In reply to M030:
Decades of chassis technology improvements and less age coupled with a higher price point and fewer recycled VW components will do that.
Not to say that a 944 can't be made to be competitive or fun, but there's nothing wrong with hitting the easy button from time to time.
Honestly, if you want to track it, Boxster. The 944 is probably Porsche's worst engine designs for track purposes. A lot of mods are necessary. On the Boxster, an x51 pan and good oil should suffice.
Either way an LS kit from Renegade Hybrids may be in your future. If your Boxster is an "986 Boxster S", the cooling system and such can already handle the LS engine. Plus selling the existing Boxster S motor is worth a few thousand dollars that can be applied to the build. You can also yank the 944 Turbo motor, sell off what's not damaged and pick up the kit to install an LS motor in there. I have a tired 96 LT1 Vette motor in my 86 944 Turbo and it is still amazing. I'm going to remove that and install an LS6 motor I picked up (and yes it requires a new kit to go from LT1 to LS). I'm looking forward to attacking Roebling Road with an addition 100 hp and 100 lb ft.
I can't tell you how strongly I am opposed to an ls conversion for either.
CWR67 wrote: Either way an LS kit from Renegade Hybrids may be in your future. If your Boxster is an "986 Boxster S", the cooling system and such can already handle the LS engine. Plus selling the existing Boxster S motor is worth a few thousand dollars that can be applied to the build. You can also yank the 944 Turbo motor, sell off what's not damaged and pick up the kit to install an LS motor in there. I have a tired 96 LT1 Vette motor in my 86 944 Turbo and it is still amazing. I'm going to remove that and install an LS6 motor I picked up (and yes it requires a new kit to go from LT1 to LS). I'm looking forward to attacking Roebling Road with an addition 100 hp and 100 lb ft.
Screw Renegade. They are not well liked by the 944 community. They just have a better advertising budget compared to other vendors.
Hit up Texas Performance Concepts and buy the parts you need to put the LS into your 951 for less and at higher quality with better support.
Anything non turbo is less likely to have a catastrophic engine failure than anything that is. People spend a lot of time not bringing this up, but most turbo engines can melt or crack pistons as a result of a HUGE variety of 'minor issues' that would just cause an NA engine to run poorly. I've literally broken pistons because one vacuum line popped off. And because a couple of wires got munched by a v-belt. And because of misrouting some vacuum stuff. And of course due to my own failures of judgment when looking at gauges. These are just the ones that have cost ME PERSONALLY some engines. If i list off all the things that just my personal friends have lost engines to that wouldn't have broken an NA engine, it would go on for paragraphs. Then you get to the list of all the ways to break from minor issues that are just 'possible', and you wonder why anyone likes turbos at all.
I'm no longer worried about the Boxster reliability. I have performed every single possible mechanical upgrade available. It has the LN Engineering IMS bearing, updated Porsche rear main seal, Motorsports air–oil separator, deep sump, cooling system upgrades including a metal-impeller water pump, and it's been great. I somewhat resent having had to spend so much money upgrading what was purported to be a dual-purpose Street/track car by design. My love for Porsches stems from that dual purpose mystique they market. Shame on them for not making the car durable enough to begin with.
markwemple wrote: Honestly, if you want to track it, Boxster. The 944 is probably Porsche's worst engine designs for track purposes. A lot of mods are necessary. On the Boxster, an x51 pan and good oil should suffice.
In stock form yes but reliability is obtained by adding an accusump. There are lots of cars that are like this.
Good move on the 944, but the V6 Camaro is an unlikely solo car unless the class is favourable. To bad the dollars probably indicated against selling both and picking up a Cayman.
oldtin wrote: What was it, something like 3% have had ims failures? Keep the boxster, if you're worried about it, buy an oil filter cutter and keep your eye on it before it fails - or do one of the upgrade kits. Drop v8 in languishing 944, see if you can find a few more mismatched parts and flog it relentlessly.
Does anyone make a sensor that goes of if it detects a threshold amount of metal in the engine oil? Or would it be pointless since there is nothing you could really do before the failure anyways?
Edit: I did a search, these sensors do exist.
As to the original question, I love the Boxter but like all things electro/mechanical of German origin, I work under the assumption that it will fail in a financially ruinous manner, so I stay far away from the brand.
