Huh? How much courage do you think it takes to rev a factory test car, supply specifically for performance testing, to the red line? Absolutely none. It takes a lot more more courage to tell Porsche and everyone else, in print, that the test car they supplied didn't make its factory-claimed acceleration figures, and that's what they had to do.
Having worked for Autocar's publisher and witnessed the process at first hand, I know the road testers of both Autocar and Motor (two separate magazines back then, until we bought Motor and merged them) were in that era fully willing and able to do whatever they had to do to a car to get the absolute maximum acceleration figures out of it. Autocar never did a full set of 944S figures but the fact is in late 1986 Motor independently tested the factory-provided 944S test car (one of several 944 variants over the years to wear the registration 94 FOR), and found it to be slower than expected, especially at low and mid-range revs, having tested the car using reliable instrumentation, proven technique, at a fully suitable locations (MIRA and Millbrook) in good conditions.
Car and Driver in the USA, at the time the only US magazine to performance-test with the intellectual rigour and reliability of the two main UK weeklies, was given a different car to test and made that one go a bit quicker but not that much (0-60 in 6.8 seconds versus Motor's 7.8, but still only 0-100 in 19.8 secs versus Motor's 21.1).
Personally I think the 944S test car that Motor had was not a good example - there are many reasons an engine can be down on power while still behaving itself, and I think that was a duff one. If so, that was not a unique event in the history of road testing. Later on, one of the last 944 250 Turbo cabs was tested as being nearly two seconds slower to 100 than the original S2 test car, when it should have been substantially quicker. Often these variations are to do with how well run in the car is - few engines deliver absolutely full power in their first 10,000 miles.
What Car did the test against the Alpine in early 1987, a few months later, and, perhaps tellingly, were supplied with a different test car, different colour and everything, D 585 VRX.
That was the fittest yet, 0-60 in 6.5, 0-100 in 18.4, better than both the earlier tests on both sides of the pond. The in-gear figures were much better too. I think that's probably as good as it gets for a really fit S in standard form. The 944S is slightly heavier than a Toyota GT86, has very similar factory power and torque figures, and the GT86 benefit of six gears. The What Car 944S figures are almost identical to those of the GT86, and that's really all you can expect of it.
It's possible that in November 1986, 94 FOR still only had a few thousand miles on it, and by the time Porsche sent the different car for What Car, several months later, that had been run enough to loosen up properly.
