944 2.5 versus 2.7 or Ventiller

[ukmastiff]

lo all, Im sure its been discussed as has eberything Porsche 944 but
forgetting collectability rarity novalty etc and going 'purely on the drive' how much difference would you put on the three I.E which would you want , I must stress purely on the drive nothing else.

Can someone who has driven all three or even two of them state if there really is much of a difference to warrant choosing one over the other two and if so which and why.


Regards

Mas

 

[Chrishazle]

Went from a 2.5 lux to a 16 valve S - and lost the bottom of the engine. In the S, once you got to about 4k revs, particularly windows down on a country lane, the sound and experience was pretty good, but you can't drive like that all the time. In most driving of the S, I might as well have been in a Rover 1 or Fiesta. I believe the non 16v 2.7's and the S2's have bottom end torque, but I went from the S to a 968 and haven't looked back!

 

[Mike_Pollock]

Early 2.5 and '89 2.7 - chassis is more fun on the square dash, but there is noticeably more drive from the 2.7, will pull well from not much above tickover and mine isn't even properly tuned yet!
My 2.5 was dyno'ed at 150bhp with "a very good torque curve", but the 2.7 is stronger.

 

[kcbart]

In the 80s I had an early 2.5 and then an S. I remember much prefering the early car as far as driving is concerned. The S was so much slower to get going - almost seemed to hesitate before accelerating. Even an expensive service and tune up at Lancasters in Colchester made no difference. 25 years later I have a 2.7 but the time difference makes comparison with the early car difficult (except the interior which I much prefer on the later car).

 

[pauljmcnulty]

You really need to try them all to find out which suits you. Personally I wouldn't choose the S over a Lux, but that's largely because I drive a diesel all day so am just not used to something with no low-down torque. I'm not keen on the early interior or lack of PAS, so it would be a late Lux for me. Oh, and personally I'd not worry about whether it was a 2.7 or not, there is so little in it that it would be very low on the list of things to look for in a Lux. I'd probably choose one exactly like the car I sold....[&:]

 

[Suffolk944]

At least the S would give you that all or nothing performance of a Turbo []

 

[Diver944]

ORIGINAL: Suffolk944

At least the S would give you that all or nothing performance of a Turbo []

and it gives you that infinite turbo lag feeling

 

[TTM]

At least the 16V head makes for a nice engine sound in higher revs.

 

[Ewan]

As is well documented, the S suffers from a lack of torque at low revs and has a tendency to self destruct. When the engine in my S catastrophically dropped a valve after about 60,000 careful and well serviced miles I kept the car, but replaced the engine with one from a crashed S2. This gave me the original sharp looking shape, but with far better performance - definitely a wolf in sheeps clothing, and it certainly surprised other 944 drivers during friendly on-road rivalries! (This was back in the early 1990's when there were plenty of all variants to choose from and battle with).

 

[MRGT]

I guess it comes down to how you drive, the 2.5/2.7 is better low down and so makes for easier town driving, however the free-revving S is a blast around country lanes if you keep the rev's up. both have good and bad points. All I can say from my own experience is that I have found my S to be extremely reliable (45000 miles in 3 years) and a joy to own. The only thing I would add is that I have added the Promax chip and whilst I dont believe it has added any great number of additional horses it seems to have removed the 'step' in the torque curve around 4200 rpm, making for a smoother drive and she will pull all the way to the red line (the noise is pretty good too )

Howard