Porsche Enthusiasts Club Forum :: View topic

ok I'll try to give some that I can recall...remember I've owned my own car for nearly 18 years now and in that length of time you learn a lot about the model and it's variants. I bought mine after driving a friends 220 model, another friend had a 250 , i knew very little about the car I just knew that I wanted one and began to search, I didn't care which. Found a car that was listed as the best example in the country...well they would wouldn't they but I went to have a look and the rest is history. I've always had this knack of buying the right thing even when knowing little about it, the car was no different.
So I had a 220 and thought that's good, not as good as the 250 but who cares..it was when my friend who had the 250 stated he wished he hadn't sold the 220 model as point to point it was quicker that I began to take notice, he knew far more than I back then.
So over the years I have learnt just what a jem I had bought..
differences...I've probably forgotten more than I can remember but here's some..

Earliest engines had thicker cylinder walls,
forged rods
86 cars where homologated, the only year so I've read
86 brake cooling ducts, I believe that some later models had them too but not all
Narrow track with those beautiful deep dish teledials, imho without doubt the best stance of any 944
86 are the lightest, weight increasing by up to 100kg over the years due to ABS, wider wheels and air bags etc
early cars more resistant to corrosion and better built
Porsche inscribed handles
Fog lights or 'alternative headlights' could be operated without the headlights up
I believe theres a difference between the A/C units but wouldn't swear to it

I'm sure there's more but that's what I can remember of the top of my head...

It's worth noting that the 944 was to replace the 911 and was built with no cost spared, things then began to change, the 911 was to stay and the boon years were coming to an end, costs were cut and cut hard, i'm sure others can add to what I've listed

regards

Pete

Author:	HUBBA.HUBBA [ Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:	944 turbo V's turbo S
Quick question, does the turbo have less lag than the turbo S and if so why wouldn't you have a chipped mk1 turbo? just referring to the engine rather than the brakes, suspension etc

Author:	PSH [ Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
To answer your question directly...yes there is less lag on the 220 cars...a 250 be it normal or 'S' variant would have more lag so chipping a 220 to around 250/280 would be a faster car....if you want more power you'll need the bigger turbo but then you'll need that when increasing power output on the 250 models anyway. You can get just over 280 with the 220 models using standard turbo with a manual boost controller and dual port wastegate after remap....the 250 engine will make just over 300 with the same mods. If your planning big power increases you'll be better off with the earlier 220 engine Pete

Author:	scam75 [ Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
It does have less lag, but when you chip it and increase boost you increase lag albeit it has a smaller turbo. After 88 the turbo became 250bhp same as the S. With the same larger turbo. What you want is a modern turbo with quicker spool, MAF set up and whatever other modern engine management you can be bothered with and lag can be a thing of the past for either the 220 or 250 car. In stock form however a lot of guys prefer the 220. I have always liked the 250 more. Horses (literally!) for courses!! Stuart

Author:	pauly [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
scam75 wrote: I have always liked the 250 more. Horses (literally!) for courses!! Stuart Apart from a few very early 220 bhp blocks and late 250 bhp rods there's nothing between the engines other than a slightly bigger turbo.

Author:	PSH [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
pauly wrote: scam75 wrote: I have always liked the 250 more. Horses (literally!) for courses!! Stuart Apart from a few very early 220 bhp blocks and late 250 bhp rods there's nothing between the engines other than a slightly bigger turbo. There is a lot of difference between the cars and it's not just the rods...sticking to subject though forged rods were replaced for cast sometime around 89 ..many turbo S cars have cast rods, however some later cars may have been lucky and been fitted with forged...I guess it depended what turned up in the parts bin. The cars are fine with cast rods until you start playing around with the boost, from experience of others misfortune 350bhp seems the upper limit for cast rods in good order. Remember though that wrist pins wear ( I would say most original engines have some wear today especially on rod 2 unless they are garage queens) and once play develops there is more strain on the rod neck and this is the weak point. Cast rods are not only inferior due to their manufacturing process but they have thinner necks too, take care of the car, change the oil regularly, more often than Porsche states if your heavy footed or have increased boost and the car should outlive most of us.. Pete

Porsche Enthusiasts Club Forum https://forums.tipec.net/

944 turbo V's turbo S https://forums.tipec.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=20967	Page 1 of 2

Author:	scam75 [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
pauly wrote: scam75 wrote: I have always liked the 250 more. Horses (literally!) for courses!! Stuart Apart from a few very early 220 bhp blocks and late 250 bhp rods there's nothing between the engines other than a slightly bigger turbo. Indeed. I was alluding to the fact I prefer driving a 250 over a 220. Having grown up with many blown fast fords that were almost always modded I think I would kind of miss a wee bit of lag before the boost sweeps in! Stuart

Author:	t3rra [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
Lag difference is 200rpm. On both models the lag can be reduced by 400 rpm from moving to a map or maf set up. What's your intentions with the car? Heavy mods or just light. Probably make my mined up more on if you want to run fuch wheels or not. Early offset lends it self to deep dish wheels more.

Author:	Carrera RSR [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
What's wrong with lag? I love the delay before a wallop of boost coming in. It's what makes my car an interesting 80's turbo versus a finessed modern.

