944 vs 968 - lower boot floor??

[5lab]

I was just watching an old top gear review of the 968 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48GiT-OiAPs

and clarkson mentions the boot floor is lower. From the video (and from other pictures) it looks the same - maybe the spare wheel isn't there? and the parcel shelf is attached to the boot, but otherwise looks the same

so does anyone know if the 968 does have a lower floor? I thought the overall 'chassis' of the car (ie the barebones bit that's welded together) was the same?

 

[Gordon Attar]

Lower than what! looks the same as my 944T used to.

PS Any factual and relavent information Clarkson knows on Porsches could be written on a pinhead....

 

[Lowtimer]

He does however describe the 944 Turbo as one of his favourite cars ever.

"Speak this quietly, but I was the only person in the world who wanted a 924. I knew that it had an engine from a Volkswagen van and that it took six years to get from zero to 60mph and that it cost a million pounds and you were only paying for the badge. But it had pinstripe velour seats, and I liked that.

"And then they fitted flared wheel arches and a new four-cylinder 2.5-litre engine to create the 944. I wanted one of those so much I ached. In fact, if I were to draw up a list of the 10 best cars I've ever driven, the 944 turbo would certainly be included. You can buy them these days for five grand.

 

[944 man]

Porsche originally intended to lower the load deck floor in the 924 Turbo, which used a Porsche transmission and didnt need the headroom created for the AUDI transaxle (and bellhousing!).

The 968 transaxle is similarly low, although the load deck floor can only be lowered by a relatively small amount, as theres still a fuel tank, a torsion tube/axle and a transmission to fit under there...

 

[PSH]

Personally I think JC is spot on with his views on various Porsche models and regarding the 944 turbo he's not alone, of course you have Tiff who rates them very highly indeed, mind you he did have a lot of success racing them. However the most valued support for the 944 Turbo came from Porsche themselves who in the early 90's rated it as the quickest car in the fleet , faster than the 928GTS and the then 911 turbo when driving from A to B.
Of course the real test was on the track and if any followed the Porsche Cup in the late 90's to early 2000's as I did you would know just how good a car they are and why Porsche finally, after a number of years handicapping, banned them outright. The last year of racing easily beating GT3's, don't believe me?.... Check the records... Oh and if you look there's even more powerful evidence out there...

Ok.. Yes I own a 944 turbo and yes I'm like most hot blooded men who rate their cars the best, but, when it comes to the Porsche 944 turbo it's not BS...

Pete

 

[5lab]

so was the floor ever lowered or did it stay in the same place?

Regardless of JC's views of porsches, that kind of fact when reviewing a new car normally comes straight out of the press pack and regurgetated verbatum.

 

[Mike_Pollock]

The floors are the same throughout the 924-944-968 range.

The early 924 needed it that high, but as has been said the 924 Turbo and later cars could have had it lowered about 50mm I think, but that would have cut down tank space etc.

 

[Hilux]

ORIGINAL: PSH

Personally I think JC is spot on with his views on various Porsche models and regarding the 944 turbo he's not alone, of course you have Tiff who rates them very highly indeed, mind you he did have a lot of success racing them. However the most valued support for the 944 Turbo came from Porsche themselves who in the early 90's rated it as the quickest car in the fleet , faster than the 928GTS and the then 911 turbo when driving from A to B.
Of course the real test was on the track and if any followed the Porsche Cup in the late 90's to early 2000's as I did you would know just how good a car they are and why Porsche finally, after a number of years handicapping, banned them outright. The last year of racing easily beating GT3's, don't believe me?.... Check the records... Oh and if you look there's even more powerful evidence out there...

Ok.. Yes I own a 944 turbo and yes I'm like most hot blooded men who rate their cars the best, but, when it comes to the Porsche 944 turbo it's not BS...

