Leg room in 944?

[wish944]

Hey folks, I am looking into buying a 944S but was wondering about the leg/head room. I used to own a 300z twin turbo and it had decent room for me-- I'm 6ft1in. How does the 944 compare? I believe the interior space is pretty much the same for the entire 944 line. Correct?

Thanks much!

[Bob's944]

I'm 6'2"... my seat is not all the way back, i think you can be 6'6" or so without any problems

[Magnus_944]

I'm 196 centimeters long and have no problem at all. But the guy sitting behind me will not be very happy

/Magnus

[wish944]

I dont think anyone sitting in the back of a 944 is very happy....or at least not very comfortable.

[Blackfoot]

why an "s" in particular?

[wish944]

I was originally looking at the 968. But as reality caught up with me, I could not justify (or afford for that matter) a 968 since my purchase is supposed to be for a hobby car-- I'll be keeping my Frontier as my daily driver.

I then started looking into the S2. The styling of the 951 but without the added "plumbing" and such. Beauty even when compared to the designs that have come since. I owned a 1990 turbo Z and while I loved the performance. the maintenance was killing me. Alas, I decided that even the lower purchase costs of the S2 were too high to justify for my immediate desire--hobby, fix-up, restore, get hands dirty, etc.

I think the 944S is a good step above the 944 but without too great a level of sophistication that I cringe to lift the hood.

[MAS]

Hey Wish944...

Good luck in your quest. At the risk of offending any 944S owners here (and I don't mean to)... the 944S has the reputation of being one of the least reliable of all the 924/944/968 family. To be sure, the 944S is a very fine car, but you did mention fear of extra "plumbing" and other similar issues.

I suggest that you look into the (non-turbo) 89 944. These cars came with the more powerful 2.7 liter single overhead cam 8 valve engine. The British car magazine "Auto" tested the 89 944 with a 0-60 time of 7 secs flat. This was a full half second faster than the (more powerful) 944S. The reason was that the 2.7 liter engine had a fatter and flatter torque curve.

Are there any other owners of 89 2.7 liter cars who'd like to comment? (No, I don't have an 89, but I'd like too)

-MAS

[MBuck951]

Sorry, my NA is the only one i've ever driven.
From what I've heard, and read, the 2.7 makes a huge difference. Difference in torque between S and 2.7 is nil. Mine has 115k and still going strong, but I've never seen a S that high.

I'm 6'2" and fit easy, seat isn't even back all the way.



------------------
Mike Buck
My Gallery
'88 944 turbo
'89 944 NA

[Blackfoot]

i think i share the opinions of many on this board when i say that the 951 is a fairly reliable car given it's power, and is perhaps the best value of any car you can buy today.

i think you'll find that the cost of owning a 951 is pretty comparable to a 944/968. the turbos (water-cooled = no need for turbo timer) themselves seem to have a long life. head gaskets seem to be the one of the few significant areas of concern for 951 owners. good luck in your search.



[This message has been edited by Blackfoot (edited 10-06-2001).]

[MAS]

"Difference in torque between S and 2.7 is nil."

Yes, but the 2.7 liter 8v engine produces more torque at the lower end of the rev range, say below 3,500 rpm (indeed, the standard 2.5 liter 8v 944 engine produces more low end torque too).

-MAS

[MAS]

"i think i share the opinions of many on this board when i say that the 951 is a fairly reliable car given it's power, and is perhaps the best value of any car you can buy today."

I have to agree. Considering the high performance of these cars, the reliability is actually quite reasonable.

For example, let's say you find a nice 951 for between $8,000 to $10,000, and you have rotten luck and have to sink another 5-6,000 in the car within the first year. Even after that, you still have a bargain. The only car that comes close to performance value is probably the 3rd generation RX7, and these on the whole seem to be more expensive to buy and maintain than a 951.

-MAS

[Drago]

6'7'. Leg room (and head room) is good minus the space between the wheel and center console. Otherwise it's fine. BTW, my seat IS all the way back and down as far as possible.

------------------
Marc
'86 944 NA

[Andre]

I think this will end the head/leg room debate.....i stand at a wopping 5'7" and i am quite comfortable in my 944 na.

[Z-man]

The 944S2 isn't that much more expensive than a 944S, and there is a significant power increase. Also, the early 944 Turbos can be had for a good price, and if they have been maintained, they shouldn't drain your pockets.

The 1989 944 8V n/a is a good choice: that's what I was focusing on this past summer when I happened across my 944S2.

However, the 944 that offers the least amount of modifications is the S2, IMO. Even a 944S is easier to modify, and the turbo: there seems to be no end to the amount of mods you can do with it! So if you plan on keeping your 944 stock, the S2 is a good car to get. If you want to modify, the 944Turbo's are a top choice. For least expensvie, I'd say the early 944 8v n/a's are good, as well as the 1987-88 924S.

Just my $0.42
-Zoltan.

[dk944s2]

I'm about 6'2" and I fit just fine. I've got the electric seats, and 944 is one of the few cars where I don't put the seat in its lowest position. 944s, compared to a lot of newer cars and the 914 I used to drive, has a rather high cowl height, so a little extra elevation (maybe 3/4") helps me see out better.

The visor of my baseball cap does rub a little on the sun visors (standard-issue 944 droop), but the Velcro solution should fix that.

--Doug

[hoff944]

I'm 6'3 and fit just fine in it.

[Spooky Pooky]

Okay, so what the heck is an "S" anyway? I'm not very knowledgable about the different 944 models.

I wonder what the heck I have.

Marie



------------------


Some people are worried about the difference between right and wrong. I'm worried about the difference between wrong and fun.
P.J. O'Rourke

[Spooky Pooky]

Never mind, pulled my head out and remembered how to read.

Marie

[Rollins]

There is an "S" model. You may have read something wrong above, but the "S" model is a real thing. It's got a 16 valve engine as opposed to the 8 valve most n/a's have. It has something like 175 hp if memory serves me right. However, the common consensus is that it is not worth it because the parts are harder to find and it has an issue with a timing chain as opposed to a timing belt. There is also an S2 model. It again has the 16 valves. This one has 225 hp or so. It is considered more reliable than the turbo, but again has parts issues as well as not being easily upgraded like the turbo.
-Tim

[MAS]

Yes... the "S" is something like 188 hp from a 16 valve 2.5 liter engine. The S2 has the larger 3.0 liter 16 valve engine and produces about 210 hp. But, the S2 engine has a much better torque curve... with lots of torque in the low to mid rpm ranges. The S2 also has significantly better performance than the "S", 0-60 in the low to mid 6 second range. The S2 also has the best low end and mid range performance of any 944 model... turbo included (the turbo's faster, but it doesn't spool up until later).

-MAS

-MAS