 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Porsche / Porsche Cars / October 2006Need your expert opinion on which Porsche to buy ...
Hi there, I want to buy a Porsche as a summer car and don't want to invest more than 20 000 USD in the project. I'm looking at Ebay 1979 to 1990 Porsche 911, 930, etc, and I see a lot of different engines (3.0L, 3.2L, 3.6L, etc) and different models. Some models sounds to have weaknest that others don't shows. I know taht I like very much the Whale tail model and not a Targa fan. My goal is to have a beautiful old reliable Porsche to have ride, fun and no headaches. Any advice or quick course on the pros and cons and what to make sure ? Thanks, Guy Quebec, Canada Al us Porsche owners will read your post and smile, "I recall thinking the exact same thing!" I'll pick a model with an '81 911S. Get one with the fewest miles, best interior and most complete maintenance records. As for more pointed specifics, you've got to do your own research and learning. Then you can evaluate the cars that are available in your area and price range. Waiting for a specific model/trim/color/condition/price could take forever. Also, think about broadening your search. If "Porsche" means "911" you've got company but leaving out a lot of nice cars. A nice 968 or 928 can be had for those dollars. Same rules apply: inspect and check. And make sure to keep $3K or so in reserve. Driving these cars means fixing them. It'll be a 20-year old car whetever the pedigree. > Hi there, I want to buy a Porsche as a summer car and don't want to > invest more than 20 000 USD in the project. I'm looking at Ebay 1979 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks, Guy Quebec, Canada Awesome thanks, this is really someone advice !!! Is 928 doesn't means trouble at all time ? I heard that a lot of times. For the 911, what is the worst weakness to check (rail rust, A/C, shifter, etc.) Thanks, Guy > Al us Porsche owners will read your post and smile, "I recall thinking > the exact same thing!" [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > Thanks, Guy Quebec, Canada 944S2 Cabriolet. More power than most of those 911's mentioned and sure as hell handles much better. 968 Cabriolet. Even more power, and like the 944 handles like a mother, but has six speed or tiptronic option. When I bought my S2 back in 1999, I drove plenty of late Carrera's and SC's (My favorite of the old 911's) and the 944 ran circles around it in every sense of the word. I would drive a bunch and see what you like best. > Hi there, I want to buy a Porsche as a summer car and don't want to > invest more than 20 000 USD in the project. I'm looking at Ebay 1979 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks, Guy Quebec, Canada The 944 is a nice car. It is based on the 928. Porsche only designed two cars from scratch, the boxster and the 928. The 928 is the V-8 (Original) version that runs like, well, It's about as fast as you can go without having to eat airline food! Not to mention it out handles almost any other Porsche! (It eats 911's for a light lunch and doesn't even think about belching!) I love mine (It's the most fun you can have with your clothes on!) but the other half wants me to sell it because I have too many toys ;-( I'd rather sell my live sound & lighting system! The 928 has never got it's due but it really is the ultimate Porsche! Wanna buy a really large live sound & lighting system so I can keep my 928? Make you a great deal! $150,000 system for only $30,000! I really want to keep my 928! Roger Lincoln, NE (1984 euro/slopenose with 85,300 miles) > 944S2 Cabriolet. More power than most of those 911's mentioned and sure as > hell handles much better. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > Thanks, Guy Quebec, Canada > The 944 is a nice car. It is based on the 928. Porsche only designed two > cars from scratch, the boxster and the 928. The 928 is the V-8 (Original) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ;-( I'd rather sell my live sound & lighting system! The 928 has never got > it's due but it really is the ultimate Porsche! My biggest beef with the 928, other than the styling up until the S4 era until the end of production not being my cup of tea, is that it's damn near impossible to find one with a stick. I never quite understood (never asked, either, I suppose) why almost all of these sports cars came with an A/T. Once in a great while I see one for sale with a 5-speed, but they're few and far between. If I were to shop for one, I'd have to weed the field down to 5-speeds first, and THEN start looking for a car that also didn't have excessive miles or wear, poor maintenance, etc. Too few cars left at that point, I would think. Which transmission do you have, by the way? - Chris >>The 944 is a nice car. It is based on the 928. Porsche only designed two >>cars from scratch, the boxster and the 928. The 928 is the V-8 (Original) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My biggest beef with the 928, other than the styling up until the S4 > era until the end of production not being my cup of tea, I really would like a 95 S4, but $$$ holds me back. I also want an S2, and