For decades we’ve touted the Porsche 944 Turbo as a bargain supercar, and our advice has always been simple: Buy one for less than $10,000 and enjoy one of the fastest, most capable machines of the ’80s. The 944 had a competition pedigree as well as the performance chops to run with the day’s best.
Recently, though, as prices on …
Do people just do a balance shaft delete ever? Anybody make a kevlar timing belt for them?
Rod bearings/ O-ringing the cylinder head for insurance on an extra 1-2 psi of boost?
Needy little things for mediocre power aren't they? There's a reason people LS swap them.
I've had a couple and miss them. Sold my last one because I thought it was a pain to work on, then I got into v12tt Mercedes. The 951 is a breeze to work on compared to the twin turbo v12s.
A little harsh aren't you there crankwalk? When they were new they were far from mediocre on power. I owned one for a number of years and never found them too needy. Sure you needed to do a timing belt and pulleys every two years, but that was about it. Everything else was pretty reliable. I noticed the 240Z, let's put it this way, it would have blown my modified '71 240 into the weeds without working very hard. In fact, you had to be well into triple digits before you even knew you were going fast. I know most people would prefer a '70's or '80's 911, and they are built to higher standard, but in truth, the 944 Turbo drives better, and it's as fast or faster than most 911's of the period.
crankwalk said:Do people just do a balance shaft delete ever? Anybody make a kevlar timing belt for them?
It's not the make up of the belt that limits their life, it's the shape of the teeth. Like the Fiat 124, the belt on the 924/44 are square. They work great being square, but because the belt stretches just a tiny bit as the RPMs rise, the square teeth start to get just a little bit off of the pullies and begin to wear. Eventually the belt will get enough wear that it can skip a tooth or two and we all know how that story ends
crankwalk said:Do people just do a balance shaft delete ever? Anybody make a kevlar timing belt for them?
Rod bearings/ O-ringing the cylinder head for insurance on an extra 1-2 psi of boost?
Needy little things for mediocre power aren't they? There's a reason people LS swap them.
Balance shaft delete results in cracked cast aluminum parts on the engine. It isn't a good idea, especially for a 4hp gain (seriously they don't suck up as much power as most think).
They do or did make a kevlar belt, but honestly its not that bad to replace at the scheduled time frames, not as easy as most timing belt motors, but it isn't the end of the world.
Mine made 450hp on pump gas and got 30mpg on the highway. They aren't young cars and they need loving owners who want to put the time into them. I decided I wasn't one of those and sold it on to someone who hillclimbs and autocrosses it quite successfully.
Stefan said:crankwalk said:Do people just do a balance shaft delete ever? Anybody make a kevlar timing belt for them?
Rod bearings/ O-ringing the cylinder head for insurance on an extra 1-2 psi of boost?
Needy little things for mediocre power aren't they? There's a reason people LS swap them.
Balance shaft delete results in cracked cast aluminum parts on the engine. It isn't a good idea, especially for a 4hp gain (seriously they don't suck up as much power as most think).
They do or did make a kevlar belt, but honestly its not that bad to replace at the scheduled time frames, not as easy as most timing belt motors, but it isn't the end of the world.
Mine made 450hp on pump gas and got 30mpg on the highway. They aren't young cars and they need loving owners who want to put the time into them. I decided I wasn't one of those and sold it on to someone who hillclimbs and autocrosses it quite successfully.
I'm not talking about a balance shaft delete for power it's so I don't have to MESS WITH IT every 15k and then 45k like the gentleman in the arcticle suggested. On my Galant VR4, I deleted it with factory Mirage turbo parts so that the belt wouldn't snap, get caught in the timing belt then bend valves.
racerdave600 said:A little harsh aren't you there crankwalk? When they were new they were far from mediocre on power. I owned one for a number of years and never found them too needy. Sure you needed to do a timing belt and pulleys every two years, but that was about it. Everything else was pretty reliable. I noticed the 240Z, let's put it this way, it would have blown my modified '71 240 into the weeds without working very hard. In fact, you had to be well into triple digits before you even knew you were going fast. I know most people would prefer a '70's or '80's 911, and they are built to higher standard, but in truth, the 944 Turbo drives better, and it's as fast or faster than most 911's of the period.