Pete

I cant think who drove it (might have been Bell) but look up the 'ring times (old ring) for the 1988.5 944T when it was released, Porsche were pleased but mortified as it threatened their iconic 911

 

[PSH]

A

ORIGINAL: Hilux

ORIGINAL: PSH

Personally I think JC is spot on with his views on various Porsche models and regarding the 944 turbo he's not alone, of course you have Tiff who rates them very highly indeed, mind you he did have a lot of success racing them. However the most valued support for the 944 Turbo came from Porsche themselves who in the early 90's rated it as the quickest car in the fleet , faster than the 928GTS and the then 911 turbo when driving from A to B.
Of course the real test was on the track and if any followed the Porsche Cup in the late 90's to early 2000's as I did you would know just how good a car they are and why Porsche finally, after a number of years handicapping, banned them outright. The last year of racing easily beating GT3's, don't believe me?.... Check the records... Oh and if you look there's even more powerful evidence out there...

Ok.. Yes I own a 944 turbo and yes I'm like most hot blooded men who rate their cars the best, but, when it comes to the Porsche 944 turbo it's not BS...

Pete

I cant think who drove it (might have been Bell) but look up the 'ring times (old ring) for the 1988.5 944T when it was released, Porsche were pleased but mortified as it threatened their iconic 911

Funny you should mention the ring Paul, there's a video that's been doing the rounds on the Titanic forum recently from YouTube. It's not easy to judge the car as the author gives little details other than total weight and boost both of which look standard. It looks like a silver rose going by the interior. Anyway this guy knows how to drive that's for sure but he laps the ring on a public day at 8.01 and you can see where he's lost a lot of time dye to traffic, however if you compare that time with all of the actual tests done with a closed circuit you can see just how fast he was. Beating such cars as Porsche GT3 and 2's, Audi R8's and the list goes on. I'd love to see what time he could do with a closed circuit and perhaps a modified 944 turbo, of course he may have been on slicks which the 944 loves.

Sorry for the hijack, I didn't start it.... Oh and from what I know I believe the two chassis ( 944/968) are the same but can't swear to it

Regards

Pete

 

[George Elliott]

so was the floor ever lowered or did it stay in the same place?

they are the same as stated above, - the 944 could not be improved upon[]

George
944t

 

[Jonny944CS]

so was the floor ever lowered or did it stay in the same place?

The 968 gearbox is near identical in height to its 5-speed father (as it too originated as an Audi front axle install), just a bit longer to accomodate the extra gear set. The fuel tank is also nearly the same, just modified to clear the longer gearbox - so no scope for lowering the floor.

The only difference I can think of is the spare wheel well. The space-saver wheel is angled backwards on the 968, increasing the capacity of the boot area.

 

[Frenchy]

PSH is right in what he said about Porsche handicapping the 944 Turbo and then banning them, as they were running riot in the Porsche series leading much more exotic ? Porsche machinery.
Even now a well sorted car with a good driver will still hold it's own.
Is the TITANIC forum still going ? i was a member early days along with a few others who frequent this webspace, you know who you are []

 

[Buddy]

I've had a 924S, 944turbo and a 968, floor levels were all pretty close to the same height, minor differences in ride height due to tyres and such maybe made a very slight difference but nothing discernible.

I once had an extensive test drive in a 3.2 Carrera and enjoyed it then said I'd think about it as I got back into the turbo, within 100 yds I'd decided. Meantime the garage had an offer on the turbo before I got back.

944 turbo is still one of my two favourite Porsches, I drive the other one.

 

[PSH]

ORIGINAL: Frenchy

PSH is right in what he said about Porsche handicapping the 944 Turbo and then banning them, as they were running riot in the Porsche series leading much more exotic ? Porsche machinery.
Even now a well sorted car with a good driver will still hold it's own.
Is the TITANIC forum still going ? i was a member early days along with a few others who frequent this webspace, you know who you are []

Hi Frency

Yep Titanic is still going but alas not as it was in its hey day, however you'd be surprised how many old timers answer when someone posts asking if anyone is out there ...