Keep the Boxter cause it makes the wife happy. Nothing you do to the 944 will achieve that.
dean1484 wrote:markwemple wrote: Honestly, if you want to track it, Boxster. The 944 is probably Porsche's worst engine designs for track purposes. A lot of mods are necessary. On the Boxster, an x51 pan and good oil should suffice.In stock form yes but reliability is obtained by adding an accusump. There are lots of cars that are like this.
Takes a lot more than that. And some racers disagree on the accusump.
Funny. I raced them for decades and the accusump was the key to long engine life. Yes there are other workarounds but properly installed (this requires some serious cutting and tig welding a fitting I to the oil cooler housing) and the oiling issues associated with the rof bearings ho away.
Somthing else about 944s and older Porsches in general is that you have to drive them and treat them the way they want to be. Try and change that and it will cost you dump trucks full of cash. But learn them and they ate extremely capable machines.
All this being said they are now older cars with engineering that dates back to the 70s. So trying to compare it to a modern car with all the improvements is not a fair comparison. It I an apples and oranges comparison. Back about yen years ago I came to realize that the days of the 944 were numbered as I watched a mildly modified Honda civic blas by me and then disappear off through the next set of corners. This is why the spec 944 series exists. It is because the 944s time has past so they play in groups with like cars. Not that this is a bad thing. I have had some great fun in spec 944.
Somthing else to consider is that the 944 was not a cheap car. They are Porsches after all and require Porsche maintenance. Just look at the mods MO30 had to make to his boxster. That list greatly exceeds my list of upgrades that ate required to make a 944 bullet proof.
The simple fact is use good quality pads in the stock brakes. Konis, eiboc springs, weltmistet bars and add an accusunp and you are read for the track.
Oh. I forgot. The accusump should be plumbed in so that the valve is open when running. If you use a solinoid control valve connected to an oil pressure sending unit it will not work. By the time the sensor tells the valve to open and then add in the time it takes for pressurized oil to the crank the damage will be done. You want the accusimp to be supplying a constant reserve of oil under pressure. This is where I have seen people go wrong with accusimps in 944s. I have seen other people try to use manual valves that they open when they see low oil pressure. Non of this works. By plumbing in the accusunp in as I have said it will act like a batter does for the electrical system. Think of the accusimp as an oil battery with the alternator being the oil pump. If you loose your alternator the car can run on the battery. Same goes for the oil pump and the accusump but more importantly if you turn on your lights and the defrost or brake cooling fans that sudden draw on the system is taken care of by the battery untill the alternator can react.
The accusump serves the exact same function for a cars oil in system. It is a "oil battery"
markwemple wrote:dean1484 wrote:Takes a lot more than that. And some racers disagree on the accusump.markwemple wrote: Honestly, if you want to track it, Boxster. The 944 is probably Porsche's worst engine designs for track purposes. A lot of mods are necessary. On the Boxster, an x51 pan and good oil should suffice.In stock form yes but reliability is obtained by adding an accusump. There are lots of cars that are like this.
I would be interested to here what is "a lot more". I have been trying to think of what else is special about track prep on a 944 and I really can not come up with anything.
Hardcore track racers change their rod bearings like some change tires or brake pads.
It's a design flaw in the engine and there's things that can be done to correct it, but it isn't cheap and some aren't allowed in certain classes. Things like modifying the crankshaft, adding a crank scraper/baffle to the oil pan or running a dry sump.
Upgrade head gasket. Several 951 mods. Definitely pan mod. End of the day, the block is a poor design.
I've owned a 2000 Boxster 2.7 and a 2002 Boxster S 3.2.
I've also owned two 1987 944Ss and a 1988 944 Turbo.
As far as driving dynamics, the Boxsters are superior but the 944s have a really unique 80s seat position and feel to them.
The 944 turbo was the fastest of the bunch by far.
My favorite of the bunch was the Boxster 2.7 with a factory M030 suspension on it.
The engine rebuild on my current 944S cost me $11,000. Parts are hard to find and expensive.
On the road, people treat you like garbage in a Boxster - they just assume you can't afford a 911, cut you off, try to race you everywhere, etc. It gets old.
In the 944, you get thumbs up, smiles, waves - it's a lot of fun because people fondly remember them as old 80s cars and kids today have never seen a car like them with the pedestrian unfriendly body shape.
My advice will echo what they say in Excellence - buy the newest car in the nicest condition which you can afford.
You'll need to log in to post.