You mention my junkyard 240Z as if it's my only reference point for how fast cars can be. LOL
I've owned plenty of fast stuff and to give you a reference, a factory SR20DET or 4g63 with a bigger fuel pump can make 40-50 more hp at the wheels than a 944 turbo without checking on pesky rod bearings, screwing with balance shaft belts, having to O-ring the head for turning up the wick 0.2 bar as the suggestions mentioned. (Did anybody else not read all those things and think "I don't have to do any of that stuff with some Japanese 4 cyl turbo or V8 equivalents? Or did anybody even see the same section of the article I saw?)
There are a lot of ways to skin a cat but that sure is a lot of time, work and money to keep up with that maintenance schedule for 220 whp in a little decent handling RWD platform.
My $0.02.
Agreed to some extent, except most aren't making 220hp since they'll support a good amount more than that out of the box.
The maintenance schedule isn't as bad as the article implies, but I guess setting point gaps or adjusting valves isn't something you'd be interested in either and those are things people still needed to do back when the engine was originally designed.
What factory produced 4-cylinder motor in 1986 was making 220hp?
Chrysler didn't do it until the Turbo III in the Spirit R/T 1991 and it had some pretty bad issues with the cylinder heads cracking that weren't solved until later.
The 4G63 made 167hp in 1986 in the Lancer
The fact is that Porsche was milking the 924/944 platform for all it was worth since the costs to import the cars were going up around that time frame. While the development of the 924/944 saved the company from bankruptcy and kept the 911 from dying off completely, it was still a platform designed in the early 70's for VW (who decided to go with the Scirocco instead) with an engine designed in the late seventies.
Remember, the original plan was to replace the 911 line with the 924, 944 and 928 as the 911 sales were stagnating and the new president decided a new direction was needed. The 911 faithful rioted, the president was ousted and the 911 was saved. The 924, 944 and 928 were already there though and selling well enough to allow them to keep racing and building 911's, so they kept it going for as long as it was economically feasible.
They were good enough cars for Mazda to copy for the 1st and 2nd Gen RX-7's. :)
Stefan said:
The maintenance schedule isn't as bad as the article implies, but I guess setting point gaps or adjusting valves isn't something you'd be interested in either and those are things people still needed to do back when the engine was originally designed.
I actually do all of those things on most of my current vehicles but it's because they are old and mostly stock these days.
My point is the article made it seem like it's not only a good idea but darn near required to do a lot of work to run barely anymore boost which is a big turn off for me especially when much faster alternatives are out there for less money that came just a couple of years later. If you like them , you like them though. I get it.
Simply not true. You can't run massive amounts of boost, but mine was around 300hp without significant mods, and nothing internal. The big difference between it and many other cars you mentioned, is that the Porsche excels at high speed touring. There are not many cars as capable from that era that are so easy to drive fast. Like I noted previously, you had to be going close to 130 or so before the car even felt like it was going fast. Even in say my 370Z, it was not even close to being as stable a platform. Steering feel was also nice.
Many people compare the RX7 to these, and yes, I owned one of those back in the day too, but while a nice car, it was not in the same league in terms of driver appeal. The specs on these do not do them justice. Are they worth the extra maintenance? To some yes, to others no.
In reply to crankwalk :
I ran more boost on my last one with just chip and exhaust. No other supporting mods. I dynoed it and did much better than the factory specs would lead you to believe. I want to say I was 230ish hp and 250ish tq to the wheels, but honestly that was a lot of cars and a lot of dynos ago, so I'd have to dig the sheet out to be sure. Regardless it was a stout car and a fun DD.
also remember, the 944 was the yardstick that Mazda used to get the Miata's handling "just right". More than a few 944s met their end at mazda's hand
racerdave600 said:Simply not true.
Not my words. I'm just stating what Brian Weathered mentioned in the article. I'm sure they can be pushed past that but his section about rod bearings being a weak link, silly balance shaft schedules, and o-ringing the cylinder head makes them look way more needy and less stout factory than a japanese turbo rwd equivalent.