a 356, and a... > is that it's > damn near impossible to find one with a stick. I never quite > understood (never asked, either, I suppose) why almost all of these > sports cars came with an A/T. Because they are GT cars not sports cars is my guess. > Once in a great while I see one for sale > with a 5-speed, but they're few and far between. If I were to shop for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which transmission do you have, by the way? My bet is the A/T. DS 95 993 Coupe They stopped making s4's in 90, I believe and continured with GT's and then GTs's up to '95. I have owned an 85 1/2 944 NA, an 88 924SE, and90 928 S4, and now an 88 928 S4. They have all had their particular pros and cons. The 944 NA was not quick, but was very fun to drive and very easy to work on. The 924SE was quicker and also fun to drive, but the 924 doesn't have the sexy curves of a 944. My 90 S4 was an automatic with high miles and was a very good car. While harder and a little more expensive to work on, I could still do about any of the necessary wrenching. I replaced it with the 88 S4 with 5-speed and low miles that took me about 3 months to find. It was well worth the wait. I believe I'll hang on to this car until I come across a solid GTS in my price range, or maybe I'll just supercharge this one and hang on to it indefinitely. The 928 is an awesome car, quick, fast, agile, and very comfortable. They are sexy beasts and get a lot of attention. With the right wheels and color, there are very few cars on the road that look this good, and you will rarely pass another 928 on the road in your daily commutes. If you have patience and readily available cash, you can find a 5-speed in good shape and pounce on it. You won't be sorry. Keep an eye on the rennlist forums for one. www.rennlist.com. > >>The 944 is a nice car. It is based on the 928. Porsche only designed two > >>cars from scratch, the boxster and the 928. The 928 is the V-8 (Original) [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > DS > 95 993 Coupe >The 928 is an awesome car, quick, fast, agile, and very comfortable. They >are sexy beasts and get a lot of attention. With the right wheels and color, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >on it. You won't be sorry. Keep an eye on the rennlist forums for one. >www.rennlist.com. On the Autocar website's forum, we recently had a thread on the car you most wished for that never existed. One of mine was a Porsche 928GT with 6-speed and VarioRam engine, the next step up if the line hadn't been dropped.* And they are scarce - the entire time I had my 928, I never saw another on the road. In nearly two years since, I've seen a black GT and a red 928S like mine. epbrown (The other Porsche was a Cayman twin-turbo). -- "Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car; most people will settle for the car." Chris Titus 2003 BMW 325i Black/Black, 2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black > They stopped making s4's in 90, I believe and continured with GT's and then > GTs's up to '95. S4-->1991 Shoot, thanks for the correction. Obviously, I am no expert on 928s and I had not had any coffee, yet. ;~P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_928 >>> The 944 is a nice car. It is based on the 928. No it's not. The 944's chassis was an evolution of the 924's. *However* the 944's original powerplant, a 2.5 litre inline 4-cylinder, was derived from the 928's 5.0 litre V8. >>Porsche only designed two cars from scratch, the boxster and the 928. Again, untrue. The 911 was designed from scratch in 1963, it might be tempting to think of it as a derivitave of the 356, but this simply wasn't the case. The 964 and 993 were technically part of the same evolutionary line as the original Type 911, but so significant were the changes that were effectively all-new vehicles. The 996 was entirely new at the time of it's release, some commonalities, such as the layout of the rear suspension, were present, but that doesn't make the 996 a version of the 993. The 924 and 914 were designed with the intention of being compatible with certain existing parts, but they were designed fresh from the ground up. And while the 968 evolved out of the 951 (itself evolved from the 924 Carrera GT), it was 80% new when released. >>Not to mention it out handles almost any other > Porsche! (It eats 911's for a light lunch and doesn't even think about > belching!) The 928 was *easier* to drive than the 911 and more powerful too. So for about 80% of untrained drivers, it will outrun a 911. But it was also larger, heavier and more cumbersome than a 911. A trained driver in a comparablly priced 930 certainly isn't going to be a "light breakfast" for a 928 - god forbid the 911 driver gets his hands on a 964 Turbo and the race will be over before it starts. As per the original poster's question - my personal preferances within your price range would be either a low mileage Carrera 3.2 or a 951 (944 Turbo). In all likelihood, your going to be dealing with cars that are in far from perfect shape, interior re-freshing, paintwork and a full tune-up and new braking components will be on the list of needs for 95% of