performance upgrades for 84 944
Paul
or something.
What can I do to my 84 944 to make it faster? So far I have installed a
cold air intake, a vented distributor cap with vacuum tubing, a Profire
Ignition coil from Nology and a set of 8mm Nology Hot Wires. Can anyone
recommend a good exhaust header and/or cat-back? Has anyone had a
lightened crankshaft put into their early 944 na for street use? Is this a
big project? Lots of labor? What else can I do to increase power to the
rear wheels besides a lighter flywheel? Has anyone upgraded their early 944
DME with the chip board you have to solder on(FRWilk)? If so, are you
satisfied with the results?
Any suggestions or comments would be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance
doug
Paul Sure
Sell it and buy a 944 S2, 951 or 968. There is no $100 addon that will make
it faster as your neighbours brand new toyota corolla.
The investments you need to make a normal 944 really faster are higher as an
upgrade to a S2.
If you really want to spent money on this car I suggest to get a 16V head of
a 944s it will give you 30hp more at high rpms. However, this will require
some work to fit it on a type 1 944.
Keep in mind your car is 20 years old and more power will probably damage a
lot of other parts you even don't know are on the car.
The only modifications that are usefull are.
1) 16 or 17 inch rims with 205 or 225 in front and 225 or 255 at the back
2) new shocks
3) K&N air filter
In europe the 17 inch wheels are really cheap second hand while all the 911
and 986 owners are replacing them with 18 inch now. For a 944 type 1 you
have to find 911 wheels with the right offset or install spacers. Driving
becomes more fun in the corners.
Only the turbo can easily modified for more power. With relative little work
you can get a 250hp turbo S to 300 HP by just adding a MAF kit, performance
chip, K&N air filter and a stronger head gasket.
I saw a posting of someone with this upgrade. He tried to save on the
headgasket ($1500 job) and had his orignal gasket blown a week later.
Paul
Martin Brindle
after induction noise not bhp gains), but if I wanted more power, the best
thing to do would be buy a faster car. Either a 951, or in my case, I'm
hoping to upgrade to a 911 as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
Having said that, if and when my head gasket blows, I'll be having my head
skimmed and gas-flowed, as the gains to be made though optimizing the flow
of air through the cylinder head are substansial if done correctly!
Martin
doug
gains as if you did it to anything else...
Porsche944
Unless you want to spend in the thousands, there is not much that can be
done to the NA engines.
However, that is not to say that gains over what you are currently producing
aren't possible.
First, find a dyno and have your car tested AS IS. This will tell you right
off the bat if you are even making stock ponies. Chances are you will be
some where below unless you have just completed a rebuild, which brings me
to my second point.
If the guys in the dyno shop are any good they should be able to recommend
what sort of things to look for like vacuum leaks, engine sensors, plugs,
wires, rotor, cap, fuel pressure, oil pressure, water temp, or what have
you.
Take this information and try to get the engine to run as close to stock as
possible: Steady idle, nice even acceleration, even exhaust note (stock cat
and muffler), no high speed missing, good oil pressure, good water
temperature, etc. While this is going on, keep an eye on oil usage and
condition (no metal flakes, heavy deposits, coolant ect.), coolant usage and
condition (no oil, rust, flakes, etc.), spark plug condition, and exhaust
smell. Run at least a mid-grade gas, but premium is OK if you can afford
it. Keep tabs on your mileage, driving style (agressive, crusing, what
ever), type of driving (city/highway), and Check Your Tire Pressure!
This process will give you a base line to work from, teach you quite a bit,
and give you a fairly good idea of the engine's health.
If you can get the engine to run in stock trim, the first "up grade" I would
recommend is a round throttle cam. There is no real horse power increase,
but the throttle comes on just a little quicker, and I think the car is just
easier to drive this way. The stock cam is a little "mushy" and I prefer a
much finer control and feel than what the stock cam gives.
If you want to try a chip, you can either get one of Mr. F.R. Wilks'
conversion kits, or you can swap in an AFM and DEM from an '85.5 or an '86.
You don't need to hack or swap the DME harness, just install the '86 parts,
and you're done. You may need to do a little "tweaking" to get the idle set
and so forth, but it's a "Plug-And-Play" operation.
I've used both methods, and the results were similar. I must admit though
that I had a "Beta" version of his chip, so even though I was satisfied, he
may have done some additional fine tuning.
As for the "bolt-ons," you can get a few ponies with a test pipe, but you
loose some low end torque, and may not pass emissions. Don't know about
headers, haven't tried them.
Beyond that you're looking at big buck blower/super charger/nitros kits, but
not only is the cost high, unless you have a "fresh" motor, drive train,
suspension, and brakes you're wasting your money.
Cliff Hipsher
'84 944 Sobel Metallic
'87 944 India Red
"Paul" <red...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Xns937DB07FCAD0Ar...@64.154.60.187...
kemit mcnally
1/4 mile times into the 12 second range. It is cheaper than buying a 951
and will cost about the same as buying an exhaust system, cold air intake
and new computer.
"Porsche944" <Porsc...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_nUxa.61166$5M.40...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Rhadamanthus
emblem off the hood and put it on the white-trash dream car.. and
pretend.
"kemit mcnally" <michael...@3web.net> wrote in message news:<3edc2690$1...@news.nucleus.com>...
D Corley
the value of the car to junk status..
Devils944
change, cars evolve. The 944 got more power as time passed and culminated
with the 968 and it's 240HP variocam 4. You can't expect 2003 power numbers
from a mid 80's car. Enjoy it for what it is, a very well built and
outstanding sportscar from another era. I am angling to add a 1983 SC Cab or
an early 70's 911 to the garage. I don't expect to go out smoking 996's in
either of them, but, I do expect to enjoy a piece of automotive history.
Skip the bowtie and get a 951S and tweak it. There was a guy on Rennlist
that was converting a 968 to a 968 Turbo S. That car was a rocket, if that
is what you are after.
If Chevy was the end all, they would have more respect around the world and
not just by a few Americans alone.
"Rhadamanthus" <sim...@cruisesonly.com> wrote in message
news:ca7c8396.03061...@posting.google.com...
Brad
driving. It's an n/a motor, not much can be done with it. There's no
harm in swapping in a Chevy engine if more power is the main goal. You
guys act like the n/a 944 engine is worth a damn nowadays. If the car
is slow, you do what it takes to make it how you want -- and a lightened
crankshaft ain't gonna cut it. The name on the valve cover makes little
difference. A Chevy V8 can make as much power as anyone could possibly
want and parts are dirt-cheap, so why not do a swap.
"Enjoy it for what it's worth." Yeah, an old, cheap Porsche that is
slow. 944s are nice, but there's nothing special about the n/a
engine. If an easy swap can add another 300-freakin' horsepower, then
just keep the hood closed when the Porsche snobs come nosing around
wondering what amazingly-fast Porsche engine is in there. Real car guys
don't care what the car is as long as it's fast and/or looks good.
william_b_noble
aficianados - dont' mix them
Personally, I agree with Devils944, but I'm not going to rise to the bait -
feel free to modify anything you can afford. In fact, if you want brake
horsepower, you can probably put nitrous oxide, and a blower and just sit
there and make rubber smoke. Whatever floats your boat. I prefer balance
to brute force, as do most (but not all) owners of a porsche.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EF000D1...@hotmail.com...
Brad
something slow to something with some actual power." All these people
with their doom and gloom about how front-heavy a V8 would make a 944
are just making up excuses to keep the slow stock engine in there. Too
much power is a good problem to have.
It's not trolling for Porsche owners. There is no bait. It's simply
the truth. Guys like Devils944 have a stick up their ass when it comes
to "defiling" a Porsche, but gimmie a break, it's an old n/a 944 that
might see the junkyard or get sold if the owner can't get some good
power out of it. The engine was ok for its time, but it can't hold a
candle to anything newer, and a Chevy V8 swap is a fairly-common thing.
So it would be a 944 with a Chevy engine in it -- big deal. A 400hp
Chevy-engined 944 sure is better than a 150hp 944. It'd be a fast and
cool Porsche that would make the driver smile -- and that's what
counts. If it was a turbo motor, my replies would be different. I'd
love to see a 911-powered Camaro, too, even if I know it would never
happen.
HH
> something slow to something with some actual power." All these people
> with their doom and gloom about how front-heavy a V8 would make a 944
> are just making up excuses to keep the slow stock engine in there. Too
> much power is a good problem to have.>
Actually not.I agree with William and Devils. When Chevy was dropping
in those 188 HP V-8 monsters in their late 70's model Corvettes and
Porsche was running the mid 200HP 928's no one was screaming about
swapping engines in Corvettes then. They simply lived with what they
had.
> It's not trolling for Porsche owners. There is no bait. It's simply
> the truth. Guys like Devils944 have a stick up their ass when it comes
> to "defiling" a Porsche, but gimmie a break, it's an old n/a 944 that
> might see the junkyard or get sold if the owner can't get some good
> power out of it.>
Maybe to those who do not understand what they are buying. Back in the
days of the 944, it's engine power was unmatched by anything in it's
day. If any owner is so ignorant to think that 20+ year old technology
will keep up with brand new technology should sell their car to
someone who appreciates it.
>The engine was ok for its time,>
ok ?!?!?!?!? It was the shit. It was unbeaten in IMSA stock
competition and was pitted against Corvettes, Camaros and Firebirds.
>but it can't hold a candle to anything newer,>
And a standard 911 from 1971 can't either. Whats your point?
Development is natural. The last generation 924/944/968 developed
240HP out of it's four cylinders. It had torque numbers to match.
A pushrod V-8 is hardly new.
> and a Chevy V8 swap is a fairly-common thing.<
And pretty much unaccepted in automotive circles.
> So it would be a 944 with a Chevy engine in it -- big deal. A 400hp
> Chevy-engined 944 sure is better than a 150hp 944.>
Better powerwise, but that is about it. Baseball players and most
professional athletes are judged by a system called "5 tools" If you
have 4 or 5 tools, you will most likely make the majors. If you have 3
or less tools you will toil in the minors for your whole career.
Taking a 944 that has 4 out of 5 tools and reducing it to a 1 tool car
is doing just that, reducing it. The engine is worth less. The
handling is now diminished. The loss of originality no longer makes it
a true Porsche. If you don't like the 944 the way it was built, buy a
951 or newer model. If you want power and that is what floats your
boat, Camaros and Firebirds are cheap and you can have all of the
power you want.
>If it was a turbo motor, my replies would be different. I'd
> love to see a 911-powered Camaro, too, even if I know it would never
> happen.
I wouldn't, because the weight of that tank alone would kill the
performance of that turbo.
I would like to see a return of the front engined coupe like the 944
or 928 with updated looks AND the turbo charged Cayenne engine as it's
powerplant.
Brad <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3EF02B81...@hotmail.com>...
Tod
(in message <6341aa05.03061...@posting.google.com>):
> I would like to see a return of the front engined coupe like the 944
> or 928 with updated looks AND the turbo charged Cayenne engine as it's
> powerplant.
Me too!
--
Tod
86 Porsche 944 Turbo
86,000 miles
Boulder, CO
turbo944_1986 at yahoo dot com
Brad
>
> Actually not.I agree with William and Devils. When Chevy was dropping
> in those 188 HP V-8 monsters in their late 70's model Corvettes and
> Porsche was running the mid 200HP 928's no one was screaming about
> swapping engines in Corvettes then. They simply lived with what they
> had.
True, in part, except that even those old Chevy engines had a huge
aftermarket and could be made as fast as anyone could want without
needing an engine swap. An n/a 944 pretty much *requires* an engine
swap. No one is going to make a 4-cylinder (non-SVO) Mustang fast
without an engine swap, either. Some engines are simply not
performance-oriented and would require large amounts of money to be made
so.
And, would a current owner of an old 180hp Camaro wanting more power out
of it be told to put in a lightened crankshaft or anything else in the
hopes of maybe getting 20-30 more hp out of it, or would they do the
smart thing and just swap a newer and better engine in? I know some
people don't like the cross-breeding when it comes to a Porsche, but
let's be honest, it's an '84 944, not some highly-prized collectible
version. Many 944s and 928s might get junked-out completely if their
engine blew and a swap couldn't be done. This gives them a new lease on
life and keeps another old Porsche cruising the streets instead of being
parked at the junkyard.
Heck, I'll even suggest to just swap in a 944 turbo motor. Either way,
to give that 944 good speed, it needs an engine swap. Or at least a
turbo on the n/a engine, but that might be more trouble and less
durability than it's worth.
> Maybe to those who do not understand what they are buying. Back in the
> days of the 944, it's engine power was unmatched by anything in it's
> day. If any owner is so ignorant to think that 20+ year old technology
> will keep up with brand new technology should sell their car to
> someone who appreciates it.
Exactly. To make the car fast, it either needs an engine swap, or it
needs to be sold for a different car. I don't care what the name on the
engine says as long as it does the job and makes the owner happy. If a
Chevy engine will get the job done for a decent price, then I say that's
great. And if done well, it will create a unique car. No true car guy
would see a 944 with a 300+hp Chevy V8 in it and not say it's cool.
>
> >The engine was ok for its time,>
>
> ok ?!?!?!?!? It was the shit. It was unbeaten in IMSA stock
> competition and was pitted against Corvettes, Camaros and Firebirds.
>
> >but it can't hold a candle to anything newer,>
>
> And a standard 911 from 1971 can't either. Whats your point?
