On 28 Sep 2006 14:22:38 -0700, "Filmophile" <Filmophilia (AT) aol (DOT) com>
wrote:
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.

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.

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


E Brown wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

<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.

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.

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.

Believe me when I say I'm trying *not* to be insulting here, but
ownership means diddly shit. 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Filmophile wrote:
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