what you find. Poraches are expensive to work on and it's simply not worth purchasing one if you can't afford to splurg and get everything done. Seeing as you've never owned a Porsche before, do yourself a big favor - if you buy one, take it to a dealer for servicing, at least for the first year. Good private garages are hard to find and while most of them employ ASC Certified mechanics, very few of them actually specialize in Porsches (even the ones that claim as much are usually full of crap). A good dealer can give the car a full workover for you - I'd plan on spending three to five thousand in essential cleanup and restoration work on top of around $16-18k for a real nice 911 3.2 or about $12-15k for a nice 951. <The 911 was designed from scratch in 1963, it might be tempting to think of it as a derivitave of the 356> While not exactly derived from the 356, the 911 was certainly based on it. The 911 was larger and considered "luxurious" the purists huffed that it wasn't a real Porsche! <The 924 and 914 were designed with the intention of being compatible > with certain existing parts> Actually, no, the 914 was orginally meant to replace the Karmann Ghia and is a Volkswagen design. The 924 was born from a joint Volkswagen/Porsche collaboration the VW abandoned. The 924 was meant to be all fresh, but due the the economic times was forced to use spare parts. <And while the 968 evolved out of the 951> Actually this statement is a bit inaccurate. The 968 evolved from the 944S2 sharing the same powerplant (3.0). In fact the 968 was orginally called the 944S3. After the update was done, the two shared so little that a new designation was born. Porsche only really designed two cars from the ground up. The 928 and the Boxster. Everything else came from a joint venture with another maker, or was based on something previously built. The 356/911 from the VW Beetle, the 914 from the Karmann Ghia, the 924/944/951/968 from the A420. Even the Cayenne has VW history. >>> While not exactly derived from the 356, the 911 was certainly based on it. > The 911 was larger and considered "luxurious" the purists huffed that it > wasn't a real Porsche! Nothing about the 911 was "based on" any part of the 356. They both had rear-mounted air cooled engines, but that was were the similarity more or less ended. The 356's chassis and engine were evolved from the Volkswagen Beetle, the 911 was a cleansheet design. >Actually, no, the 914 was orginally meant to replace the Karmann Ghia and is > a Volkswagen design. The 914 *was* intended to be a VW product, but Porsche helped with it's design, which was entirely new at the time. Porsche also happened to be looking for a way to replace the 912 and the 914 fit their needs. The original plan was to sell Type IV powered versions as VWs and 911 powered versions as Porsches (a setup which they maintained in Europe). Only in the U.S. were both models sold as Porsches. This doesn't change the fact that it was an all new design. >The 924 was born from a joint Volkswagen/Porsche > collaboration the VW abandoned. You're mixing your facts. Audi wanted a sports coupe to fit in at the top of their lineup, and approached Porsche to develop it for them. The only requirement was that it needed to be compatible with existing VW/Audi engines and transmissions, a provision that Porsche complied with. When Audi dropped the project in favor of the Quattro Coupe' prototype, Porsche took up the vehicle to replace the 914. >> Actually this statement is a bit inaccurate. The 968 evolved from the 944S2 > sharing the same powerplant (3.0). In fact the 968 was orginally called the > 944S3. After the update was done, the two shared so little that a new > designation was born. Again, you're mixing facts. The 968 *was* originally intended to be a 944 S3, but it's Brembo manufactured braking system and several key suspension system components came off the 951 because they were beefier than what came on the standard 944. In addition, the 968 also featured both a then-new six speed manual transmission and a four speed Tiptronic (optional), the engine was updated (it now featured Variocam) and made more powerful and it featured dual airbags. According to Porsche, 80% of it was *brand new* at the time of it's release. <You're mixing your facts. Audi wanted a sports coupe to fit in at the top of their lineup, and approached Porsche to develop it for them. The only requirement was that it needed to be compatible with existing VW/Audi engines and transmissions, a provision that Porsche complied with.> Actually, no. Audi had really nothing to do with the 924 excepting that when there was no $$$ for the development of the new motor, they used the Audi powerplant. Peter Morgans "Complete History Of The 924/944/968" pretty much covers this. (you can even read the part about the 924 and the original wish for a 10 cylinder motor!) > Again, you're mixing facts.