Um, my point is that engine sucks under current standards and it's
pretty much worthless to try to mod it. That's what I thought this
thread was about from reading the subject line, anyway.
> Development is natural. The last generation 924/944/968 developed
> 240HP out of it's four cylinders. It had torque numbers to match.
> A pushrod V-8 is hardly new.
Woo hoo... now *I* get to say it.... "What's your point?" A pushrod V8
is not new, and neither is a DOHC engine, nor is much else. An LS1 is
just an old, out-of-date pushrod V8, yet it's one of the best engines
going. Pushrods or no pushrods, it doesn't matter as long as the engine
gets the job done.
Now stop changing the subject trying to somehow "save" Porsche's
reputation or whatever. It's not like I'm bashing Porsche. Pretty much
ALL 1984 cars suck compared to current standards.
It doesn't matter what the last generation of 924/944/968 had for
power. Do you know why? It's quite simple. It doesn't matter because
he does not have the last generation of that engine in his 1984 car. He
can swap one in, why not, but if I was doing the swap, I'd put something
serious and maybe a bit different in there. And 240hp isn't too
serious, nor is a 944 engine in a 944 different.
>
> > and a Chevy V8 swap is a fairly-common thing.<
>
> And pretty much unaccepted in automotive circles.
By snobs and people who have sticks up their asses, yes. Mustang owners
use Chevy transmissions and Camaro owners use Ford rear-ends, and people
put Ford V8's into Miatas and put Grand National engines into RX7's.
They're just cars, and swapping in another manufacturer's part sometimes
makes them better.
Heh, reading that again, that's pretty funny. "And pretty much
unaccepted in automotive circles." Unaccepted by whom? By purists? A
1984 n/a 944 is pure slow. The purists can accept and take pride in
their slow, pure cars if they want. And every time they lose a race or
get frustrated or white-knuckled when they try to merge on a short
onramp on the highway, they can comfort themselves by knowing their
slow-ass car is pure Porsche.
>
> > So it would be a 944 with a Chevy engine in it -- big deal. A 400hp
> > Chevy-engined 944 sure is better than a 150hp 944.>
>
> Better powerwise, but that is about it. Baseball players and most
> professional athletes are judged by a system called "5 tools" If you
> have 4 or 5 tools, you will most likely make the majors. If you have 3
> or less tools you will toil in the minors for your whole career.
> Taking a 944 that has 4 out of 5 tools and reducing it to a 1 tool car
> is doing just that, reducing it. The engine is worth less.
A Chevy V8 in a 944 is worth less than an underpowered n/a stock engine
in a 944? Let's say it is. It's not like the 944 engine is worth much,
either. I wouldn't be surprised if people give n/a 1984 944 engines
away.
The
> handling is now diminished
Oh, it is not. The same tired excuse over and over again. But you know
what? Let's say the handling *is* diminished because the front weighs a
little more than the rear now. Put some lead in the rear and it's 50/50
again -- only now it has a couple hundred or three more horsepower.
Point is, the diminished handling argument is a poor one unless the
person is going to seriously race the car.
. The loss of originality no longer makes it
> a true Porsche. If you don't like the 944 the way it was built, buy a
> 951 or newer model.
It's a 1984 944, worth maybe a few grand. It'd make a fun and cheap
project car. People put all kinds of engines into old Volkswagon Bugs,
and they're all cool because the original engine sucks, just like that
944 engine now does.
Is lightening the crankshaft, freeing up the exhaust, tricking out the
heads, adding an aftermarket camshaft, etc, etc, still keeping the car
original? What if aftermarket, non-Porsche heads are put on and only
the block is original (but filled with aftermarket pistons)? Where is
the line drawn? What if a 928 V8 was swapped in? The 944 sure wouldn't
be original anymore, and it might not handle as well, so now what? Is
it the same deal -- "If you don't like the 944 the way it was built, buy
something else"? If I swap a 928 V8 into my 944, will I be shunned by
those in "automotive circles?"
If you want power and that is what floats your
> boat, Camaros and Firebirds are cheap and you can have all of the
> power you want.
944s are cheap, too, but with most of them you can't have all the power
you want. Again, it's "Hey, if you don't like your slow-ass Porsche,
just take comfort in the fact that it's original and pure Porsche."
Think of the swaps the opposite way. Think of them as having a Camaro
that you want to swap a Porsche body and suspension onto because the
Camaro body and suspension doesn't cut it. Instead of defiling a
Porsche, it is defiling a Camaro and making it better with Porsche
parts.
>
> >If it was a turbo motor, my replies would be different. I'd
> > love to see a 911-powered Camaro, too, even if I know it would never
> > happen.
>
> I wouldn't, because the weight of that tank alone would kill the
> performance of that turbo.
400hp and 400lbs-ft will make any Camaro move pretty well. And some
911s weigh as much as, if not more than, Camaros.
Paul
companies that have a supercharger kit for the 944 N/A. The lowest price
was one at www.speedforceracing.com and they have multiple stages for
upgrades. looking at craking 250+ hp out of a 4-banger. Then you have
Huntley Racing, www.huntleyracing.com which used and edelbrok supercharger
mounted to their racing intake. Still looking at about 260+ the stock
engine. I think the guy from Speed Force told me total Stage 1 kit cost
about 3,000. He also stated, get little more out of it, free up the exhaust
flow, high flow headers, High flow CAT, and a high flow muffler. I got the
quote for my 924S, the lighter 944. take a porsche that weighs less than
2000 lbs, thanks to the fiberglass body kit thats already on it and 250+ hp,
I think I am going to end up have'n a Porsche Rocket. I plan on going this
route when college tuition is covered and I have enough extra money to go
this route.
--
"The Man With The Most Toys, WINS"
1987 Porsche 924S
1989 KX 250
1996 XR 250
1991 CR 250
1972 Porsche 914
1998 SeeDoo 750 GTX
Rhadamanthus
You have made some excellent points! Must people come into these
groups and post and Porsche slam with anything to back it up (not that
you are slamming all porsches). So for your insight, I thank you.
Being the owner of an '89 944 n/a I am very familiar with the lack of
raw power, and the expense of upgrades that may or may not improve
your cars performance.
I believe the truest statement is that if you want power, buy power.
I bought my 944 after studying the car for 5 years. I first saw one
online on a sports car website. I instantly fell in love with the body
styling, and knew I had to have one. I bought books on the car, read
reviews, and started pricing them. There is obviously a lot of allure
to a Porsche. The name, the performance, the history and power. People
need to understand what they are buying. I new when I bought my car,
that most new 4 cylinder cars come with more stock horsepower. It
wasn't built as a drag racer. The car was hailed as a "practicle
sports car". An entry level auto to get people hooked on the
performance of Porsche, and become loyal. You may get beaten by a
crappy looking early eighties camaro, but at the end of the day you
are still driving a Porsche, and they are still driving a crappy
camaro.
The bottum line is that you can want raw power, or balanced
preformance. I don't think anyone would argue that regardless of
performance figures, the Porsche is a better MACHINE. It runs better,
uses better parts, and will last longer. Sometimes that is more
important to people.
If a Camaro pulled up next to a mint '55 spyder, it would obviously
blow the doors off the Porsche.. but I bet the Camaro driver would
envy the Porsche driver. These cars cost as much as they did for a
reason. They were built better. You buy a mid 80s car, you get mid
eighties performance. You are still buying the best mid-eighties sport
car.
You are absolutley right about the power issues.. I don't think
anyone is contesting that.. people buy these cars now, knowing what it
is, and love it for just that.. I highly tuned, well balance sports
car from the eighties, that was derived from the fastest four cylinder
car made up to that time. However, everyone seems to have overlooked
the fact that this car was designed and built to run well as a 4
cylinder. You go doubleing (+) the power and you would need new
brakes, cooling system, exhaust, possibly the transmission, etc. You
throw off the whole harmony of the car, and although faster, it will
not perform as it was meant to.. that is why people are purists. When
you make something perfect, why change it. (If it ain't broke, don't
fix it).
I would drive the hell out of a new Vette, and I respect them for what
they are. Just as I drive the hell of my Porsche, and respect it for
what it is.
P.S.
If my engine blew up, I would have no problem throwing a V8 in there,
instead of buying a new 944 engine.
-Rhad Davis
'89 944 n/a 2.7l
Brad
groups don't seem to understand even the simple logic or
cost-effectiveness of what would be involved to make many older Porsches
into fire-breathers. They just like to spout how great Porsches are and
that nothing is better and blah blab blah without considering dollar
amounts and what can best get the job done.
People will read what I say about power and disregard that I do think
Porsches are well-built cars and look good and have that certain
something extra that other cars lack. But they also disregard that a
Chevy V8 swap is a viable, cost-effective option to keep an old car on
the road that might otherwise see the junkyard due to cost.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head -- as good as an old Porsche
might be, it's still old. Twenty-year-old cars have a tough time
competing against newer cars. Purists can want to keep them as they are
if they want, but someone who wants them to compete with newer cars has
to make some changes. Your last sentence shows me you are a true car
enthusiast and not just a brand-name snob.
Brad
He also stated, get little more out of it, free up the exhaust
> flow, high flow headers, High flow CAT, and a high flow muffler. I got the
> quote for my 924S, the lighter 944. take a porsche that weighs less than
> 2000 lbs, thanks to the fiberglass body kit thats already on it and 250+ hp,
> I think I am going to end up have'n a Porsche Rocket.
What Porsche weighs less than 2000 pounds? I don't think even a
stripped 914 can hit under 2000 pounds.
Paul
everything is fiberglass except for the sunroof basically. Hood, fender,
rear quaters, rear panel, front airdame, doors, all fiberglass, Carbon
Fiber dashboard. So the car is extremely light. We got my dads 914 down
alot, but he was surprised to get the 924S so low.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EF2D24...@hotmail.com...
D Corley
works...
kemit mcnally
heavier weight. If you look at raw, book numbers the Chevy engine comes out
almost 200 lbs heavier that the Porche. The problem is that Chevy lists the
weights with the entire engine including clutch, bell-housing and
accessories at 578 lbs while the 944 m44/40 engine is only a mere 389lbs or
so but without anything on it. When the LT1 Chevy with aluminum heads is
used, installed weight is about 70lbs heavier. That is a great deal of
weight when building a race car but not much to consider with a street car,
unless it is an undersprung and underpowered 4-banger. The extra torque
(approximately double) over the Porche engine will more than make up for it
and with a slight spring rate increase to 250lbs in front, I would challenge
any 944 owner to tell the difference in handling.
Last year I bought my daughter a Hyundai Elantra GT. Before I would let her
drive it she had to do at least one auto-cross and one drag race so that she
would learn to keep it off the street and on the track. She kicked my ass
in the 1/4 mile. Fortunately there was no comparison through the cones. I
knew it was time for a power upgrade if my Porche was to be outrun by a
Korean car!
On my car, I removed the air-conditioning and ended up with a car that
weighs the same as before the swap and did not have to change the springs.
This is a truly impressive car that handles like an exotic and runs like an
exotic rather than the underpowered and under appreciated car that it was
before. If anyone is contemplating a rebuild of the N/A engine, I would
highly recommend the swap. You will end up saving $$ as well as driving a
car that won't get its ass kicked by every little Honda with a fart-can
attached. Just learn to keep the hood closed when Porche purists are
around. Just remember that there is a whole other sect of purists that
don't consider the 924/944 a "real" Porche either!
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EF2D09C...@hotmail.com...
Devils944
heavier weight.>
...and the reliability of Chevy motors, and the actual cost of a proper
upgrade (you know, where you can keep minor things such as air
conditioning), the loss of fuel efficiency while retaining performance, the
actual word "upgrade", Chevy isn't exactly known for their quality,
reliability or world class reputation....
<myth, heavier weight.>
<installed weight is about 70lbs heavier.>
Your own words...heavier is heavier. To top the rest of you statement off,
you offer up more expensive modifications to make it down to that 70lb
difference.
> unless it is an undersprung>
For a big pig Chevy motor, which was not meant to be there in the first
place.
<and underpowered 4-banger.>
I will repeat this for the last time...in it's day it handily beat the V-8's
it competed against on the IMSA track. It had less HP and torque, but it's
overall makeup made it a better all around performer. You can't expect a 20+
year old car to compete in todays climate. If you want it to, buy a newer
model !
> and with a slight spring rate increase to 250lbs in front>
More cost ?
> Last year I bought my daughter a Hyundai Elantra GT. Before I would let
her
> drive it she had to do at least one auto-cross and one drag race so that
she
> would learn to keep it off the street and on the track. She kicked my ass
> in the 1/4 mile.>
You must be one bad driver then...the Elantra's numbers...2.0 liter 4,
140HP, 133lb/ft torque and 17.5 second performance is still over a second
shy of a 1983 944. So, you obviously need to bone up on your driving skills.
<Fortunately there was no comparison through the cones.>
You would think that 20 year old technology could be matched by most any car
today...but, as you have proven...not yet.
>I knew it was time for a power upgrade if my Porche was to be outrun by a
Korean car!>
Or get a newer Porsche or someone that knows how to handle the one they
had...YOU got beaten by the weaker car, not the Porsche.
> On my car, I removed the air-conditioning>
Don't want to have that little feature in the summer ! Ah, it's a small
sacrifice for all of that power though, don't want that pesky cool air in my
face while I am racing teenagers in their Hyundai's.