I was never a huge fan not because of the VW lineage or because they were water cooled or was one of those people who thought they weren't real Porsche's (Hell, my 75 911 was water cooled). Better at high speed touring than an s13? Sure, I guess? That's about it for me though.
In reply to crankwalk :
People do, but most threads where I've seen it result in people putting them back, or breaking stupid stuff, like the oil pickup. It's a mighty big 4, lots of swinging metal
I briefly owned a mint ‘86 951. I had thoughts of making it a track car, but was talked out of it because it was so mint. It was an OK car, but very expensive to get reliable HP for track duty. Also, finding someone reliable to work on it locally was a challenge. I sold it and bought a ‘95 M3. Far better track car in every way and less expensive to modify than the P car.
The only way I’d enjoy an 951 at this point was if it had an LS1 swap and working AC. I like to be comfortable when I drive to the track. My C5 has 440hp and 450tq which is flat from 2700 to 5800. You couldn’t get that performance out of the 951 motor without spending more than the swap costs. And it wouldn’t be as reliable.
Don't just delete the balance shaft - delete the engine bay! 
Near me is a fairly clean looking NA 944 with sport seats and Fuchs wheels for cheap...I’d have to sell my 91 ZR-1 to make room for it
Ummm, that comes off a little crazy. Unless an n/a 944 is your dream car I just don't see that being a good idea.
AnthonyGS said:Near me is a fairly clean looking NA 944 with sport seats and Fuchs wheels for cheap. I’m tempted to get it for an LS future when I finish my Miata build in a few years.
I’d have to sell my 91 ZR-1 to make room for it and that’d be hard. Sometimes I think of selling the ZR for a C5 Z06 too.
Where do you live that clean NA 944s aren’t like $3,000? Lol
crankwalk said:I was never a huge fan not because of the VW lineage or because they were water cooled or was one of those people who thought they weren't real Porsche's (Hell, my 75 911 was water cooled).
What the heck! Must of had a chevy V8 in the back end as no 911 was a water pumper til the 996.
Campbelljj said:crankwalk said:I was never a huge fan not because of the VW lineage or because they were water cooled or was one of those people who thought they weren't real Porsche's (Hell, my 75 911 was water cooled).
What the heck! Must of had a chevy V8 in the back end as no 911 was a water pumper til the 996.
Turbo rotary
What makes these 944's a better buy than a 986 boxster base or S that is priced identically?
I'll say this much to the 944's credit, an old friend had one, took me out for a ride when he had to get some parts or food or what have you. I was looking at my phone, didn't even realize we were doing about 125 or so down the freeway.
I didn't hear a thing, road or wind noise wise. We even had the run roof panel off.
You can buy a slow Porsche, you can buy a boring Porsche, but the one type of Porsche you can't seem to find is a poorly made Porsche. I doubt I'll ever own one myself, but I'll stand by their build quality, absolutely.
yupididit said:What makes these 944's a better buy than a 986 boxster base or S that is priced identically?
A buddy has a pretty well modified 924 Turbo. He’s friends with a fellow Porsche owner who races a Spec944 and has a Boxster. He went for a ride in the Boxster and was shocked at how much it rattled, groaned and squeaked compared to his 924 Turbo on stiff suspension and r-comps.
around a track or prepped for racing, the Boxster has a better chassis to build from. You have to add a cage anyway, and there are interesting options for a bit more power as well. The 944 is no slouch, but it’s limited by th strut based front end and general age.
if you want a street car that will haul groceries and be a bit fun, the 944 isn’t a bad choice, otherwise, get a Miata if you want top down fun.
Ive considered selling my ZR to get a turbo to drive and as a semi investment too. Clean turbos will be stupid prices in 10 years.
That i can get on board with. ZR1s seem to be stubbornly undervalued, but 944 Turbo prices are pretty much the opposite and rising.
yupididit said:What makes these 944's a better buy than a 986 boxster base or S that is priced identically?
I’m a fan of the 944 turbo, have owned a couple, one heavily modified and one with just chip and catback. I love the feel of the cars and the way they drive and, all things being equal, would take a 944 turbo over a base or S Boxster.
You'll need to log in to post.