> Once again, no. You seem to be a bit confused with history. >The 968 *was* originally intended to be a 944 S3, but Brembo manufactured braking system and several key it's suspension system components> The 944S2 also had the Brembo system as well as the beefed up suspension. < In addition, the 968 also featured both a then-new six speed manual transmission and a four speed Tiptronic (optional)> Nobody is arguing that, but those were also not featured on the 951. <the engine was updated (it now featured Variocam) and made more powerful> Once again, the "updated" motor was the same basic motor as the 16 valve 3.0 liter 944S2. All 951's were the 2.5l, 8 valve variants. <featured dual airbags> Another standard feature of the 944S2. <According to Porsche, 80% of it was *brand new* at the time of it's release.> Basically interior bits, the engine block, the cabriolet top, the trunk lid and the doors were carried over from the 944S2, the rest were updated versions of 944S2 parts. The 968 shared very little with the 951. It's closest sibling was the 944S2. Once again, I really suggest you read Peter Morgans book, it has a great history of the 924/944/968. >>>> While not exactly derived from the 356, the 911 was certainly based on >>>> it. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > and made more powerful and it featured dual airbags. According to > Porsche, 80% of it was *brand new* at the time of it's release. >> Actually, no. Audi had really nothing to do with the 924 excepting that when > there was no $$$ for the development of the new motor, they used the Audi > powerplant. Peter Morgans "Complete History Of The 924/944/968" pretty much > covers this. (you can even read the part about the 924 and the original wish > for a 10 cylinder motor!) I think that you need to go and re-read the book yourself. I can't seem to locate my copy, but I do have my copy of "Porsche Legends" here next to me, and am open to the section where author Randy Leffingwell is talking to Tony Lapine about the development of the 924. In 1971, Rudolf Leiding was made managing director of VW; up until this point, Porsche had done most of the company's R&D for them, but Leiding wanted that to change. He wanted to move the company into front engined, water cooled vehicles and to completely remove VW from Porsche's shadow; the problem was that VW was still under contract with Porsche. In the meantime, Leiding gave Porsche a project, to come up with a sports car that could serve as VW/Audi's top offering, and he told them to use anything and everything from the corporate "shelf". Porsche designed the chassis from scratch, but made sure that the vehicle would be compatible with existing VW/Audi braking components, engines and transmissions. But the oil crisis began, Leiding got fired and Audi began toying with the Quattro Coupe, and VW dropped the project. In addition, VW was getting ready to close their NSU plant in Neckarsulm, partly because it was underutilized. Porsche, wanting a replacement for the 914 and not wanting the car to go to waste, bought the project back from VW and contracted them to build it in the NSU plant, thus creating the Porsche 924. In any case, my argument was only that the 924 was designed from scratch. It wasn't a modified version of anything Porsche or VW/Audi were already making. As far as the 968 goes, it's my understanding that many of it's parts were either taken from or developments of parts that were used on the 951, which Porsche regarded as having been the best development of the line. >Once again, the "updated" motor was the same basic motor as the 16 valve 3.0 > liter 944S2. All 951's were the 2.5l, 8 valve variants The 3.0 litre in the 968 had completely different heads, induction and exhuast systems from what had been used in the 944, plus it featured Variocam. It may have used the same basic block design as what had been in the 944S2 but it was a fairly significant upgrade, power rose by somewhere on the order of 19%. <As far as the 968 goes, it's my understanding that many of it's parts were either taken from or developments of parts that were used on the 951> Not to belabor the point any further, but no, your understanding is wrong. The 951 was simply a turbocharged version of the 944 with added suspension and brakes. The 968 was the updated version of the 944S2. The Turbo died in 1989, the S2 was made right up to and until the 968 was released. The last ones (1991) being produced in Stuttgart. <It may have used the same basic block design as what had been in the 944S2 but it was a fairly significant upgrade, power rose by somewhere on the order of 19%.> Once again, no. The 3.0 liter 944S2 and the 3.0 liter 968 shared virtually the same technology. Chain driven exhaust timing, etc...the variocam cause induction and exaust updates, but was based solely on the 944S2 and had nothing to do with the 951. When they turbocharged a few 968's they went back to the original 8 valve head. The 968 had a stock HP of 239HP. The 944S2 had a stock HP of 208HP, an increase of around 13%, due primarily to the variocam design. Listen, we could debate this all day, but as a 944-944S2 owner for close to 17 years, I would have to believe I would know my cars. The 951 and 951S were great cars, but were 944na variants. The S2 was the culmination of the 944 line and led to the 968. >> The 951 was simply a turbocharged version of the 944 with added suspension > and brakes. Porsche engineers