<and ended up with a car that weighs the same as before the swap and did not
have to change the springs.
This is a truly impressive car that handles like an exotic and runs like an
exotic rather than the underpowered and under appreciated car that it was>
At what cost ? We have all heard about these wonderful "swaps" for years
now, and no one will give us an actual cost. The only people that have been
somewhat forward were West Coast Vintage and they have said the V-8 swap is
past the $20K mark...and yes, I want my car complete...if I were to swap my
motor today, I would still have air conditioning. So factor in the cost of a
TRUE swap. No sacrificing, no shortcuts, no additional costs to "lower" the
weight.
> car that won't get its ass kicked by every little Honda with a fart-can
attached.>
I am waiting for the first...(I have the 3.0 liter 16v)
<Porche purists>
First of all it is Porsche, and second of all, it is automotive purists. I
wouldn't expect Chevy to dump in a Dodge V-10 to bring the Corvette up to
Viper power. Cars have progressed as did the 944...it became the 968 and
produced 240 Horses out of it's 3.0 liter 4.
< Just remember that there is a whole other sect of purists that don't
consider the 924/944 a "real" Porche either!>
Because of water cooling...but that has died down now that ALL Porsche cars
are water cooled. That other group of "purists" have been proven wrong as
evidenced by Porsches progression.
Now...post us some real numbers (Money) factor in time (if you did it
yourself) and give us the cost of all of your modifications and last...we
would like to see our car FULLY restored, with ALL of the systems in place,
so get us a price on putting AC back in...then I would LOVE to see all of
these $$$ savings...please, we're waiting.
"kemit mcnally" <michael...@3web.net> wrote in message
news:3f07b7d9$1...@news.nucleus.com...
Junkmail
questions :-)
What does it take to do an engine swap? What is the best choice for a
transplant? Are there any good FAQs? How common is it?
And sorry guys, Porsche is a car company, not a religion...
Although, now that I think about it... does a 928 V8 fit? It's not that
Porsche doesn't make a great engine, I just want the other half! :-)
Jesse
doug
928 has two ingnition systems and two fuel systems each wit the same
components as the 944S model.... they will fit but the other stuff, cooling
electronics exhaust will be a bitch...
Devils944
Good point...if the Jewish religion isn't exciting enough, just transplant a
little Jesus in there to "power it up" a little.
Or more fitting...drop the one lousy Christmas day and have EIGHT holy
nights !
Like I said earlier, the only people who have come clean on a swap have been
West Coast Vintage, and they got over $20K into it and gave up.
I don't think the 928 motor will fit easily. I have the 3.0 Liter 944 and
the airbox had to be moved into the nose to make the engine fit. The 928
motor is pretty tight in the 928 if I am not mistaken.
I am not too sure on the amount of 944 swaps, most people not satisfied with
the original 2.5 Liter, get a 951 and go from there.
"Junkmail" <junk...@rauch.net> wrote in message
news:MM1Oa.21763$Ix2.10609@rwcrnsc54...
Jack D. Russell, Sr.
--
Jack
"Devils944" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j07Oa.86029$98.29...@twister.socal.rr.com
<snip>
Rhadamanthus
about making a 944 faster through upgrades. The answer has always been
the same, Sell it and buy a 951. $ for $ cheaper and more reliable
then a swap. (And no GM necessary). Its incredibly hard to get more
power our of the 944 N/A. Its such a bare bones engine, where
'chipping' won't even help because the car is already optimized to the
best of its ability. The cheapest way to make your 944 n/a faster is
to remove the seats, and all non-vital components. Weight reduction
would be the key.
-Rhad Davis
'89 944 2.7l N/A
"Jack D. Russell, Sr." <jackru$$el...@notmail.com> wrote in message news:<bebhbo$38sak$1...@ID-120468.news.dfncis.de>...
Rhadamanthus
> <And sorry guys, Porsche is a car company, not a religion...>
>
> Good point...if the Jewish religion isn't exciting enough, just transplant a
> little Jesus in there to "power it up" a little.
>
> Or more fitting...drop the one lousy Christmas day and have EIGHT holy
> nights !
>
LAUGH OUT LOUD! Devils, you crack me up man.
-Rhad Davis
Brad
> I will repeat this for the last time...in it's day it handily beat the V-8's
> it competed against on the IMSA track. It had less HP and torque, but it's
> overall makeup made it a better all around performer. You can't expect a 20+
> year old car to compete in todays climate. If you want it to, buy a newer
> model !
Yeah! Just send the current Porsche to the junkyard and go buy a
$100,000 911!
All this talk about cost... hey, Devils, what's it cost to give an n/a
944 500hp? Or even 400hp? Because that's what a decent Chevy V8 will
put out.
Alan Cole
> All this talk about cost... hey, Devils, what's it cost to give an n/a
> 944 500hp? Or even 400hp? Because that's what a decent Chevy V8 will
> put out.
Didn't someone say it was around $20,000 - and counting...? ;)
Personally, I'd buy a turbo, fit a boost enhancer, dual port, have it
chipped, upgrade the head gasket and enjoy the reliable 300+bhp. For a lot
less money than _any_ engine transplant.
kemit mcnally
took an otherwise good handling and fun British sports car and breathed some
life into it by putting in a V8. I wonder how many people poo-pooed that
idea at the time.
"Alan Cole" <NO....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FNyOa.5096$ju6....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
william_b_noble
real.news:3F0A8662...@hotmail.com...
Bogdan
have seen them put out 300+ hp with some upgrades, and "Excellence"
head an article about 951 with 968 engine that put up almost
640hp@24psi out of 2.6l.
Personally I got 951 and love it, would never trade it for a V8
anything. I see the idea of putting a V8 in a 944 with a blown engine,
surprised it would fit though. It would be relatively unique, and that
is what I like, a good looking car that is one of a kind (or at least
something that is hart to fined on the street).
- Bogdan
Devils944
Hey look everybody...the moron, Brad, made an Oxymoron !
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F0A8662...@hotmail.com...
Devils944
straight line".
Guess what guys...real roads have curves !
Chevy learned that the hard way in the Inaugural IMSA series when it's V-8
Corvettes, Firebirds and Camaros were getting smoked week in and week out by
4 banger N/A 944's. Can you imagine if the 951 was allowed to race to "even
up" the horsepower !!! I guess the Porsches would have been forced to drive
in reverse. At least Ford had the good sense to keep their Mustangs out of
those races.
"kemit mcnally" <michael...@3web.net> wrote in message
news:3f0ad2ea$1...@news.nucleus.com...
Rhadamanthus
year. I have an '89 944 N/A. I actually ended up turning onto some
back country roads just after the Cobra. When we hit the last stop
sign before the twisted roads he revved it and toasted me shamelessly
off the line, burning rubber the whole way.. he soon grew smaller and
smaller. We went up a blind hill with a stiff left curve, and at the
very end of the curve I was right back on him. The roads were full of
S turns, and at every one I caught back up. He eventually got to where
he was going, and I honked and he gave the thumbs up. That was
probably the most exillerating road race I've had. No high quite like
it.
-Rhad Davis
'89 944 2.7l n/a
"Devils944" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<EQKPa.36$Ao6....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
kemit mcnally
drivers, why are the new Porches Cararras hitting into the 400HPs.
The 944 is a great handling car. For an old clunker, it certainly is an
exciting and well-balanced machine. The V8 does not upset that handling.
My V8 powered Porche, with improved shocks and sway-bars handles better than
it did when it only had 188HP 4-banger. Now is has both horsepower and
handling. It fits the bill as a poor-man's super car and is much better
than wasting what would have been a clapped-out, junk-yard ready Porche. It
still has all of the driving pleasure and then some. To each his own! I
know someone who recently put a V8 in an 2nd gen RX7 and they're having a
blast too!
"Devils944" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MvKPa.15$Ao6....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Art Vandelay
Perhaps you can shed some light onto this for us. Which V8 conversion
did you do? How much did it cost? Did you do the work yourself, or
did you have someone do it? Do you still have everything working,
i.e. heating and air-conditioning?
Thanks,
Brad
Devils944
<bds at fuse dot net (Art Vandelay)> wrote in message
news:3f19481d...@news.fuse.net...
Devils944
Porsche
> drivers, why are the new Porches>
Porsche
<Cararras hitting into the 400HPs.>
Carrera
To answer you question, the handling is there WITH the horsepower.
<old clunker>
OK, your troll colors are showing.
< The V8 does not upset that handling.
> My V8 powered Porche, with improved shocks and sway-bars handles better
than>
We are still waiting on a cost for this. You have seemed to avoid this
constantly and we need an answer. Oh yeah..it's Porsche
< It fits the bill as a poor-man's super car >
Anything GM powered will never be classified as a "super car" and you are
also starting to contradict your self in previous posts. First you say that
you got beat by a 140HP Sonata in your 150HP 944 (which means you are a
shitty driver because even a 1983 944 beats it in all the performance
categories) Now you seem to have come up with a 944S and 188HP, which makes
your Sonata story even sound more like bullshit. Which is it ?
> than wasting what would have been a clapped-out, junk-yard ready Porche.>
Porsche...and with decent examples of the 944 still selling at the
$5000-$7000 range your vehicle must have been really abused if it was
"junk-yard" ready. Throwing around "clapped out" and "junkyard" sounds like
trolling to me.
Why don't we just settle this now...
Give us the cost of the new engine. Give us the cost of the modifications to
the engine that reduced the weight to only 70lbs above normal. Give us the
cost of the modifications to the engine bay to accommodate the new engine.
Give us the cost of shocks and springs and sway bars to handle this new
engine and please tell us what it cost or did you do it yourself. Please
post pix of the car somewhere...before and after. We want to see it.
We have listened to your bullshit babble for weeks now, it's time to put up
!
"kemit mcnally" <michael...@3web.net> wrote in message
news:3f18...@news.nucleus.com...
Brad
Anyone who would rather drive a stock-powered non-turbo 944 over a 400hp
V8-powered 944 might be a purist, but they are also not a performance
car guy. When a 944 can get its ass whippped by a newer Honda, it's
time to upgrade the 944.
Devils944
who would rather drive a stock-powered non-turbo 944 prefers to drive the
car exactly as it was built. Everyone knows that a 400hp
V8-powered 944 is just a ridiculous. They might be a purist, but they also
know that power is not the only criteria for a performance car. Anybody that
thinks that power is the only thing is definitely not a performance guy.
When a 944 can get its ass whippped by a newer Honda that means it's time to
learn how to drive because the only Honda that has surpassed the 1983 944
N/A has been the S2000. Look up the performance if you don't believe me. If
you don't like the 944 N/A, get a 951 or 951S, and preserve t's fine
pedigree. Any moron knows that a Chevy could not upgrade the 944.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1A3E42...@hotmail.com...
Brad
>
> N/A has been the S2000. Look up the performance if you don't believe me. If
> you don't like the 944 N/A, get a 951 or 951S, and preserve t's fine
> pedigree. Any moron knows that a Chevy could not upgrade the 944.
Even a heavily-modded 944 has no chance against a 600hp V8-powered 944.
A guy rolls up next to you in a 600hp 944. ...do you know what's under
the hood without looking? Maybe the exhaust note will give a clue there
might be a V8 in there. Other than that, though, the only other thought
you have is probably, "I'm gonna lose." I'd say that's an upgrade.
Drive a slow, "pure" car if you want. Just don't complain when you get
white-knuckled trying to merge onto a busy highway.
Art Vandelay
out of your mind. There may be faster machines out there, but not all
many, and they're certainly not THAT much faster.
Maybe it's my experience as an airline captain, but I also NEVER get
white knuckled merging onto a highway. If you get that scared, or
live in such a dangerous area, perhaps you should allow someone with
more cojones/ driving skill to take you where you need to go? If
that's not an option, I'd recommend taking advantage of some of the
driver's ed. events the local PCA clubs sponsor. Remember, there's an
incredible difference in driving a fast car, rather than driving a car
fast.
Brad
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:35:18 -0600, Brad <Deusxm...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Devils944
Unless there is a curve.
You can rant about power all you want, but, unless you are just another one
of those assholes that think drag racing and beating teeny boppers in their
ricers makes you a man, most of could give a shit about 600HP on American
streets, much less downgrading our cars with G.M. parts.
>Other than that, though, the only other thought
> you have is probably, "I'm gonna lose.">
Other than that, though, the only other thought is, "Damn that dude is
sweating. He must have lost his A/C along with $20,000 doing a swap in a
944."
<I'd say that's an upgrade.>
For the last time. Chevy is NEVER an upgrade from Porsche. Timex is not an
upgrade from Tag. McDonalds is not an upgrade from Ruth Chris, Kmart is not
an upgrade from Ralph Lauren. You just don't get it Brad...it's the QUALITY
stupid !
Power does not necessarily mean performance.
Google search "Porsche IMSA Inaugural Firehawk"
The 944 beat V-8's in every race...performance is a synergy of factors.
Power is only one factor. Learn it or lose come race day.
"Brad" <Deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1B97B6...@hotmail.com...
> Devils944 wrote:
> >
> > N/A has been the S2000. Look up the performance if you don't believe me.
If
> > you don't like the 944 N/A, get a 951 or 951S, and preserve t's fine
> > pedigree. Any moron knows that a Chevy could not upgrade the 944.
>
> Even a heavily-modded 944 has no chance against a 600hp V8-powered 944.