Author:	AlpineTurbo [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
True, although I do miss the more instantaneous response of my 250 Turbo compared to my Escort RST. OTOH my 951 boosted at 14PSI whereas the RST is more like 20. For me it has to be the 250. They IME seem to pull harder at the top end, with the power even at 290BHP seeming to make you feel as if the car wants to headbutt the horizon. My RST currently has a smaller turbine side fitted and if I am honest it is quick, but it does feel as if the car could give more ; with a larger turbine from what others have said it almost certainly would.

Author:	pauly [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
pauly wrote: Apart from a few very early 220 bhp blocks and late 250 bhp rods there's nothing between the engines other than a slightly bigger turbo. There is a lot of difference between the cars [/quote] I'm going to have to call you out on this one Pete, what differences ? As for power AFAIK WUF was on a standard 90 bottom end when it was making 400 bhp and Mark K's car is probably similar. There's a lot of internet hearsay that is taken as gospel.

Author:	PSH [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
ok I'll try to give some that I can recall...remember I've owned my own car for nearly 18 years now and in that length of time you learn a lot about the model and it's variants. I bought mine after driving a friends 220 model, another friend had a 250 , i knew very little about the car I just knew that I wanted one and began to search, I didn't care which. Found a car that was listed as the best example in the country...well they would wouldn't they but I went to have a look and the rest is history. I've always had this knack of buying the right thing even when knowing little about it, the car was no different. So I had a 220 and thought that's good, not as good as the 250 but who cares..it was when my friend who had the 250 stated he wished he hadn't sold the 220 model as point to point it was quicker that I began to take notice, he knew far more than I back then. So over the years I have learnt just what a jem I had bought.. differences...I've probably forgotten more than I can remember but here's some.. Earliest engines had thicker cylinder walls, forged rods 86 cars where homologated, the only year so I've read 86 brake cooling ducts, I believe that some later models had them too but not all Narrow track with those beautiful deep dish teledials, imho without doubt the best stance of any 944 86 are the lightest, weight increasing by up to 100kg over the years due to ABS, wider wheels and air bags etc early cars more resistant to corrosion and better built Porsche inscribed handles Fog lights or 'alternative headlights' could be operated without the headlights up I believe theres a difference between the A/C units but wouldn't swear to it I'm sure there's more but that's what I can remember of the top of my head... It's worth noting that the 944 was to replace the 911 and was built with no cost spared, things then began to change, the 911 was to stay and the boon years were coming to an end, costs were cut and cut hard, i'm sure others can add to what I've listed regards Pete

Author:	pauly [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
Thanks Pete, I don't think the thicker block lasted long though, maybe until early 86 ? Given a choice of blocks I'd start with the 968 version. The weight I'll concede but road tests back in the day gave the 250 bhp car a speed advantage so if there is an extra 100kg it wasn't hurting the performance. The brake ducts are cheap and easy to fit. No airbags in my 91 car. Personally I prefer the Turbo S wheels. I've seen early cars rotten past saving. I can have my driving lights on without the headlamps up. A lot of info on the internet may relate to LHD market cars.

Author:	944 Man [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
Most 1986 cars don't have a thick walled block, as far as I am aware.

Author:	PSH [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
944 Man wrote: Most 1986 cars don't have a thick walled block, as far as I am aware. I would agree...my car was completed on 3.3.1986 and registered on 22.4.86....she has the M44/51 engine for 86 batch.....87 engines came from the next batch, so on and so on....iirc M44/50 batch are the early thick walled cylinder engines. Pete

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	HUBBA.HUBBA [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 944 turbo V's turbo S
PSH wrote: ok I'll try to give some that I can recall...remember I've owned my own car for nearly 18 years now and in that length of time you learn a lot about the model and it's variants. I bought mine after driving a friends 220 model, another friend had a 250 , i knew very little about the car I just knew that I wanted one and began to search, I didn't care which. Found a car that was listed as the best example in the country...well they would wouldn't they but I went to have a look and the rest is history. I've always had this knack of buying the right thing even when knowing little about it, the car was no different. So I had a 220 and thought that's good, not as good as the 250 but who cares..it was when my friend who had the 250 stated he wished he hadn't sold the 220 model as point to point it was quicker that I began to take notice, he knew far more than I back then. So over the years I have learnt just what a jem I had bought.. differences...I've probably forgotten more than I can remember but here's some.. Earliest engines had thicker cylinder walls, forged rods 86 cars where homologated, the only year so I've read 86 brake cooling ducts, I believe that some later models had them too but not all Narrow track with those beautiful deep dish teledials, imho without doubt the best stance of any 944 86 are the lightest, weight increasing by up to 100kg over the years due to ABS, wider wheels and air bags etc early cars more resistant to corrosion and better built Porsche inscribed handles Fog lights or 'alternative headlights' could be operated without the headlights up I believe theres a difference between the A/C units but wouldn't swear to it I'm sure there's more but that's what I can remember of the top of my head... It's worth noting that the 944 was to replace the 911 and was built with no cost spared, things then began to change, the 911 was to stay and the boon years were coming to an end, costs were cut and cut hard, i'm sure others can add to what I've listed regards Pete I ask the question as I would like a 220 model as I love the look of the teledials (must be due to the first picture I saw of a silver 944 turbo when they first came out), but would like a bit more power. An extra 10hp over my s2 doesn't really appeal, hence chipping it. Not interested in massive power, more drivability. Do any 220's have aircon?