might take issue with that assertion. The 944's 3.0 litre engine was essentially brand new when it arrived; despite having common displacment, the 951's top end was more akin to what was used in the 924 Turbo and 924 Carrera GT, complete with the old 8-valve head system. There were also transmission upgrades and I believe some care was made to ensure better engine cooling was available. >The 968 was the updated version of the 944S2. The Turbo died in 1989, the S2 was made right up to and until the 968 was released. A moot point. The 80's vintage Carrera 3.2 had more in common with the 1964 Type 911 than it did with the 993, although much less time seperated it from the 993 than seperated it from the Type 911. I can't give you an ad naseum list of every little thing that made a 951 different from a standard 944 without sitting here and reading through my texts on the subject. But I'll stick by my assertion until some real-world proof can be presented that I'm incorrrect. >>Listen, we could debate this all day, but as a 944-944S2 owner for close to 17 years, I would have to believe I would know my cars. Believe me when I say I'm trying *not* to be insulting here, but ownership means diddly sh.t. If you knew all that much, you would've been right about the 924 and I wouldn't have needed to re-consult my books. <would've been right about the 924> I am right about the 924, I just decided that I didn't need to re-hash that history again. The fact that you didn't know a 10 cylinder was planned for it, and that you were not aware that it only got Audi parts because they had no economic choice, meant that your 924 history was definitely wrong. You believe what you want to believe. > Porsche engineers might take issue with that assertion. The 944's 3.0 > litre engine was essentially brand new when it arrived> Updated, not new...the 944S2 had it from 1989 to 1991. <despite having common displacement, the 951's top end was more akin to what was used in the 924 Turbo> I think we may be done here...I suggest you read up some more. The 924 turbo displaced 2.0 liters. The 924 GT displaced the same 2.0 liters but was boosted up over 300HP. Both were Audi powerplants. The 951 displaced 2.5 liters in all variants. And finally, the 944S2 and 968 both displaced 3.0 liters. If you are talking about horsepower, then you once again are all over the map because the original 951 had 11HP more than the 944S2, while the 951S had 11 more HP than the 968. <I can't give you an ad naseum list of every little thing that made a 951 different from a 944> I can...Upgraded brakes, Turbocharger, stiffer suspension, hardened transmission, different air induction. Like I said earlier a 951 was a 944 modified to be turbocharged. There is/was an ad with pictures of what made a 951 different than a 944. Porsche put it out in 1986. I am sure you can Google it. You may think ownership means squat, but having my hands on the different models for 17 years and knowing them front to back I think differently. >> I am right about the 924, I just decided that I didn't need to re-hash that history again. The fact that you didn't know a 10 cylinder was planned for it, and that you were not aware that it only got Audi parts because they had no economic choice, meant that your 924 history was definitely wrong. You believe what you want to believe. I have to believe that the executive in charge of the project would know more about it than you or I. Considering that's essentially where my info came from, I'm sticking by it. I've seen nor read any indication that a V10 was planned for the 924; as I noted, and as I proved, Porsche's development of the 924 hinged on that it need to be able to run with an existing VW/Audi powerplant and no Audi/VW V10 existed during the 1970s, nor am I convinced that there's even space for one. If you'd like to *quote* the section of that text which specifies that a V10 was ever planned, I'd encourage you to do so. >> I think we may be done here...I suggest you read up some more. The 924 turbo displaced 2.0 liters. The 924 GT displaced the same 2.0 liters but was boosted up over 300HP. Both were Audi powerplants. Notice my usage of the term *top end*, which is a very specific area of the powerplant, something you'd know as an expert on engines. Also not that I said "more akin to..." as opposed to *identicle to* which is a very different thing to say. In addition, the n/a 924's engine *was* an off the shelf Audi unit, and the Turbo shared it's bottom end. But the turbocharger system, heads and valve system were of Porsche design, fitted to better wok with the turbo system. Calling the 924's engine an Audi engine isn't entirely true, albeit I'll agree that I'm splitting hairs. > If you are talking about horsepower, then you once again are all over the > map because the original 951 had 11HP more than the 944S2, while the 951S > had 11 more HP than the 968. I'm not sure what this is a response to. I never claimed that the 968 was the most powerful 4-cylinder car built by Porsche, although it damn well was the most powerful naturally aspirated four cylinder car they ever sold for road use. It's power output was actually very near that of