>
> A guy rolls up next to you in a 600hp 944. ...do you know what's under
> the hood without looking? Maybe the exhaust note will give a clue there
> might be a V8 in there. >
Porsche944
V-8 my ass.
You youngsters think you know all there is to know about "performance"
because you saw a copy of Hot Rod magazine and you know how to spell V-8.
As for drag racing, I'll bet your mommy won't let you go to a race because
of the noise levels, and you wouldn't know a "Christmas Tree" from a "bleach
box" if they both bit you in the ass.
BTW: At least get a learner's permit before you start talking about how
"bad" you and your "V-8" are.
"Devils944" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7A0Ta.115$054....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Brad
>
> I have a 1989 N/A Porsche 944. If you think my car is slow, you're
> out of your mind. There may be faster machines out there, but not all
> many, and they're certainly not THAT much faster.
What area do you live in? An n/a 944 is slow. They're not turtle slow,
but they're slow relative to other cars. That's just the way it is. A
new minivan would probably have no problem beating it. Sounds like you
havne't been in enough other cars. The 944 was great in its day, but,
let's face it, it's old and slow now unless its modified -- just like
most other 1989 vehicles now are. Still turns good and looks nice,
though.
I drove a 1979 350 Z28 Camaro a few years back. Had 40,000 miles on
it. "Ooo... a 350 V8 Camaro... this'll be fun." It sucked. Besides
the stock brakes making you fear for your life, the engine was just
plain slow. I'm not limiting my statements just to 1989 944s here. The
technology and performance bars have been raised, that's all. The
typical family sedan nowadays has a good 200hp. That's quite a step up
from yesteryear.
>
> Maybe it's my experience as an airline captain, but I also NEVER get
> white knuckled merging onto a highway. If you get that scared, or
> live in such a dangerous area, perhaps you should allow someone with
> more cojones/ driving skill to take you where you need to go?
Come on now, you know what I mean. There you are, merging onto a
highway that has a very short onramp that you thought was longer, and
suddenly, oh shit, you are only doing 50mph while trying to merge with
traffic doing 75mph. In a fast car, you can just put the pedal down and
no problem. In a 16-second car, you're going to have to hope someone
lets you in. Fast cars are safe cars.
Brad
>
> > Even a heavily-modded 944 has no chance against a 600hp V8-powered 944. >
>
> Unless there is a curve.
The same old straw-man argument. That's about all anyone can ever say
about Chevy V8 performance in a 944 because they certainly can't say
much else. An aluminum-headed Chevy simply doesn't weigh that much more
than a stock 944 engine. It's like you just can't admit a *well-done*
944 with a Chevy V8 is a hell of a performance machine. A Camaro
usually can't turn for shit, but a 944 can. Give the 944 some real
torque and horsepower, and look out. Don't you see that it is a
compliment to the 944 chassis that people would want to put V8's in it?
Who puts a V8 in a Honda Civic? Nobody, because Honda Civics suck.
What do you think of a 944 with a 928 V8 in it? It'd be all-Porsche,
but, careful, don't be a hypocrite now.
>
> You can rant about power all you want, but, unless you are just another one
> of those assholes that think drag racing and beating teeny boppers in their
> ricers makes you a man, most of could give a shit about 600HP on American
> streets, much less downgrading our cars with G.M. parts.
If you want to talk about curves and less power, what do you tell
yourself your car excels at performance-wise when there are no curves on
the road? This isn't Europe; This is America, where the roads are
mostly long stretches of straightness. 600hp is not just for racing
teenyboppers. It's for putting a smile on your face every time you go
up a highway onramp.
Bottom line: you make excuses for an old 944's lack of straight-line
power.
> For the last time. Chevy is NEVER an upgrade from Porsche. Timex is not an
> upgrade from Tag.
Wow, you really ARE a snob if you consider Tag to be much better than a
Timex. They may time Formula One races, but it doesn't mean they're
better than anything else.
> Power does not necessarily mean performance.
Then what does? By all means, offer up some more excuses why it's ok
for 944's to be slow. Keep the list handy for when an 11-second Grand
National driver beats you by 20 car lengths to the next stoplight
without even trying. Take pride in knowing your car is "pure, slow
Porsche."
Most 1989 cars can't hang against newer stuff unless they are modded.
Plain and simple. You talk like an n/a 944 is some sacred treasure that
needs to be preserved for all eternity. It's just a car. They made
tons of them. A 3.0 version, that's a little different because it's so
rare, but the average 944... anything to save it from the junkyard.
>
> Google search "Porsche IMSA Inaugural Firehawk"
>
> The 944 beat V-8's in every race...performance is a synergy of factors.
> Power is only one factor. Learn it or lose come race day.
Oh, do you race on a racetrack during your daily commute? Does your
daily commute have eight or ten tight corners? What do you mean, "No"?
You say racing teenyboppers doesn't mean anything, but then you want to
toss out results of professional race teams driving race cars. I know,
let's also look at Nascar and see how fast a Monte Carlo runs on the
street.
And how would those race car 944's fare against today's machinery? I
bet they'd have to be upgraded, wouldn't they. Maybe toss a V8 in them
or something.
Art Vandelay
for. And please don't be a dumbass. My 89 may be a little slower
than SOME cars, but you try to make it out to be a GEO Metro.
Riiiiiiight....As for other cars I've owned, maybe I could learn a
thing or two from an expert like you. Cars I've owned in the past
are a 1978 Trans Am, a 1985 Mustang GT, a 1988 Firebird, and a 92
Corvette. I bought the 944 because that was my dream car when I was
back in college.
As for your 79 Camaro experience, I think those were 2 bbl. models
with a whopping 145 horsepower. About the same as an early 944, which
weighs a whole lot less.
As for your on-ramp machismo, I know exactly what you mean. If there
happens to be your typical maroon Oldsmobuick in the right lane, you
certainly HAVE TO get in front of them or else you'll feel all
insignificant because you were born with a really small penis. So,
you have to stomp on the gas, to nudge in front of that family of
four, make them lock up the brakess, just so you'll feel like a man.
And for your last little gem...."Fast cars are safe cars..." No
Einstein, a fast car isn't necessarily a safe car. A safe car is one
with good brakes and suspension, proper tire pressures, a solid
drivetrain, and a responsible person behind the wheel. A Ferrari F1
is blindingly fast, but with an imbecile behind the wheel, it's
deadly. One only needs to look at the insurance rates for "fast" cars
to see that they're really not all that safe. There are millions of
dumbasses who get "fast" cars and try to rationalize how "safe" they
are because they have so much extra power over all of the "dangerous"
people out there. But 99% of them have never learned the correct way
to drive fast, and are fucking dangerous.
And now I'm going to stop wasting my time talking on this subject.
You're obviously a short guy with a small cock, who feels like he has
something to prove every time he gets behind a wheel, or else you'll
feel like less of a man than you already are. When you get a little
more mature (or finally use your head and take some driving
instruction) that straight line acceleration is just one small part of
quick lap times. Quarter-mile times are ridiculously minor unless
you're that redneck we've all seen blastoff from every stoplight just
to slam on the brakes in 200 feet.
And lastly, why have still refused to tell us how much your fancy
conversion costs? We've only asked you about 4 times...Is it because
you're totally lying about all this, or you're ashamed that you've
wasted 20 grand and guys with N/As still kick your ass at the track?
Goodbye, Troll
Brad
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:04:31 GMT, Brad <deusxm...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Art Vandelay
you, Brad? 17, 18?
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:19:13 -0600, Brad <deusxm...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rhadamanthus
951, right?
There is no way it is cheaper to buy and 944 and put another engine in
it, then to just buy a 951. Problem solved.
There is an old post in here about upgrades somewhere in this group I
read, asking what to do to get more power out off a 944. The response
was simple, sell it and buy a 951.
-Rhad
'89 944 n/a
Brad <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F1CF381...@hotmail.com>...
Devils944
and I am more than happy to give it to you. You regurgitate "information"
from people that still have not enlightened us with cost ratios and
performance downgrades. You pull fantasy numbers out of your ass (600HP V-8)
and expect us to buy your bullshit, all with a nice little bow. First I will
punch down your weak arguments and then present some real numbers and facts.
> The same old straw-man argument. That's about all anyone can ever say
about Chevy V8 performance in a 944 because they certainly can't say much
else.>
Guess what Brad, as proven in the IMSA races handling was EVERYTHING. The
V-8's could not compete. Let me put it this way...I could kill a top fuel
dragster around the Indianapolis track. I will be out gunned by several
thousand horsepower.
<An aluminum-headed Chevy simply doesn't weigh that much more than a stock
944 engine.>
Hey Brad, how about an original thought...not some regurgitation from
another Chevy owner. The exact difference if you must know is 92lbs and that
is a HUGE difference from a balance standpoint. We will go over this later.
> Give the 944 some real torque and horsepower, and look out.>
You see, this is why you should stick to what you know Brad and keep your
uniformed opinions to yourself. It is apparent that you never manned a 944.
If you did you would see how laughable your arguments are. It is obvious
that you are used to the Japanese approach to power which is a high HP / Low
torque approach. There is no problem with that, except that some people
(myself included) prefer power throughout the power curve.
The reason an N/A 944 it pretty much tweaked where it is, is because the
power curve of HP and Torque follow each other and at 5252 RPM the max of
each is met. A typical Honda Civic or Toyota Celica achieves only part of
it's horsepower before the torque dropoff at 5252 RPM. Sure a Civic may
boast 140HP at 6800 RPM's, but is purely an esoteric number. It stopped
accelerating at 5252RPM at around the 120HP range.
<Don't you see that it is a compliment to the 944 chassis that people would
want to put V8's in it? >
No, to downgrade a great car with an inferior engine (remember, the 944
dominated it in head to head competition) of dubious quality and to screw
with all of the characteristics that made it great is an abomination.
> What do you think of a 944 with a 928 V8 in it? It'd be all-Porsche, but,
careful, don't be a hypocrite now.>
No need, I know about Porsches, and you don't so it makes it easy. The width
of the 928 power makes an engine swap impossible. The wider 928 engine would
not fit. In the 1980's Porsche had kicked around the idea of a three car
line up with the 928 being the flagship a smaller version of it or a larger
version of the 944 with a 6 or 8 cylinder engine as the middle car and the
944 being the entry level model. Problem was first, money and second was the
fact that there was not a significant performance upgrade from the middle
cars point of view. Had the 968 Turbo S made it to the U.S. in 1994, you
could not do much better than it's 305 HP Turbo charged motor. The
difference between that and the last 928's 355HP V-8 was too minimal.
> Bottom line: you make excuses for an old 944's lack of straight-line
power. >
You still don't get it do you ? The 944 was never meant to be a straight
line racer. It was meant to give its owner complete acceleration through the
power curve and to out handle anything that challenged it. It is an all
around performer, not one trick pony.
> Wow, you really ARE a snob if you consider Tag to be much better than a
Timex.>
I suggest you step out of Walmart and go to a jeweler that sells Tag watches
and he will be glad to point out the QUALITY differences.
> Most 1989 cars can't hang against newer stuff unless they are modded.>
From what ass did you pull this from ? Anybody with a 951 want to set this
boy straight ?
< A 3.0 version, that's a little different because it's so
> rare, but the average 944... anything to save it from the junkyard.>
Wrong again...I have the 3.0 liter model. The 968 was the 3.0 liter model
(with variocam) it shares almost all of the same characteristics of the
2.5's except it will top out at over 150MPH. You get the same spread across
the power spectrum except the added torque and HP will allow much better
upper end performance.
> Oh, do you race on a racetrack during your daily commute? Does your daily
commute have eight or ten tight corners?>
No, but a weekend trip to Carmel and it's several hundred curves makes it
awfully annoying to get stuck behind a Mustang Cobra or Camaro SS.
> You say racing teenyboppers doesn't mean anything, but then you want to
toss out results of professional race teams driving race cars.>
Oh Brad...you make me laugh so hard it hurts! Sorry to bust your
bubble...the IMSA Firehawk series was for STOCK cars. No modifications
allowed. Those were 150HP 944's beating up on those 200HP+ corvettes and
Camaros. Nice try though.
Next thread will contain conversion numbers...hold onto your hat all.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1CF381...@hotmail.com...
Devils944
First off, Brads fantasy of 600HP V-8's is just that, fantasy.
1. ENGINE : Several manufacturers offer "drop-in" V-8's for engine swaps. To
get the engine with aluminum heads to save weight, the Chevy 350 is offered
in 2 HP's The 310HP version and the 350HP version. For those of you
unfamiliar with the term "drop-in" that just means complete.
Your cost (parts only) the 310HP version : $3600.00
the 350HP version : $4600.00
Labor : You will have to modify the engine bay, the front suspension and the
engine mounting in order to get this engine to seat properly. It will weigh
92lbs. more and is seated further up than the stock 944 motor. The myth is
that the 944 is 50/50 balanced. In truth it is 48 rear 52 front. Factoring
in the heavier motor and beefed up suspension required you will get about a
4% to 5% increase up front. This will change your weight ratio to about 45.5
rear 54.5 up front. This WILL affect your handling, no doubt. It's the total
weight distribution NOT the heavier springs that determine the 944's
handling.
Gauges will need to be switched as well as computers and harnesses.