Pete

 

[5lab]

I've heard the '944 performance deliberately kept lower than the 911' thing a few times, and I think it's a mis conception.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/tags/944turbose911carreraclubsport1988/

that's a good review from the time. Note that the 944 in question (albeit a top spec one) is 6k (20%) more expensive than the 911, and offers broadly the same performance. I'd imagine the non-CS carrera would be a little slower (due to the extra weight of the extra toys)

 

[PSH]

ORIGINAL: 5lab

I've heard the '944 performance deliberately kept lower than the 911' thing a few times, and I think it's a mis conception.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/tags/944turbose911carreraclubsport1988/

that's a good review from the time. Note that the 944 in question (albeit a top spec one) is 6k (20%) more expensive than the 911, and offers broadly the same performance. I'd imagine the non-CS carrera would be a little slower (due to the extra weight of the extra toys)

Hi 5lab

I have also heard that from a number of sources, including those in the know so to speak but the facts speak for themselves, the 944 chassis is far superior to the 911 and I guess that will never change unless Porsche start building the 911 with a front mounted engine and rear transaxle, the mark of a true drivers car, hey ask any Ferrari owner... of course you have mid engined but that's another story. I also have many of the road test articles from the 80's and early 90's , I'd reccomend all 944 owners to find these publications and then realise just what it is your driving or more importantly what the professionals thought of your cars.
BTW when first released the 944 turbo recorded the fastest top speed along the autobahn during a road test at that time, faster than the 911 and Ferrari 928 gts IIRC. Also it's 0-60 was nearly half a second faster than the Sierra RS500 and the Ferrari Tesstarossa, this was a standard car, not modified unlike most on this forum. One more small piece of info for anyone considering buying a 944 turbo and intending major power increase, look for an early 220 version. These have far stronger blocks designed to handle 500BHP without fuss, these cars had the same blocks as the race cars before costs got to high and cutting corners began.

There is so much more to be said in support of these masterpieces of engineering, a true example of getting it right from the start rather than let technology make up for lack of design.

Kind regards

Pete

 

[Lowtimer]

ORIGINAL: 5lab

I've heard the '944 performance deliberately kept lower than the 911' thing a few times, and I think it's a mis conception.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/tags/944turbose911carreraclubsport1988/

that's a good review from the time. Note that the 944 in question (albeit a top spec one) is 6k (20%) more expensive than the 911, and offers broadly the same performance. I'd imagine the non-CS carrera would be a little slower (due to the extra weight of the extra toys)

Yes, the standard 3.2 Carrera was about a second slower to 100 than the 3.2 CS, and cost within a few quid of the price of s 944 Turbo.

As well as the weight reduction the 3.2 CS also has a slightly tweaked engine with blueprinted internals and a higher rev limit, though Porsche did not widely discuss this at the time, nor did they change the published output figures. However, the 911 3.2 CS owners can tell you more about that than I can and seem to reckon that they have about an extra 20 bhp over the standard 3.2.

 

[Suffolk944]

In relation to a previous thread where a debate started as to whether or not the post S 250 cars were designated as SE's or not is interesting that the road test article that 5lab has kindly linked to does indeed refer to the 944 as a SE.

There is so much more to be said in support of these masterpieces of engineering, a true example of getting it right from the start rather than let technology make up for lack of design.

Couldn't agree more - its both a crying shame that these fabulous cars are so under appreciated these days but also lucky for us that it means they are so (relatively) affordable.

 

[944 man]

Yes, I re-read the April 1988 Performance Car M758 Vs. Ferrari 328GTS test recently, and they referred to the '944 Turbo with Sport Equipment', hence 944 Turbo SE.

 

[Jonny944CS]

ORIGINAL: PSH

One more small piece of info for anyone considering buying a 944 turbo and intending major power increase, look for an early 220 version. These have far stronger blocks designed to handle 500BHP without fuss, these cars had the same blocks as the race cars before costs got to high and cutting corners began.

Interesting Pete, I recall reading that the first turbo blocks had castings with an extra 1mm wall thickness. I dismissed it as rumour at the time.

It is a shame Herr Mezger and his team couldn't get the head gasket to seal reliably when running 500bhp with the GTP back in 1981 - I wonder what effect a Le Mans win would have had on the history of the frontrunners...