the 993. > I can...Upgraded brakes, Turbocharger, stiffer suspension, hardened > transmission, different air induction. Like I said earlier a 951 was a 944 > modified to be turbocharged. There is/was an ad with pictures of what made a > 951 different than a 944. Porsche put it out in 1986. I am sure you can > Google it. The 951's engine didn't just have an aftermarket turbo kit installed on it. The 8-valve head system was engineered for the turbocharged engine and the turbo system itself was specifically designed for that vehicle. Next you'll be claiming that the 997 Carrera S and GT3 share identicle motors except different intake and exhuast systems. >> You may think ownership means squat, but having my hands on the different > models for 17 years and knowing them front to back I think differently. Owning a car, even a car you know well enough to repair, doesn't make you an expert. My 17 year old neighbor can fully service his 68' Mustang - he even swapped the engine himself. Doesn't make him an expert. <Porsche's development of the 924 that it need to be able to run with an existing VW/Audi powerplant > "The Original Porsche 924/944/968" by Peter Morgan pages 12 thru 15 will take you through the birth of the 924. Nowhere did it mention reliance on VW or Audi. <that a V10 was ever planned> "The Original Porsche 924/944/968" by Peter Morgan page 21 and 22 discusses the V10 powerplant. > Notice my usage of the term *top end*, which is a very specific area of > the powerplant, something you'd know as an expert on engines.> "The Original Porsche 924/944/968" by Peter Morgan pages 34 to 36 discusses the 924 turbo and it's continued use of the Audi powerplant. Now this of course seriously contradicts you assertion that the 968 was born of the 951 because the 968 was a 16 valve head. > The 951's engine didn't just have an aftermarket turbo kit installed on > it. The 8-valve head system was engineered for the turbocharged engine and > the turbo system itself was specifically designed for that vehicle.> Nobody is disputing that, but I am disputing the fact that you are trying to associate the 968 with the 951, when the engines are completely different. The 944S2 and the 968 had similar engines, and I quote from Mr. Morgan "The 968 brought some exciting developments to the existing 3 liter 944S2 Engine..." Perhaps you want to share with the group exactly what the 951 and 968 shared, and remember, don't include any 944S2 parts...they came after the 951. Please enlighten us of why the NA 3.0 of the S2 was not the basis for the 968 and how the 2.5 liter turbocharged 4 was. >> "The Original Porsche 924/944/968" by Peter Morgan pages 12 thru 15 will take you through the birth of the 924. Nowhere did it mention reliance on VW or Audi. Then his history is incomplete and flawed. The information in Porsche Legends was gathered in combination from Porsche factory records and interview material with the men who worked on these projects. The section on the 924 includes information given directly by Tony Lapine, who was the head of Porsche's design studio during the 1970s and who was intimately involved with the 924 project. He recounts in meticulous detail how the project was developed and notes more than once that Mr. Leiding, VW/Audi's managing director at the time *required* that the 924 be designed to use existing VW/Audi parts, with an emphasis on engine and transmission. If you're asserting that this man is lying then we have we have an issue at hand above and beyond our own petty argument. >>"The Original Porsche 924/944/968" by Peter Morgan page 21 and 22 discusses the V10 powerplant. I can't find the book, nor am I going to make a special trip to the bookstore simply to try and figure out where this idea came from. I'm asking you to quote from the passage that says that a V10 was intended to be used in the 924. It's becoming apparent to me that no such qoutation exists. >>"The Original Porsche 924/944/968" by Peter Morgan pages 34 to 36 discusses the 924 turbo and it's continued use of the Audi powerplant. Apparently our issue here is not so directly related to my facts as it is to your inability to properly decode what I've written. The bottom end of the 924 Turbo engine was *identicle* to what was used in the N/A version which was, indeed, an Audi engine. The top end however, was modified by Porsche to better suit the use of the turbo system. Now, I'll again agree that I'm splitting hairs on the matter, but the 924 Turbo motor was in a way a combined design by Audi and Porsche, using Audi's bottom end and Porsche's modified heads and turbo system. Note that Audi never produced a factory turbocharged version of that engine. >>Now this of course seriously contradicts you assertion that the 968 was born of the 951 because the 968 was a 16 valve head. My assertion is now is at it has been for the last several posts: The 968 shared a modified version of the 944 S2's powerplant along with braking and suspension components that originally appeared on the 951, making it as much an evolution of the 951 as it was an evolution of the 944 S2. Again, I'll note that the vehicle was 80% new at the time of it's release, which included the updated engine. This makes the 968 sort of it's own kind of beast, a vehicle both attached to previous models and yet different enough to merit it's own designation. I'll now refuse to continue this argument any furthur unless you're willing to provide quotations on the magical V10 engine that never existed. > ... > >>"The Original Porsche 924/944/968" by Peter Morgan page 21 and 22 discusses the V10 powerplant. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to be used in the 924. It's becoming apparent to me that no such > qoutation exists. Well, you guys "made me look". At the time, Audi was developing their 5 cyl engine, and yes, Morgan does state that there was an idea of "combining" two to make a 10-cyl engine. However Morgan also states that the platform would have been the 928, not the 924... The 944S2 and the 951S are pretty similar in almost all respects, except the engine. There really wasn't much development of either of them after 1989 or so, because Porsche was developing the 968. FWIW, While Morgans book has lots of pretty pictures, I really like Brian Longs book on the 944. Walt - 86 944 NA > Well, you guys "made me look". Heh. This "debate" made me recall an incident unrelated to Porsche, but involving Audi. Back in the early 80's I had a work associate who bought an Audi 4000. He was a bit of a snob and was always reminding us of how refined his car and engine was compared to the cheap American junk the rest of us drove. One day he popped the hood and was showing off his engine. I looked at it and realized it looked very familiar. So, I went over and popped the hood on my '79 Dodge Omni and sure enough, it was basically the same engine except the Omni had a carburetor and the Audi was fuel injected. Everything below the manifold was pretty much the same. I called him over and said, "Hey, look! I've got the same engine in my Omni!" He was BS and traded the Audi for a 124 Fiat Spyder. Turns out that as Chrysler was reorganizing they didn't have an available engine for the Omni/Horizon so they outsourced them to VW or Audi or whoever was building the engine. Eisboch I always thought the Omni was just a Chrysler badged version of the Golf I. Anyone know much about it? Also, if memory serves me, there was a Shelby version of the Omni with a turbocharged engine that was unique to the model and a retuned suspension. My understanding is that it was a hell of a car, at least in terms of performance. I'm partial to the MKII 16 valve GTi though. >I always thought the Omni was just a Chrysler badged version of the > Golf I. Anyone know much about it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > suspension. My understanding is that it was a hell of a car, at least > in terms of performance. I'm partial to the MKII 16 valve GTi though. According to Wikipedia the Omni/Horizon was developed by Simca, the French division of Chrysler Europe. Simca was bought by Peugeot which released the car as the Talbot Horizon. Chrysler retained the US production rights. From Wilipedia: "The ultimate Dodge Omni was the Carroll Shelby-modified Omni GLH. 1984 was the first year of the GLH, which carried over most of the modifications that had been made the previous year to the Shelby Charger. 1985 was the debut of the real Goes Like Hell model with the turbocharged Turbo I engine option. The car carried over into 1986 unchanged and production was stopped. The final 500 GLH cars were sold to Shelby, who used them as the basis for the 1986 Shelby GLHS." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Omni Eisboch >>I always thought the Omni was just a Chrysler badged version of the >>Golf I. Anyone know much about it? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Omni Man, I hated those cars. Ugly as sin. My best friend had an Omni in highschool. We did just about everything we could to kill that car, but it kept going. Don't worry, it wasn't the Shelby version. There were Shelby variants of several cars back then, weren't there? Nearly all ugly as the base cars were abortions. No amount of power could pretty them up. I realize this is subjective, but were any American cars attractive betweeen, say...77 and the late 80s? I can't remember any off the top of my head. > I realize this is subjective, but were any American cars attractive > betweeen, say...77 and the late 80s? I can't remember any off the top of > my head. Well, if you didn't like the Omni or Horizon, you could always get an AMC Pacer. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Pacer Eisboch <I realize this is subjective, but were any American cars attractive betweeen, say...77 and the late 80s? I can't remember any off the top of my head.