The final cost for a proper install with no setbacks (minus A/C) is around
45 Hours, closer to 50, for a cost of around $4500.00+
(Source : ASE certified mechanic)
Now, the suspension parts will cost you in the neighborhood of $1200.00.
Throw in other miscellaneous parts and your total bill to take a 944 N/A and
properly convert it into a V-8 is approximately $10,500.
If you wish to have your air conditioning, power steering or other
miscellaneous features expect an additional $2500 charge.
From the same mechanic. Sell the 944 for $4K to $5K and buy a 951 or 951S. A
decent 951 can be found for $8000 and a decent S for $12,000. Now taking
into account you got $5K for your 944, that S will cost you $7000.00. Drop
$3K into a decent free flow exhaust, 2 stage chips and better air flow
(filter and throttle body)(labor included) and your 951S will smoke that V-8
conversion and outhandle it also. All this and you get to keep your air and
other systems intact.
Sell 944 and buy a 951S and modify around $15,500. Subtract the 5K you got
for the N/A...$10,500.00 give or take.
944 V-8 (loaded) : $13,000.00 (U.S.)
951S (loaded) : $10,500.00 (U.S.)
It is simply not cost effective, fuel efficient, or car value efficient to
make the swap. I urge you Brad...check with a mechanic, they will tell you.
Note : These numbers reflect a Southern California estimate, your numbers
may vary.
"Rhadamanthus" <sim...@cruisesonly.com> wrote in message
news:ca7c8396.03072...@posting.google.com...
Brad
>
> I live in Cincinnati, Ohio for whatever reason you wanted to know that
> for. And please don't be a dumbass. My 89 may be a little slower
> than SOME cars, but you try to make it out to be a GEO Metro.
I didn't make it out to be a Geo Metro. Don't be so defensive. When a
new minivan has 200hp, when a new Nissan Maxima has *260* hp, then an
n/a 944 is going to be considered slow. Plain and simple. You can
think it's fast if you want, but it's not.
> Riiiiiiight....As for other cars I've owned, maybe I could learn a
> thing or two from an expert like you. Cars I've owned in the past
> are a 1978 Trans Am, a 1985 Mustang GT, a 1988 Firebird, and a 92
> Corvette. I bought the 944 because that was my dream car when I was
> back in college.
Most of the cars you listed there can get whipped by a new minivan or
family sedan too, nowadays. I even wrote about myself driving a '79 350
Camaro. It was slow as hell with only 40,000 miles on it. A '92
Corvette isn't bad, but it's not going to set any records, either. Like
I said, I simply don't think you've driven enough other cars is all. Go
drive even a mild 400hp Turbo Regal or something. Your eyes will
probably pop out of your head. And 400hp really isn't shit for a modded
car. Quit being so defensive. If you think pretty much ANY 1989 car is
"fast" nowadays, then you need to drive more cars.
>
> As for your 79 Camaro experience, I think those were 2 bbl. models
> with a whopping 145 horsepower. About the same as an early 944, which
> weighs a whole lot less.
1979 Camaros were slow. 1980's Corvettes are slow. 1989 n/a 944s are
slow. I can't believe you're disputing this. I even said they're not
"turtle-slow," just slower than even decent family cars now available.
>
> As for your on-ramp machismo, I know exactly what you mean. If there
> happens to be your typical maroon Oldsmobuick in the right lane, you
> certainly HAVE TO get in front of them or else you'll feel all
> insignificant because you were born with a really small penis. So,
> you have to stomp on the gas, to nudge in front of that family of
> four, make them lock up the brakess, just so you'll feel like a man.
I can't believe you are so defensive on every point I made simply
because I called your 14-year-old car "slow." Christ, wake up. I'm not
bashing Porsches. I'm not saying they suck. I'm saying an n/a 944
isn't fast. A stock turbo 944 isn't fast, either. A modded 944 turbo,
hey, now we're talkin'.
Maybe they don't have that much traffic in Ohio where you'd experience
what I'm talking about. You go to the extreme of making the family of
four lock up the brakes and other nonsense. Gimme a break. I'm sure
you're old enough and have been driving long enough to have experienced
a situation similar to what I described. You're just mad because I hurt
your fragile ego by calling an n/a 944 slow, which it is. Tough luck.
Too bad, so sad. A stock 160hp Honda Civic would probably beat that
thing. That means it's SLOW. I clearly hurt your feelings about your
car. Too bad. Grow a backbone. It's just a car. The truth about 1989
vehicles hurts. Grow up and come join the technology and performance
bar of 2003.
> And now I'm going to stop wasting my time talking on this subject.
> You're obviously a short guy with a small cock, who feels like he has
> something to prove every time he gets behind a wheel, or else you'll
> feel like less of a man than you already are.
You wrote all of this just because I said your car is slow. If your car
can be beat by a new minivan, THEN IT'S SLOW. You must be the one with
a small cock if you feel the need to get all bent out of shape arguing
such things and acting like your car is an extension of yourself. It's
just a car. Grow up.
> And lastly, why have still refused to tell us how much your fancy
> conversion costs? We've only asked you about 4 times...Is it because
> you're totally lying about all this, or you're ashamed that you've
> wasted 20 grand and guys with N/As still kick your ass at the track?
I never said anything about my conversion. In a number of threads I've
told people to buy turbo 944s or put a turbo engine into an n/a 944.
You've clearly demonstrated yourself to be a moron who not only lacks
common sense and who acts like his car is an extension of himself and
his penis, but who also can't read. Come back after you've passed 9th
grade.
Brad
>
> OK, I know I said that was going to be my last post, but how old are
> you, Brad? 17, 18?
As far as knowing about cars and having common sense, it's obvious I've
got at least 20 years on you, Art.
Brad
>
> You all do realize that in 1986 Porsche solved this issue with the
> 951, right?
> There is no way it is cheaper to buy and 944 and put another engine in
> it, then to just buy a 951. Problem solved.
>
> There is an old post in here about upgrades somewhere in this group I
> read, asking what to do to get more power out off a 944. The response
> was simple, sell it and buy a 951.
>
> -Rhad
> '89 944 n/a
And I've said the same! I've also said to drop a turbo 944 engine into
an n/a 944! But some people are morons who just want to fight and
pretend an n/a 944 is fast in a straight line when it's not. I've even
said they turn well and look good, but apparently the morons here who
like to argue skip over those parts.
Brad
> performance downgrades. You pull fantasy numbers out of your ass (600HP V-8)
> and expect us to buy your bullshit,
How is 600hp bullshit or pulling it out of my ass? An LS1 can do 550hp
with ONLY a street cam and some headwork. 600hp isn't too far off. A
Ford 4.6 is around 550hp with hardly much else besides a supercharger.
How is having or wanting 600hp "bullshit?" What's bullshit is expecting
600hp out of a non-built 944 turbo engine. It all depends on what you
want. Why can't you just admit that a non-turbo Porsche 944 isn't the
be-all end-all of cars and leave it at that?
> Guess what Brad, as proven in the IMSA races handling was EVERYTHING. The
> V-8's could not compete. Let me put it this way...I could kill a top fuel
> dragster around the Indianapolis track. I will be out gunned by several
> thousand horsepower.
Do the people in this group race against top fuel dragsters at the
Indianapolis track? Do you race at the Indianapolis track on your way
to work? What is the point of such a comparison when it has no basis
for how these street cars perform on the street? Maybe you just like
watching them race on TV and then daydream you can beat every other car
on the road on the way to the grocery store while looking at your car
sitting in your driveway.
> > Give the 944 some real torque and horsepower, and look out.>
>
> You see, this is why you should stick to what you know Brad and keep your
> uniformed opinions to yourself. It is apparent that you never manned a 944.
> If you did you would see how laughable your arguments are. It is obvious
> that you are used to the Japanese approach to power which is a high HP / Low
> torque approach. There is no problem with that, except that some people
> (myself included) prefer power throughout the power curve.
Laugh-out-fuckin'-loud. I'm sorry, but God damn, you are stupid. What
"power" does a 1989 n/a 2.5 have, exactly? You just can't admit a
NON-TURBO 944 is slow. This is just yet another example of you being
full of shit and using any argument you can to make people think
Porsches are the best cars ever regardless of any parameters or years or
options or engines or modifications taken into account.
"Power under the curve." Every Japanese automaker except Honda uses
turbochargers on their performance engines. Turbos make torque. Turbos
make "power under the curve." Those turbos make you full of shit as you
so often are.
"Low torque." Is maximum torque at 3000rpms considered "low?" Not to
mention half the time in these conversion threads I talk about *V8*
conversions. How's about a 383 for some torque under the curve compared
to an n/a 2.5? How about a stroker 406? Why do you try to argue such
stupid things when you are clearly so full of shit?
I'll be more than happy to argue for putting a turbo 944 engine into an
n/a 944, or putting a 928 V8 into a 944. I have said these things in
the past. I have said these things recently. The best you can do is
bring up non-turbo Honda Civic engines when I'm talking about things
such as a carburated Chevy smallblock that will do 400hp and 400lbs-ft
without even trying. Where's your "torque under the curve" argument
now? Dumbass. Give it up. Go back to the Rennlist where they don't
mind morons who don't know what they are talking about as long as they
say Porsches are good and everything else is bad. It's not my fault you
drive a stock 3.0 instead of a modded 944 that would actually have some
balls.
> The reason an N/A 944 it pretty much tweaked where it is, is because the
> power curve of HP and Torque follow each other and at 5252 RPM the max of
> each is met. A typical Honda Civic or Toyota Celica achieves only part of
> it's horsepower before the torque dropoff at 5252 RPM. Sure a Civic may
> boast 140HP at 6800 RPM's, but is purely an esoteric number. It stopped
> accelerating at 5252RPM at around the 120HP range.
You think you are smart, but you're not. You think you can win an
argument, but you can't. You think you can debate, but that's
impossible when what you're debating is nonsense. I LOVE how you pick
wimpy little Honda Civics and Celicas to compare power against. THOSE
ARE SLOW. Pick a real car if you are going to try to argue against
something. And you clearly don't know what you are talking about anyway
since the typical Honda Vtec is just getting started at 5000rpms. Above
5250 is pretty much the ONLY place most Hondas accelerate worth a damn.
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, and you are full of
shit.
>
> <Don't you see that it is a compliment to the 944 chassis that people would
> want to put V8's in it? >
>
> No, to downgrade a great car with an inferior engine (remember, the 944
> dominated it in head to head competition) of dubious quality and to screw
> with all of the characteristics that made it great is an abomination.
"Dominated." Past tense. What's it going to do today on the street
against a Nissan Maxima? It's going to cower in fear, that's what.
It's a 13-year-old car. If it's not modded in some way, then it won't
keep up. How can you possibly dispute such a statement? Yeah, I'd
really hate to "downgrade" my slow-ass car with a 400hp engine. That
would be so terrible.
Is the n/a 944 4-cylinder engine a good, long-lasting engine? Sure.
Can it compete in performance against the newer engines in even family
sedans, much less sports cars? Hell no.
>
> > What do you think of a 944 with a 928 V8 in it? It'd be all-Porsche, but,
> careful, don't be a hypocrite now.>
>
> No need, I know about Porsches, and you don't so it makes it easy. The width
> of the 928 power makes an engine swap impossible. The wider 928 engine would
> not fit. In the 1980's Porsche had kicked around the idea of a three car
> line up with the 928 being the flagship a smaller version of it or a larger
> version of the 944 with a 6 or 8 cylinder engine as the middle car and the
> 944 being the entry level model. Problem was first, money and second was the
> fact that there was not a significant performance upgrade from the middle
> cars point of view. Had the 968 Turbo S made it to the U.S. in 1994, you
> could not do much better than it's 305 HP Turbo charged motor. The
> difference between that and the last 928's 355HP V-8 was too minimal.
That doesn't answer what I was getting at. Let's say it fit just fine.
What would you think of such a swap? Would the extra weight be too much
for the little 944 to bear?
>
> > Bottom line: you make excuses for an old 944's lack of straight-line
> power. >
>
> You still don't get it do you ? The 944 was never meant to be a straight
> line racer. It was meant to give its owner complete acceleration through the
> power curve and to out handle anything that challenged it. It is an all
> around performer, not one trick pony.
No, *you* don't get it. People don't care what it was meant to be.
These people own 13-year-old cars and think they are slow. When someone
comes on here and asks what they can do to make their old, tired-out 944
engine fast and beat up on other newer cars, the ONLY thing you ever
tell them is to just be happy with what they have and be happy driving
their slow car every day. All you do is make excuses for how slow that
engine is instead of offering suggestions on how to make their car
faster. Some people like that wind up just junking out their 944s
because they think it will never run as fast as they want it to be. So,
there you go, good job, you help people put more 944s into the junkyard
because you don't dare allow yourself to give them another option to let
them have the performance they want. Way to go, Porsche-killer.
>
> > Wow, you really ARE a snob if you consider Tag to be much better than a
> Timex.>
>
> I suggest you step out of Walmart and go to a jeweler that sells Tag watches
> and he will be glad to point out the QUALITY differences.
Tag isn't shit. You're a brand-snob. By all means, tell me how great
Tags are.
>
> > Most 1989 cars can't hang against newer stuff unless they are modded.>
>
> From what ass did you pull this from ? Anybody with a 951 want to set this
> boy straight ?
