I have a question about early 944s. Is there any reason, other than price, to buy one? I know that they are supposed to be a little lighter and have slightly better tie rods. The interiors don't look as nice and the engines are a little weaker when stock. I always skip over any car that is pre 1987 when I'm looking for a new 944, and advise others to do the same. In the past this was at least true because you were getting a newer car. By 2005 all of these cars are all pretty old so "newer" means less. I do understand the changes that took place in 89 as well. I don't heavily modify my cars, do people who prefer the early models over the later ones like them because they are easier to modify in some way? The mechanics are pretty similar. I just see a lot of posts that read : "Just picked up a 1983 944 for $1500 and am going to drop $30K worth of parts into it". To me that really doesn't make sense unless the early model cars have some major advantages that I don't know about. On the other hand if you are replacing everything anyway I guess a $1500 car as opposed to a $5000 car doesn't make much difference.

 

You'll probably call me a heretic for saying this, but I think the '83 and 84 944's are a lot more fun for most driving situations than the later model ones. They have a much better sense of "balance", in my opinion, they feel more like a "sports car". I would much rather drive a well sorted early model 944 than a later model one that isn't, and its almost a coin toss if they are equal in condition. True, boost is VERY addicting, and I love my 968 cab, but for day in, day out driving, I really prefer the feel of an early 944 to the late ones.

One other bonus to consider, they are less complex, which makes them easier and cheaper to maintain, yet any of the later model suspension upgrades can also be applied to them. Brakes are a bit harder to upgrade, but its do-able. Power is hard to get much more out of, if you really *have* to have more power or are looking for bling bling stuff for your car, the 951's are the way to go. Anyone that says that they are going to get a bunch more power out of an NA is just plain lying... Yes, there are about 5 people in the UNited States that have built NA engines that have broken the 300bhp mark, but those were all race only engines that are in no way streetable.

If I was only able to keep one of my fours 944/968's, I'd keep my '84...

Regards,

 

Thats funny I had the exact opposite experience, the early 944s I drove felt sluggish - more like the 2.0 924. I have driven a few. The later cars always felt punchier to me. The 924 S with the 2.5 is the quickest of the NA 924/944 models that I have driven though. They were driven hard and seem to be in pretty bad shape at this point - I couldn't find a nice on in northern CA last summer.

 

It certainly won't pack a "punch" when you hit the gas, but its not the engine that makes the car, its the total package, and I feel like Porsche had it pretty well sussed when they delivered the car in the early '80's. Don't get me wrong, I would like to find the same 30-50 hp that everyone else wants for their early 80's 944, but I don't want the added weight of th elater cars, and I don't want to upset the balance either. In my '83, I can go flat out through turns that guys with higher hp have to lift on, and while that might sound like an advantage, tell that to the guys in high hp 951's and 911's that I have passed in my lowly '83 NA. There is a LOT to be said for learning to drive a car that forces you to use momentum, once you have the hang of that, jumping to a higher hp will yeild some real benefits. Most people starting out in higher hp cars have slower track times than guys that start out in more balanced, lower hp cars, simply becuase they use the hp to compensate for poor cornering skills.

I have driven somewhere around 30-40 of the early 944's , and I've owned 4 of them and I'll say this, you definitely have to find the right one. Some of them are in pathetically bad shape and will definitely give a bad impression. The right one, tho...

Regards,

 

Punch is relative. What I mean was in comparison to the earlier cars the later model had a bit more power (IMHO). Especially over 50 mph - nice for passing on the freeway. I don't race (much) or make extreme modifications so that is why I was asking about that. I've also noticed that the valves and guides seem to be in worse shape on the older cars - even with similar milage. The 944 NA in any form are not terribly quick cars, that isn't why people but them (I hope). I'm in the process of making some minor mods to mine and for all of the money I'll have a car with well under 200 HP but amazing handling. The car will be reliable and run on pump gas -- so I'll be happy. In fact, as soon as we get a dry weekend I'm installing a new exhaust and CAT.

BTW, when willl www.kcws.com be live? I wanted to check out your site.

 

Try www.kcws.org instead... Sorry, you weren't dreaming that up, I just changed my profile, and I can't believe I screwed up that url, I only visit it probably 20 times every day. lol

The later NA's are a bit heavier than the early ones, so I am surprised by your experience, you must have found some real winners out there.

Regards,

 

Nice site. Your group's cars look great. I do most of my own work too. After I finish my 944 this spring I'm starting on a 68 mustang - but I guess that is a bit off topic.

 

No worse than anything else thats been posted here! lol Besides, Mustangs are cool, I love the early ones. Feel free to post on the KCWS site about your Mustang, if you'd like. Even tho we are primarily focused on Porsches, we are pretty much all just car enthusiasts.

Regards,

 

Thanks - I will.

 

Bump... just burying a worthless thread.