> That is a tough one. The Corvette folks will say the C3 and C4, but the C3 was the last of the "classic" Vettes and was severly underpowered and the C4 was just bland. The Monte Carlo SS done right was not bad and I believe the was the Grand National that looked pretty good. The 1980's were pretty forgetable as far as the U.S. was concerned...I remember the big cars to have were, the 944 of course, the 911SC, the 930, the Jaguar XJ12, the Ferrari 308 (Magnum rules!) Walt, thanks for the help! This was a debate that certainly needed to end. Also, can you give me the name of Brian Longs book? I'm always interested in picking up new Porsche related literature. > ... can you give me the name of Brian Longs book? I'm always > interested in picking up new Porsche related literature. Sure. It is simply called "Porsche 944". I bought my copy at the Petersons Auto Museum in LA a few years ago, but now see that it is available through Amazon (and no doubt, many others.) Appended is a review I posted on rennlist back in 2002 on it. Walt - 86 944 NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The first 40 or so pages recount Porsche history from The Beginning, > up to and including the 924. The next 3 chapters cover the 944 development, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I did not buy it, but again a 924 owner might prefer it over the Morgan > book and others, due to the single series emphasis. >>Sure. It is simply called "Porsche 944". I bought my copy at the Petersons Auto Museum in LA a few years ago, but now see that it is available through Amazon (and no doubt, many others.) I'm going to be at the Petersen next week, so I'll check there first, but I often find that their store is a bit highly priced. Several years ago they had a Porsche exhibit there with several vehicles (including some incredible one-off vehicles) from the museum in Sttutgart. I wish they'd bring it back. Thanks again. >Again, untrue. The 911 was designed from scratch in 1963, it might be >tempting to think of it as a derivitave of the 356, but this simply [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of the rear suspension, were present, but that doesn't make the 996 a >version of the 993. I agree about the 911, but I disagree about the 964. Though the 964 was the first 911 different enough in Porsche's eyes to warrant a new build designation (everything from 1964 to 1989 was still a type 911), it's still a bored out 911 with coil-over suspension. Most telling is the fact that most of the hardware, from engine to exterior parts to suspension, can be migrated to previous models pretty much unaltered. The 993 was the first evolution of the 911 design I won't debate the 914 and 924, due to their polluted histories as VWs. I would say that the 968 is analogous to the 993 - it's a new evolution of the 924 design. >The 928 was *easier* to drive than the 911 and more powerful too. So >for about 80% of untrained drivers, it will outrun a 911. But it was >also larger, heavier and more cumbersome than a 911. A trained driver >in a comparably priced 930 certainly isn't going to be a "light >breakfast" for a 928 - god forbid the 911 driver gets his hands on a >964 Turbo and the race will be over before it starts. This - eh, I'm somewhat conflicted about the above. Unleash Walter Rohrl with a 928GT and 930 and I think he'd cross the line sooner in the 928. Call it heavy, but the 928's weight, suspension, and power profiles are along the lines of the current 911s, years before the 996/7 made the scene. The 930 would struggle with turbo lag on the straights and its torsion-bar suspension and inferior weight distribution on the curves. The 964 turbo would be a more worthy opponent, though. >Seeing as you've never owned a Porsche before, do yourself a big favor >- if you buy one, take it to a dealer for servicing, at least for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >restoration work on top of around $16-18k for a real nice 911 3.2 or >about $12-15k for a nice 951. The problem with dealerships is employee turnover. You'd be hard-pressed to find a dealership that currently employs mechanics that have actually worked on a 944 turbo, 928, or even a pre-90s 911, which are all close to or more than 20 years old. I had a dealership tell me flat out that I'd be better off going elsewhere for work on my 928, and they're of a similar bent regarding the 944 from what I've heard. I'd try them for a 993 or newer 911 and Boxsters, but aside from that I'd go with an independent for the work I couldn't do myself. epbrown -- "Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car; most people will settle for the car." Chris Titus 2003 BMW 325i Black/Black, 2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black If you have 20K to spend on a porsche get 911 3.2 84-89 classic and reliable make sure you have it checked out first before buying. For experta advice the pelican parts forum is the place to get your questions answered www.pelicanparts.com.au click the forums tab once you have entered. cheers Matt > >Again, untrue. The 911 was designed from scratch in 1963, it might be > >tempting to think of it as a derivitave of the 356, but this simply [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > most people will settle for the car." Chris Titus > 2003 BMW 325i Black/Black, 2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black > Any advice or quick course on the pros and cons and what to make sure ? > > Thanks, Guy Quebec, Canada ESSENTIAL READING before your purchase: http://www.excellence-mag.com/back_issues.html and http://www.rennlist.org/ really. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.