Ooooo... a stock 951. Look out, it might run a 14. Even a
mildly-modded 944 is only up around 300hp. You're in the same boat as
Art -- if you think a stock turbo 944 is fast, then you haven't driven
enough cars. This is YOUR limited car experience talking, not mine. Go
drive a turbo 911 of the past ten years or something and then tell me a
951 is fast.
Also, I never said a 951 is slow. I said the n/a's are slow. 951's
are... pretty nice. You're just a moron who likes to argue when someone
doesn't bow down to all Porsches, regardless of how slow or out of date
they are.
>
> < A 3.0 version, that's a little different because it's so
> > rare, but the average 944... anything to save it from the junkyard.>
>
> Wrong again...I have the 3.0 liter model. The 968 was the 3.0 liter model
> (with variocam) it shares almost all of the same characteristics of the
> 2.5's except it will top out at over 150MPH. You get the same spread across
> the power spectrum except the added torque and HP will allow much better
> upper end performance.
How is my statement wrong? Once again, you show you simply like to
argue. I said don't cut up a 3.0 944 because they are rare. What are
you disputing there?
> > You say racing teenyboppers doesn't mean anything, but then you want to
> toss out results of professional race teams driving race cars.>
>
> Oh Brad...you make me laugh so hard it hurts! Sorry to bust your
> bubble...the IMSA Firehawk series was for STOCK cars. No modifications
> allowed. Those were 150HP 944's beating up on those 200HP+ corvettes and
> Camaros. Nice try though.
Nice try, what? Stock cars, modified cars, so what, you are still
talking about racing on tracks. Who in this group that has talked about
modding their slow 944 has ever talked about wanting to do it for track
purposes? I can't think of any. We are talking STREET cars here. You
try to pull anything out of your ass to win an argument. All cars have
their good points and their bad points, and there are always areas they
can be improved in. Why can't you just talk about cars like a normal
person?
Devils944
>When a new minivan has 200hp>
OK Brad...after you get your G.E.D., go back to school and learn something
about the association of horsepower vs. torque. I will try to wrap it up as
simple as possible.
Horsepower is a meaningless number (except to idiots that don't know
anything.) Torque is what counts. Horsepower and torque cross at 5252RPM.
Any horsepower after that is simply wasted work. If you look at a typical
car ad you will see that they boast their peak horsepowers at RPM's way
above the 5252 RPM level.
It is to impress the uninformed.
The Japanese build lots of these low torque / high HP cars, simply to get
quick bursts of speeds off of the line and in the lower ranges get some jump
out of the curves.
The European builders tend to build cars that have following HP and torque
curves which provides plenty of acceleration up to the peak of both.
In other words, you may get a jump at the start, but you will be caught and
passed with ease.
<when a new Nissan Maxima has *260* hp, then an
n/a 944 is going to be considered slow. >
Guess you haven't driven a new Maxima. The torque oversteer from the front
wheel drive is simply overpowering. Like most of the manufacturers in the
"power race" they fail to match up the car with the power they are
providing. Having driven several Maxima's I can tell you that they pull
badly in the turns and would be easily outduelled on a race course or curvy
road by an N/A 944.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1F7EB1...@hotmail.com...
Devils944
n/a 944! >
Oh my god! Is this mechanics 101? Why would you do that? You know why you
would do that Brad? Because you know nothing...
Let's rehash this one more time.
The 951 not only has a different computer, but a different running gear and
transmission. It has a different suspension and brakes. To say "just drop in
a turbo" is simply idiotic.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1F7ED4...@hotmail.com...
JFK...@yahoo.com
much about Porsches.
"Devils944" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ybmTa.6181$054.2...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Devils944
Hey idiot...there is no such car. You know so little about Porsches that you
are naming ones that don't even exist !
Brad you are so easy to make look stupid!
> How is 600hp bullshit or pulling it out of my ass?>
Provide a link with cost of this engine. Where one can be found. Do it, or
take your bullshit and walk.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1F8D94...@hotmail.com...
Brad
> Horsepower is a meaningless number (except to idiots that don't know
> anything.) Torque is what counts. Horsepower and torque cross at 5252RPM.
> Any horsepower after that is simply wasted work. If you look at a typical
> car ad you will see that they boast their peak horsepowers at RPM's way
> above the 5252 RPM level.
> It is to impress the uninformed.
Ahahahahahaha!
Good God, you are stupid. Why do people rev RX7s to nine grand? Why
are S2000's revved to nine grand? Why are motorcycles revved to 13
grand? 13 grand is over TWICE 5250. Why would anyone ever do such a
thing? Hmmm? Go shift an S2000 or a 600cc bike at 5250 and tell me
what it runs in the 1/4-mile.
Anyone who says horsepower is a meaningless number is a complete and
utter moron. Horsepower is nothing without torque, but torque is
nothing without horsepower. You make it sound like horsepower is some
made-up thing just to sell cars. Horsepower is torque and RPM. You
know, the actual ability to do work. If torque alone meant shit, then
every diesel on the road would be winning every race. How can you be
such a seemingly smart guy yet be so stupid? Have you gone and shifted
that S2000 or 600cc at 5250 yet?
> The Japanese build lots of these low torque / high HP cars, simply to get
> quick bursts of speeds off of the line and in the lower ranges get some jump
> out of the curves.
How does a low-torque/high HP car get a "quick burst of speed" off the
line, genius? Shouldn't that apply to high-torque/low HP cars? Why are
you so stupid and never make any sense?
> The European builders tend to build cars that have following HP and torque
> curves which provides plenty of acceleration up to the peak of both.
> In other words, you may get a jump at the start, but you will be caught and
> passed with ease.
Why don't you talk about real cars instead of trying to bias the
discussion by just talking about Honda Vtecs? It's because you're a
jackass who can't hold a real discussion, that's why.
>
> <when a new Nissan Maxima has *260* hp, then an
> n/a 944 is going to be considered slow. >
>
> Guess you haven't driven a new Maxima. The torque oversteer from the front
> wheel drive is simply overpowering. Like most of the manufacturers in the
> "power race" they fail to match up the car with the power they are
> providing.
Wow, so now a 150hp 944 can beat a 260hp Maxima in a straight line.
Will wonders never cease. The Maxima could spin the tires through first
AND second gear AND torque steer all over and still win.
Brad
>
> <And I've said the same! I've also said to drop a turbo 944 engine into an
> n/a 944! >
>
> Oh my god! Is this mechanics 101? Why would you do that? You know why you
> would do that Brad? Because you know nothing...
> Let's rehash this one more time.
> The 951 not only has a different computer, but a different running gear and
> transmission. It has a different suspension and brakes. To say "just drop in
> a turbo" is simply idiotic.
What do brakes have to do with going fast in a straight line? Once
again, you find something to argue about simply because you like to
argue. Here I am, saying buy a turbo 944 or at least put a turbo 944
engine in an n/a 944 body, and you STILL can't accept it as a decent
option for someone who says their n/a 944 is slow. And like you'd
really have to change the transmission and running gear just because
you're making a bit more power....
Seriously, what is wrong with you, Porsche-killer?
Brad
it's 3 a.m. and I'm surrounded by so much of your bullshit, taking a
500hp V8 and acting like I'm talking about a stock Honda Civic, telling
me a typical high-performance turbocharged import has no power under the
curve. You are just so fuckin' annoying with your constant stupid
arguments. When Darin was being an idiot, at least it seemed like he
could actually be one. How someone as seemingly smart as you can act
like such an idiot is hard to understand.
ONCE AGAIN, what part of a 600hp Chevy V8 don't you comprehend? Where
have I even mentioned the cost? I've mentioned the cost of a 550hp
LS1. What does cost have to do with an n/a 944 being slow?
Is this little crap all you have to argue about? Is this all you have?
Is there nothing more to your worthless arguments? People post in here
asking how to make their n/a 944s fast. Tell them how.
Art Vandelay
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:04:06 GMT, "Devils944" <nospa...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Art Vandelay
that I can't read? You certainly told me off, didn't you? Did you
stick your tongue out at me at the same time? (Let me guess...your
Dad can even beat up my Dad?) Well, for your information, I did pass
9th grade. And as a matter of fact I also graduated with honors with
a degree in Aerospace Engineering. And I'm also a Captain with a
major airline. So maybe I am literate. Geez, I guess you're
right...I should bow in humble deference to a colossal wit such as
yourself.
If you're not full of shit (although it's painfully obvious you are)
why do you still refuse to tell us how much your conversion cost? I'd
also like to see actual dyno numbers as well. There's no way someone
who has modified his engine and car like you claim wouldn't have
performed a simple dyno run.
The funny thing about all this is, I'm not all that opposed to putting
a different engine in a 944. But I did have to call "Bullshit" when
you started running off at the mouth about things you obviously don't
know anything about. (You know, the types of engines in the cars
you're making fun of, as well as how to competitively and skillfully
drive...)
Regardless, I'll make a public challenge to you. Give us dates and
times of your driver's training...PCA events, autocross, Skip Barber,
whatever. Next, give us your track times with that 6000 hp monster
V-8 you have. Lastly, give us a detailed cost breakdown of this
"upgrade" of your's. If you can post honest details about this, not
hyptothetical nonsense, then it's possible you're not the poor,
ignorant soul you appear to be. I'll even publicly apologize since
you'll certainly be an automotive authority like you claim to be.
However, if we don't get this information, either because you're not a
trained, skillful driver (which is patently clear), or you're just
totally fabricating this whole fiasco (which is most probable), then
we'll all know you're full of shit and you can stop wasting everyone's
time by leaving our nice little newsgroup.
So it's time to put up, or shut the fuck up. Don't go responding line
by line to our posts. Tell us where you learned to drive fast, so
you'll appear to have some level of competence. Then give us detail
on the costs of the conversion. Then give us actual data from a dyno
run, not inflated guesses on what a highly modded Chevy V-8 MIGHT
produce. Fair enough?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:37:37 -0600, Brad <deusxm...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rhadamanthus
Well, I have been following both of these blustering tiraders for
quite a while now.. I find it rather entertaining during breaks at
work. However, if you truely read through all of this post JFKFC, I'm
sure you would realize how your statement might appear a bit..off, to
say the very least. In fact of all the replies I might have post, that
would probably be the last to come to mind.
-Rhad
JFK...@yahoo.com (JFK...@yahoo.com) wrote in message news:<a012bd51.03072...@posting.google.com>...
Rhadamanthus
Well, I have been following both of these blustering tiraders for
quite a while now.. I find it rather entertaining during breaks at
work. However, if you truely read through all of this post JFKFC, I'm
sure you would realize how your statement might appear a bit..off, to
say the very least. In fact of all the replies I might have post, that
would probably be the last to come to mind.
-Rhad
JFK...@yahoo.com (JFK...@yahoo.com) wrote in message news:<a012bd51.03072...@posting.google.com>...
JFK...@yahoo.com
Don't hold your breath. He won't provide links or costs. If you Google
his name I think you will discover he is a Mitsubishi driver. He is
just a bullsh_t troll who dreams of fast cars, but cannot provide
proof. Even those crooks at Renegade Hybrids didn't boast outlandish
numbers like this grade schooler.
I have $5.00 that says you won't get any of what you ask for. He will
just continue to flap his gums endlessly about slow and fast. You have
to understand Art, to a teenager speed is the only performance number,
they tend to discover the handling part too late, that is AFTER they
hit the tree, bridge abuttment, another innocent car,
etc...............
bds at fuse dot net (Art Vandelay) wrote in message news:<3f1ffc9e...@news.fuse.net>...
william_b_noble
while also, for example, when there is traffic ahead, or a red light, or
something like that. But you are right, this ability is really not related
to going fast in a straight line. In fact, the unrelatedness was originally
noted by a gentleman named Enzio Bugatti, who built a big and quite
expensive car outfitted with mechanical brakes. His response when inquired
on this subject was "I make my cars to go, not to stop"
But enough of this foolishness - if you really want high speed out of your
NA 944, put it in a crate and ship it via air to a friend. On the way it
will exceed 600 MPH, and you won't even have to make any modifications at
all.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1FABA2...@hotmail.com...
Mark
you kicked that V-8 asshole all over town
"Devils944" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<jNmTa.6611$054.2...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Devils944
Straight lines are for idiots who can't drive. You will never learn, but I
am having so much fun poking holes in your bullshit, I just can't stop.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1FAB79...@hotmail.com...
Devils944
people are reading through of your bullshit and are now asking you for
proof.
<JFK...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a012bd51.03072...@posting.google.com...
Devils944
and I do have a hockey teammate who is ASE qualified. It was as simple as
asking him what a conversion would cost and researching what the parts would
cost.
As for the asshole...making him look stupid is good fun.
"Mark" <mark....@notes.canadair.ca> wrote in message
news:617b7170.03072...@posting.google.com...
Devils944
Ahhh, fuck it, if I have to answer this I am as stupid as you.
As for the straight line crap again...simpletons deal with straight lines.
Drivers prefer curves.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1FABA2...@hotmail.com...
Devils944
3 a.m. and I'm surrounded by so much of your bullshit>
Oh, so now it's MY fault you don't know what you are talking about ? Come on
Brad, you can do better than that.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F1FAD50...@hotmail.com...
JFK...@yahoo.com
see. On one side we have a guy who doesn't seem to know one Porsche
model from the other and his only argument consists of some wild 600HP
claim from a Chevrolet 350. If I am not mistaken, the Z-06 Corvette
only generates 405 horses and it is a highly tweaked example. This
person seems to insist that driving fast in a straight line is the
only measure of performance.
