was any faster than a 944 turbo. I just searched rennlist and there are some references to this fact. Apparantly Automobile magazine tested the 2 cars in 1988, and the 0-60 times were identicle. The 944 turbo had 217 horse, the 911 250 horse, but the 944 had more torgue and different gearing. "Porsche, The Essense of Performance," also makes similar comments form what I recall.

Either way, both are great cars. I have owned 6-7 porsches, but not a 911 turbo, so I can't comment directly. Though I really cant see a 930 doing 0-60 in the sub-5 second range. The 993 turbo with 420+ horsepower is in the 4.5-5.0 second range, and a 930 has 100-120 LESS horsepower....

The 930's had what, 290 horsepower? That makes them a little faster than a boxter s, slower than a 996. Realistically, likely 0-60 in 5.5-6.0 seconds, tops. Now if its modified, all bets are off...

 

Just a brief addendum before some one tells me they read an article "somewhere" and the 911t did 0-60 in 4.5 sec, the 993t in 3.6, and so on. I see some of these wonderful times in R&T too. These are achieved by revving the motor to 6000 rpm and dropping the clutch. Something a sane owner would never do...would they? Not unless the clutch fairy comes nightly and replaces your clutch for free...

Anyhow, the numbers I am refererring to are the prosche quoted 0-60 times...

 

Stock 944 TurboS's were faster in track tests then contemporary 930s, a fact that was no small embarrassment to 930 owners.

 

944's are quite quick and handle nicely. I went on a wild ride with 2 last year and we had a blast. But here is some info to clear up some foggy memories. sorry for the poor quality, not mine;

 

Porsche factory performance numbers are quoted based on 2 people in the car and are still conservative. However 4 seconds for stock is not happening.
T

 

Check out this 944 turbo commercial


http://www.eurocompulsion.net/951comm.zip

 

I still have original issues of mags from 86-88, with testing of the 911t. 0-60 varies between 4.5-4.8 in 5 different mags. My 88 slantnose was the only one I owned that I actually tracked, and it did 0-60 in 4.38, and quarter mile in 12.8. Top speed was 161. Those are actual #'s. No mods.


Oops. Just pulled my info from 88. My 911slantnose did 0-60 in 4.58.

 

In the 4 seconds did happen in the 911 turbo's, not in the 944t and 928.

 

6.0, I hear what you are saying. But I still don't believe it. And I'm not trying to be derogatory toward porsches, as I have owned quite a few. Perhaps you are driving on really cold days and below sea level ?

0-60 at 4.3 seconds is just about diablo/viper territory. Hell, less than 4 sec/60 was sportbike territory a couple of years ago.

I currently have a boxter s, 250 hp, and it feels like a slug in a straight line. Thats only 50 horse less than the 930.

Had a 996, 320 horse or so, and that definitely didn't do 0-60 in the sub 5's, and it has 30 horse more than an older 930 (not to mention better rubber, trans, etc).

I just don't see how 300 hp will propel a 930 to 60 in less than 5 seconds. Especially since 930's have tall gearing/4speeds.

I WANT to believe what you are saying, but the physics of it don't make sense. A 350 horsepower mustang (the paradigm for drag racers), wont go to sixty in 4.3 seconds. You would need a saleen 500hp plus model to do that...

Anyone else want to chime in? Or have I underappreciated my porsches?

 

You are certainly underestimating the 911 turbo, cant speak for the others. Keep in mind that I was also driving 4 valve Countaches with 435 horse at the time, and the 911t would eat it alive to 60. The Countach ran about 5.0 0-60. I was a serious street racer ,just like today, and I know the difference between the 3.3 that my 6.0 runs, the 3.8 that my Viper runs, the 4.4 that my ZR 1's run.....and so on. I owned an 86/87/ and 2 88's. All were sub 5sec 0-60 cars. This is real life, not magazine stuff. The factory HP rating was severly underrated, Im sure you know that. Hell, my 88 Lotus Esprit with a 4 cylinder turbo ran sub 5's.