On the other side, I see a guy that has definite Porsche experience
and has provided some real money numbers to pull off a V-8 conversion.
Where I see the problem is that one side wants to rate a great
handling car by how fast it goes in a straight line as if the world
was one big grid and the other is against decimating perhaps the best
feature of a 944, by making it go fast in a straight line. The only
thing is that devils944, while being a bit sarcastic at times, has
provided true answers, links and real world costs to his arguments.
Brad has offered nothing in the way of links or proof for his
argument.
Sarcasm aside, devils944 is clearly killing this guy at every turn. If
Brad would give us some numbers to back up his claims, I might change
my opinion.
As of right now...I declare devils944 the winner.
sim...@cruisesonly.com (Rhadamanthus) wrote in message news:<ca7c8396.03072...@posting.google.com>...
Devils944
But...."devils944 is clearly killing this guy at every turn." should have
been followed up by no pun intended !
Keep the faith bro...
<JFK...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a012bd51.03072...@posting.google.com...
D Corley
punch it the first time and discuss with you what you plan to do about the
twisted drive shaft and the totally destroyed transaxle that you now have.
dropping a high HP engine into a vehicle is not just an engine change, you have
to look at the total drive train and its power handling ability.
on a 944na of the 83-87 years, the transaxle is marginal at any power above 250
sustained, after that the rest of the system becomes iffy.
D Corley
the better Porsche platform for that excercise would be a 928.
At least the 928 is designed to handle both the power and the weight of a V-8.
and makes a hell of a lot more sense in terms of cost... replacing a blown 928
motor would cost a bunch more then the conversion costs to drop an LT1 in its
place.
Jack D. Russell, Sr.
--
Jack
<bds at fuse dot net (Art Vandelay)> wrote in message
news:3f1ffc9e...@news.fuse.net
Rhadamanthus
A thousand pardons... I thought you were directing your comment to
Devils.. (Long day yesterday-don't ask).
You are correct.
JFK...@yahoo.com
Mark
Hey, are you a hockey player/fan
What part of the country you in.....where do you play?
You know....we used to have a team up here in Montreal once upon a time
"Devils944" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<e50Ua.2137$j%4.7...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Devils944
tell by my team of choice!)
Ice Hockey is a little pricey here in SoCal, so we play a ton of Roller. We
have some very competitive leagues though. I have played against Alan Bester
in net, a few ex IHL'ers, a few college guys and a guy (Fred Comrie) who
played on the Penguins for a few years. I play defense.
Brad
entire real issue. You want to fight about not sticking a V8 into an
old Porsche that might see the junkyard otherwise, yet you provide no
alternative to get some serious horsepower out of an n/a 944. Every
time someone comes in here asking how to get more power out of their
car, you have nothing to say other than, "Enjoy it for what it is.
After all, you're driving a PORSCHE."
That's it. That's as far as you help those people. When someone with a
blown 928 engine asks for suggestions on what to do because he can't
afford to rebuild the engine in it so he'd have to sell it or junk it
out if he doesn't possibly put a Chevy engine in it, you tell them they
should sell it because they don't make enough money to own a Porsche.
Come on, defend your statements. If you think I'm going to let these
slide after you nitpick my posts, you're dreaming.
"Horsepower is a meaningless number (except to idiots that don't know
anything.)"
"Horsepower and torque cross at 5252RPM. Any horsepower after that is
simply wasted work."
Explain why horsepower is a meaningless number. Is the horsepower of an
F1 car meaningless because it makes an "impressive" 275lbs-ft of
torque? And why do they bother revving to 18,000rpm if any horsepower
above 5250 is wasted? I have no problem admitting you know more about
stock Porsches than I do. But you apparently have no clue when it comes
to modified cars or performance in general.
Also, if you want to put the Chevy V8 in a 944 thing to rest, all you
have to do is say how to get similar power levels out of an n/a 944's
engine. Tell everyone how to get 600hp, 500hp, 400hp, heck, even a
wimpy 300hp out of the average n/a 944 for a decent price, and I will
never again suggest maybe a Chevy swap might be a good idea. (I'll even
leave out wanting 400+lbs-ft torque to make it easier for you.) There
would be no reason to do an engine swap if the stock engine can achieve
that desired power level. Here's your chance to shut me up and to show
how smart you are, and to also actually help people in the process. Say
how you would do it for a decent price, and I will never mention Chevy
swaps again.
Brad
>
> interesting, all this drivel and conversation about dumping a v-8 into a 944,
>
> the better Porsche platform for that excercise would be a 928.
>
> At least the 928 is designed to handle both the power and the weight of a V-8.
> and makes a hell of a lot more sense in terms of cost... replacing a blown 928
> motor would cost a bunch more then the conversion costs to drop an LT1 in its
> place.
The heck you say! That's sacrilege and would cost a fortune!
Devils944, attack this person right now!
Devils944, why haven't you attacked this post yet for daring to say a
Chevy V8 swap is a cost-effective option for a 928? Is it because
you're a hypocrite and only attack me when I say it? This person must
be a Chevy troll or something, yes?
Devils944, read D Corley's last sentence again. Where are your posts
demanding proof of such a thing?
Brad
first place. All I said was that a typical stock n/a 944 is considered
slow nowadays. And since you own one, you got all bent out of shape
about it because I hurt your ego by saying the penis-extender you drive
every day isn't extending your penis very well. I said it's good to
have a fast car for emergency passing and merging situations, and you
went psycho and turned it into cutting off minivans full of kids and
running them off the road.
You're an Aerospace engineer, you're a captain of an airline, yet you
still use your car as a penis-extender and you still have a chip on your
shoulder when you don't need to have one. Look at what you wrote after
I even was making fun of '79 350 Camaros for being slow. You went on a
big tirade when it was completely unnecessary.
And now you somehow turn that into me claiming to be a professional
racer or something. You don't make any sense. Skill isn't necessarily
measured with degrees and certificates. I know far more in other fields
than I do in what I have degrees for. You know what, I'll even oblige
you and say I'm not a very good race car driver. However, what I
consider good and bad in that category and what you consider good and
bad may have quite a big gap. I don't know why you want to know about
my racing skills anyway. You linking driver skill to engine build-ups
makes no sense. Maybe you are illiterate after all. Passing a driving
course test has very little to do with modding cars. I constantly run
into ASE certified professional mechanics who don't know much of
anything past R&R work or using a basic scan tool.
Since you want to talk about credentials and things, ask smart guy
Devils944 how to get 600hp out of an n/a 944. That way there would be
no need to swap in a different engine. Heck, let's start small and ask
him how to get 350hp out of a 2.5 for a decent price. Or, you can say
how to achieve those power levels. You're an Aerospace engineer who has
completed the 9th grade, so surely your degrees and smartness also apply
to modding cars. After all, linking those things together makes as much
sense as needing a Skip Barber certificate to mod a car does.
I honestly don't understand your last sentence. Are you saying you need
a dyno graph to believe a Chevy V8 can make 600hp? Your all-caps of
"MIGHT" in that sentence points to you not believing such a thing is
possible. Is that really what you believe?
btw, while we're having fun talking about big horsepower, here's a link
to a guy who put a turbo engine in his 924. This is the kind of stuff
I'm talking about. Has *no one* here done anything even remotely
similar? Would anyone here even know where to start?
http://www.cardomain.com/id/billabongman Everyone just says how great
stock Porsches are and don't worry if they're slow or not because
they're Porsches. Too bad I lost the link to the guy who put a Turbo
Buick V6 into his 924 after finding out fixing the stocker would have
been $2000.
Brad
>
> It's not that hard Mark. Plenty of people are selling those drop in engines
> and I do have a hockey teammate who is ASE qualified. It was as simple as
> asking him what a conversion would cost and researching what the parts would
> cost.
ASE certified isn't exactly impressive. I've had ASE certified
professionals think a blow-off valve is an EGR valve. I've had dealer
mechanics tell me a modded car can't do what I say it does even though I
could give them a list of dozens of people I personally know who would
prove them wrong. Last month I had a well-known guy who has been into
custom turbocharging applications for DECADES tell me there's no way a
certain turbo on a particular engine could make the power I said it
could. Too bad I then backed it up with a dyno sheet.
I've asked you many times in the past, but you still can't provide the
numbers. Putting a Chevy V8 into a Porsche isn't simply about cost,
it's about performance. Tell everyone how to get 500+hp out of an n/a
2.5 for a decent price, and I will never again mention Chevy swaps.
Heck, start with 400hp if you want.
Brad
>
> amusingly enough, many people who drive their cars like to stop once in a
> while also, for example, when there is traffic ahead, or a red light, or
> something like that. But you are right, this ability is really not related
> to going fast in a straight line. In fact, the unrelatedness was originally
> noted by a gentleman named Enzio Bugatti, who built a big and quite
> expensive car outfitted with mechanical brakes. His response when inquired
> on this subject was "I make my cars to go, not to stop"
>
> But enough of this foolishness - if you really want high speed out of your
> NA 944, put it in a crate and ship it via air to a friend. On the way it
> will exceed 600 MPH, and you won't even have to make any modifications at
> all.
In other words, an n/a 944 is not going to hit anywhere near 600hp with
the original engine in there. Or even 500hp. Or apparently even
400hp. (300hp?) If Devils944 would tell the people who come in here
wanting some serious power out of their n/a 944s how to do it, these
conversion threads wouldn't exist.
Brad
>
> What do brakes have to do with going fast in a straight line?
>
> Ahhh, fuck it, if I have to answer this I am as stupid as you.
>
> As for the straight line crap again...simpletons deal with straight lines.
> Drivers prefer curves.
150hp... wheeeeee!
Why can't a person like curves AND straight lines? Why have a turbo 944
when a good suspension and 150hp will do for curves? You completely
dismiss any talk of making a 944 faster in a straight line. Why? Is it
because you don't know how? Why can you offer no suggestions for
serious power increases on 944's for people who want those power
increases?
Brad
>
> I want to be around after you drop your 600HP LT1 into a NA 944 and after you
> punch it the first time and discuss with you what you plan to do about the
> twisted drive shaft and the totally destroyed transaxle that you now have.
>
> dropping a high HP engine into a vehicle is not just an engine change, you have
> to look at the total drive train and its power handling ability.
>
> on a 944na of the 83-87 years, the transaxle is marginal at any power above 250
> sustained, after that the rest of the system becomes iffy.
Yes, I know. Now ask smart-guy Devils944 how to best fix that problem.
He won't tell you because because he doesn't know, but also because he's
not really interested in making older Porsches faster. He just tells
people, "Hey, it's a 150hp Porsche, so it's better than every other car
no matter what, and don't worry about getting beat by a Honda."
And why he has not attacked your statement about putting a Chevy V8 into
a 928 being cheaper than replacing the 928's engine, I don't know.
Brad
>
> <So sorry, I generally think of 1985-1987 2.5. It's hard to think when it's
> 3 a.m. and I'm surrounded by so much of your bullshit>
>
> Oh, so now it's MY fault you don't know what you are talking about ? Come on
> Brad, you can do better than that.
You like to nitpick yet you provide no real answers. Tell everyone how
to get decent power levels out of an the average n/a 944 so an engine
swap (be it a Chevy V8 or a Porsche V8 or turbo4) isn't necessary. If
the stock engine can't do it, then there's no choice but to replace it
with something else. Give people suggestions on how to avoid having to
replace it with something else.
And also make sure to reply to D Corley's comments on putting an LT1 in
a 928.
Brad
>
> Rhadamanthus - I have combed through the posts also. This is what I
> see. On one side we have a guy who doesn't seem to know one Porsche
> model from the other and his only argument consists of some wild 600HP
> claim from a Chevrolet 350. If I am not mistaken, the Z-06 Corvette
> only generates 405 horses and it is a highly tweaked example. This
> person seems to insist that driving fast in a straight line is the
> only measure of performance.
No. I would also LOVE to hear people talk about getting 400hp, or even
300hp, out of the average non-turbo 944. Heck, even the stronger 3.0
S2. I sometimes mention 600hp because a Chevy V8 has that potential in
a street motor. If people want to talk about speed, then the
performance bar is a lot higher than 200 or 300hp. An LS1 can do well
above that "highly tweaked" *stock* Z-06's 405hp relatively easily, with
plenty of torque and a linear powerband. That kind of performance is
hard to overlook and is a factor in the conversion thought process that
people like Devils944 don't seem to want to acknowledge.
Let's say a Chevy V8 swap costs quite a bit. How else will an n/a 944
see that level of power otherwise if that's what someone desires? I
have asked this in the past and would love to hear people discuss such
things. Devils944 knows a good bit about Porsches, but his knowledge
seems to come to a screeching halt as soon as someone wants more than
stock performance out of their car. And then he just tells people they
don't need more than stock horsepower anyway and sends them on their
way. Instead of actually discussing these kinds of things with me and
others to make Porsches better than stock, he and similar people just
want to argue.
The only "claims" I have made is that a Chevy V8 is a decent option to
someone wanting some good power out of their n/a 944 or blown-up 928.
Other people have posted in these groups in the past about their
personal Chevy V8 928 conversions. These experiences are generally
ignored for whatever reason.
Devils944
won't answer their questions. We are still waiting on your 600HP proof, but
if you insist on making me tear you up again I am more than happy to oblige.
>You completely avoid the entire real issue. You want to fight about not
sticking a V8 into an old Porsche>
I avoid nothing, I will repeat for the last time. The 944 had no problem
competing with V-8's. It's superb handling makes the car what it is famous
for. The problem with sticking a V-8 into a 944 is two fold. Chevy does not
make what would be called a quality product. Second, you ruin the best
feature of the 944, it's outstanding handling. Stomp your feet up and down
all you want about straight lines, but real roads have curves. Like it has
been said way too many times before...you can buy many more Big Macs with
$30.00 than you can buy good steak, but at the end of the day what is more
important quality or quantity ?
<Come on, defend your statements. If you think I'm going to let these slide
after you nitpick my posts, you're dreaming.>
You just keep coming Brad. I feed off of idiots like you. Judging from the
reactions of others in here it seems they are all sick of your no proof
bullshit also. Don't worry Brad I love making you look bad.
<Explain why horsepower is a meaningless number. Is the horsepower of an F1
car meaningless because it makes an "impressive" 275lbs-ft of torque? And
why do they bother revving to 18,000rpm if any horsepower
above 5250 is wasted?>
Ahhh the old F-1 argument...I am glad you brought that up. F-1 courses have
plenty of curves and the cars need plenty of jump getting in and out of the
curves. The cars are geared to maximize (or to stay on top of their peak
torque values) in F1 it is all about the gearing. This is why the similar
bodied CART or IRL car would kill an F1 car on an oval. Once again, you
seemed to be confused at what horsepower is. Horsepower is simply a
measurement of work. The acceleration you feel is torque.
Here is a test for you. (Lets assume you have a Civic)Get into your car.
Pull out onto the road in first gear and take the car up to 3000 RPM, press
the gas further and go up to 5000RPM, at 5252RPM step on the gas, you will
NOT accelerate. Hit the gas up to 6000RPM, you will now be at peak
horsepower(125HP) yet not be going anywhere. A guy in a KIA next to you
pulls up in 3rd gear at 3000RPM and passes you. He is at less than half of
his peak horsepower, probably in the range of about 60HP yet is passing you.
<Also, if you want to put the Chevy V8 in a 944 thing to rest, all you have
to do is say how to get similar power levels out of an n/a 944's engine.>
If you want to put the Chevy V-8 thing to rest all you have to do is show us
how you can retain the 944's handling while throwing the weight ratio almost
10% off and show us how cost effective such a swap would be with the 951
available. You will also how to convince us how going from a manufacturer
that is famous for it's outstanding quality (Porsche) to a manufacturer
noted for its dubious quality (GM) is somehow an upgrade.
<Tell everyone how to get 600hp, 500hp, 400hp>
Actually were waiting for the same thing from you. Please Brad, provide us
with a link. Don't forget to factor in cost...
Come on Brad, people want some proof about your claims here and you keep
throwing around fantasy numbers...give us proof or leave. Seriously if you
can't provide links your bullshit walks.
"Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F223B90...@hotmail.com...
kemit mcnally
something 4-bangers consistently lack unless turbo'd. There are a plethora
of low-buck moderate powered cars and vans that will whip the ass of a 944
in a straight line. Torque is ultimately the true measure of the power of
an engine but horsepower is how fast it can put out that horsepower. To
compare, look at the Civic RSX and Type R. Same size, same torque,
different HP. The Type R is plainly quicker (as well as faster than the
944).
Power to weight ratio and traction is what wins races and usually determines
something about handling as well (lighter is better). Try an old 88 Civic
Si before thinking that the Porche is so great. On or off the track it will
earn respect.
To get the 944 up to modern standards just install the LT1 and be done with
it!
"Devils944" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bhLTa.3834$Vp.4...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I got this one guys...
>
> >When a new minivan has 200hp>
>
> OK Brad...after you get your G.E.D., go back to school and learn something
> about the association of horsepower vs. torque. I will try to wrap it up
as
> simple as possible.
>
> Horsepower is a meaningless number (except to idiots that don't know
> anything.) Torque is what counts. Horsepower and torque cross at 5252RPM.
> Any horsepower after that is simply wasted work. If you look at a typical
> car ad you will see that they boast their peak horsepowers at RPM's way
> above the 5252 RPM level.
> It is to impress the uninformed.
> The Japanese build lots of these low torque / high HP cars, simply to get
> quick bursts of speeds off of the line and in the lower ranges get some
jump
> out of the curves.
> The European builders tend to build cars that have following HP and torque
> curves which provides plenty of acceleration up to the peak of both.
> In other words, you may get a jump at the start, but you will be caught
and
> passed with ease.
>
> <when a new Nissan Maxima has *260* hp, then an
> n/a 944 is going to be considered slow. >
>
> Guess you haven't driven a new Maxima. The torque oversteer from the front
> wheel drive is simply overpowering. Like most of the manufacturers in the
> "power race" they fail to match up the car with the power they are
> providing. Having driven several Maxima's I can tell you that they pull
> badly in the turns and would be easily outduelled on a race course or
curvy
> road by an N/A 944.
>
>
> "Brad" <deusxm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F1F7EB1...@hotmail.com...
> > Art Vandelay wrote:
> > >
> > > I live in Cincinnati, Ohio for whatever reason you wanted to know that
> > > for. And please don't be a dumbass. My 89 may be a little slower
> > > than SOME cars, but you try to make it out to be a GEO Metro.
> >
> > I didn't make it out to be a Geo Metro. Don't be so defensive. When a
> > new minivan has 200hp, when a new Nissan Maxima has *260* hp, then an
> > n/a 944 is going to be considered slow. Plain and simple. You can
> > think it's fast if you want, but it's not.
> >
> > > Riiiiiiight....As for other cars I've owned, maybe I could learn a
> > > thing or two from an expert like you. Cars I've owned in the past
> > > are a 1978 Trans Am, a 1985 Mustang GT, a 1988 Firebird, and a 92
> > > Corvette. I bought the 944 because that was my dream car when I was
> > > back in college.
> >
> > Most of the cars you listed there can get whipped by a new minivan or
> > family sedan too, nowadays. I even wrote about myself driving a '79 350
> > Camaro. It was slow as hell with only 40,000 miles on it. A '92
> > Corvette isn't bad, but it's not going to set any records, either. Like
> > I said, I simply don't think you've driven enough other cars is all. Go
> > drive even a mild 400hp Turbo Regal or something. Your eyes will
> > probably pop out of your head. And 400hp really isn't shit for a modded
> > car. Quit being so defensive. If you think pretty much ANY 1989 car is
> > "fast" nowadays, then you need to drive more cars.
> >
> > >
> > > As for your 79 Camaro experience, I think those were 2 bbl. models
> > > with a whopping 145 horsepower. About the same as an early 944, which
> > > weighs a whole lot less.
> >
> > 1979 Camaros were slow. 1980's Corvettes are slow. 1989 n/a 944s are
> > slow. I can't believe you're disputing this. I even said they're not
> > "turtle-slow," just slower than even decent family cars now available.
> >
> > >
> > > As for your on-ramp machismo, I know exactly what you mean. If there
> > > happens to be your typical maroon Oldsmobuick in the right lane, you
> > > certainly HAVE TO get in front of them or else you'll feel all
> > > insignificant because you were born with a really small penis. So,
> > > you have to stomp on the gas, to nudge in front of that family of
> > > four, make them lock up the brakess, just so you'll feel like a man.
> >
> > I can't believe you are so defensive on every point I made simply
> > because I called your 14-year-old car "slow." Christ, wake up. I'm not
> > bashing Porsches. I'm not saying they suck. I'm saying an n/a 944
> > isn't fast. A stock turbo 944 isn't fast, either. A modded 944 turbo,
> > hey, now we're talkin'.
> >
> > Maybe they don't have that much traffic in Ohio where you'd experience
> > what I'm talking about. You go to the extreme of making the family of
> > four lock up the brakes and other nonsense. Gimme a break. I'm sure
> > you're old enough and have been driving long enough to have experienced
> > a situation similar to what I described. You're just mad because I hurt
> > your fragile ego by calling an n/a 944 slow, which it is. Tough luck.
> > Too bad, so sad. A stock 160hp Honda Civic would probably beat that
> > thing. That means it's SLOW. I clearly hurt your feelings about your
> > car. Too bad. Grow a backbone. It's just a car. The truth about 1989
> > vehicles hurts. Grow up and come join the technology and performance
> > bar of 2003.
> >
> > > And now I'm going to stop wasting my time talking on this subject.
> > > You're obviously a short guy with a small cock, who feels like he has
> > > something to prove every time he gets behind a wheel, or else you'll
> > > feel like less of a man than you already are.
> >
> > You wrote all of this just because I said your car is slow. If your car
> > can be beat by a new minivan, THEN IT'S SLOW. You must be the one with
> > a small cock if you feel the need to get all bent out of shape arguing
> > such things and acting like your car is an extension of yourself. It's
> > just a car. Grow up.
william_b_noble
did you mean what you said below? "horsepower is how fast it can put out
that horsepower" - that is clearly nonsense.
allow me to refer you to any elementary physics text, or the SAE automotive
handbook, or a plethora of other reference books.
Torque is a force acting at some radius to a shaft - one foot pound is the
torque you would get if you had a 1 foot long lever arm with a 1 pound point
mass at the distal end, in a 1g gravitational field (I add the part about
gravity to avoid discussing newtons and slugs)
One horsepower is 3300 ft-lbs per minute. in other words, a one horsepower
motor can lift a one pound mass (in a 1 g gravitational field) 3300 feet in
one minute. From http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae66.cfm, you
would learn that "
Horsepower is the imperial (British) unit of power, now replaced by the
watt - the new SI unit. One horsepower is the work done at the rate of 550
foot-pounds per second and it is equivalent to 745.7 watts. Horsepower was
first used by James Watt, who employed it to compare the power of steam
engines with that of horses."
There is no relationship between horsepower and torque UNLESS you add in
RPM.
If you guys want to talk about hotrodding your 944s go ahead - but you will
look at lot less foolish if you apprear to have some clue as to the basic
phsysical units you are attempting to describe.
You want your 944 to go fast in a straight line - drop it off a cliff - you
will get 9.8 meters/sec acceleration which is really pretty good
acceleration for a car.
"kemit mcnally" <michael...@3web.net> wrote in message
news:3f23...@news.nucleus.com...
Devils944
You would be the first !
<You're absolutely correct about the torque,
something 4-bangers consistently lack unless turbo'd.>
Buzzzzz...wrong again. It all depends on how the car is tuned from the
factory. The 1990 944S2 for example has 208 HP and 205 lb / ft torque.
<There are a plethora of low-buck moderate powered cars and vans that will
whip the ass of a 944
in a straight line.>
And there are plenty of $20,000 to $35,000 higher powered cars and vans that
still won't keep up with a 20 year old 944 on a regular road with curves on
it. Life is not a drag race, life is series of curves.
<Torque is ultimately the true measure of the power of
an engine but horsepower is how fast it can put out that horsepower.>
OK...I will try to once again explain this as simply as possible. Formulas
are too complicated so here is the best way to explain it.
Horsepower is a measurement of work.
If you get in your car and stay in first gear and get to your cars factory
horsepower peak lets say 6800RPM, like on a typical Honda Civic. You will be
putting out maximum horsepower (about 125HP) and not going much of anywhere.
A person in a Geo Metro in 4th gear at 3300 RPM will blow right by you. His
horsepower output ? Probably around 70 Horsepower. How can this be? Simple,
the Geo is hitting the proper torque level for his RPM level. His horsepower
really means nothing. The Civic is well past his best torque level and even
though the Civic is at peak horsepower it's torque has dropped off
considerably.
<To compare, look at the Civic RSX and Type R. Same size, same torque,
different HP. The Type R is plainly quicker (as well as faster than the
944).>
An S2 will smoke a 911SC and will handle an 80's Carrera quite easily. A 914
or 924 would beat up a Spyder (the car that James Dean died in) quite
easily.
I sure would hope that a modern car would finally catch up with an older
technology.
<Power to weight ratio and traction is what wins races and usually
determines something about handling as well (lighter is better).>
Not really. The Corvettes that were defeated by the 944's in the IMSA
Firehawk series weighed slightly less than the 944's. The Corvettes also had
in the neighborhood of almost 100 more HP. The difference was that the 944
had the engine up front and the transaxle in the rear making it a better
BALANCED car. Horsepower means nothing without handling. I will repeat this
for the last time so pay attention.
Horsepower means nothing without handling.
Horsepower means nothing without handling.
Horsepower means nothing without handling.
Horsepower means nothing without handling.
<Try an old 88 Civic Si before thinking that the Porche is so great. On or
off the track it will earn respect.>
0-60 in 8.7seconds,1/4 mile in 18.1 seconds and a .81g on the skid ? Not
very impressive at all.
<Porche>
For the last fucking time troll...you could help your already weak
credibility by being able to spell the name correctly. Porsche.
<To get the 944 up to modern standards just install the LT1 and be done with
it!>
Once again...buy a more modern version...S2, Turbo S, 968, Boxster. No need
to downgrade to an expensive conversion kit, lose your creature comforts,
all to win straight line races. You keep yammering on about "modern and V-8"
first off, a pushrod V-8 is not modern. Second, the top three premium sports
cars were two six bangers and a four banger. Real drivers know it takes more
than horsepower to make a great performance car.
"kemit mcnally" <michael...@3web.net> wrote in message
news:3f23...@news.nucleus.com...