How much diff between an N/A and Turbo?
 

I was driving my '87 NA today and it seems to be pretty quick to the redline, and all I have done to it is the FR Wilk chip. I checked around for some 0-60 times and there doesn't seem to be much difference between a late model turbo and NA. Also, I hear that the turbos lack the low end torque of the NA, which I don't want to lose(thinking or selling NA and buying turbo). But since I have never driven a turbo, I was hoping to get some feedback.

0-60 times are below 6 seconds in a turbo. 1/4 mile times are around 14 seconds. top end is MUCH higher. almost as high as the 911 turbos of the same years. around 167 MPH. there is a big difference. also, with some simple modifications, a turbo can easily produce around 300 HP. basically, a 86 turbo had nearly identically performance as the 86 911 turbo.

check this out: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=1453&page_numb er=5&preview=

About the same difference as a Ford Pinto and a ferrari.

I wouldn't say it's THAT much of a difference. :rolleyes: People who think that way really OVER-RATE the 951, IMHO.

Maybe the difference is more like that of a V6 Mustang vs. a V8.

Get the 944S2 or 968 and you'll have the best of both worlds - good low end torque, and a peppy motor throughout the whole rev range! :D

Then again, I'm biased!
-Z.

yes, i guess if you keep the motor in the sweet spot, like above 3500, its all good. but the standard 951 has a lot of turbo lag. but people who own them dont putz around too much at under 2k. low compression pistons dont do a lot for the low range with no boost, but when it comes on song, its a lot swifter than the na, hands down.
if i was thinking of changing my car, i would opt for the s2, which has the larger displacement/better lo-end, and much better all round driveability. just my 0.02c worth!
sorry. totally forgot! yes, the wilk chip does make a tremendous difference,if your car is in a good state of tune to begin with.

::cough:: over rated ::cough::

Save your pennies, and with the money you were going to use to buy a nice 951 (~8K), write a check to Broadfoot Racing and tell them you want the most badass NA they can build on that budget. I'd much rather drive a high strung NA over a Turbo...

Hopefully when I get out of college...^^^

I love my n/a.
I love my 951.

my chipped 951 poots out around 260hp/280tq at 14psi (currently running 18psi)... ;P
its soo much fun...

MIke, well, I think an interesting comparison to do would be NA 944 vs. NA 944 with the FRWilk chip vs. 951. Something tells me that the performace of an FRWilk chip-enhanced 944 would surprise the testers.

Sincerely,
One of the converted.

CJ - last dyno I went to we tested it ;)
Did 3-5 hp for the entire power curve.
I don't remember the details on the torque curve, I'll try to nab a copy of the dyno sheet.

These two cars are like night and day as far as I'm concerned

I have one of each and love 'em both.

The n/a is a blast to drive - it's "nicely adequate" as far as I'm concerned. Lots of fun, damn near bulletproof, way easier to work on, less to break, etc. With a skilled driver in curves, it'll run with a 951 just fine.

The turbos are well. . . amazing. They're incredibally well-built, smooth, and go like a raped ape even lightly modded. The n/a just builds speed slowly and steadily all the way to top end, the 951s will start slow and then slam you back into your seat when the boost comes on. It's truly a joy of a car. The biggest advantage of the turbo would be in acceleration in long slow sweepers or straights where you could avail yourself of the turbo, but I still maintain that in tight quarters or twisty manuvering, an n/a is almost as good - it comes down to the driver.

Parts tend to be a helluva lot cheaper for the n/a cars too - especially the early ones.

i've noticed that, with well-handling cars, the differences in HP don't seem to matter much on real roads. I have personally witnessed 944s running with 951s, 911SCs, 930s, 968s... all in the same group. No one gained a sizable lead...

...until we got on the highway.

Yep too true. . . There is one video I've seen in particular that Danno (Guru) shot where a guy in a 944 n/a is running with some very fast cars - I think there was a 911 and a 'vette C5. In the curves, the n/a cars fare quite well. And they're lighter. . .

when ricers ask me if i wanna race them 0-60, i grin and reply how about 0-160 instead? they never take me up on that offer. :(

As far as actual driving difference goes, don't let anybody fool you... the 944 n/a will not keep up with the pack during PCA drives in the country. That's one of the reasons I sold my 86 n/a to purchase my 89 951. Absolutely night and day difference. There are a bunch of 993's in my local PCA (not turbos) and they use to leave me while we went on local sprints... now that I have my 89 I'm right there with them and then some :-)

There is a guy with an M3 that always use to spank me in my n/a and we now trade views of each others rear bumpers as we drive. Lot's more fun on the PCA trips now that I have the turbo.

Do I miss the '86, yes! Would I go back NO!

.02
Cory

Cory, maybe your 86 wasn't up to snuff? I have had no problems keeping up with 9113.2s or SCs on back roads...

Make no mistake about it - N/As are not even in the same ballpark as the 951. Anyone remember that advertisement in the mid-80's where it showed all the 951's different parts from the 944? Heck, it was different in the engine, suspension, better aerodynamics, and brakes.

And then there's the speed. The un-modded straight 8v 944 (or 16v "S" for that matter) are downright SLOW cars compared to the 951. I've driven just about every 944 derivative except for the 952 and the difference was night and day, IMHO. Performance chips and the such might be a different story to a degree.

Whether or not performance chips actually do anything to enhance the n/a car performance is a hotly debated topic. There are Wilk chips, but at over $300 for a gain of MAYBE 5 h.p. that comes out to $60 per additional horsepower - and even then it can only effectively be used by a talented driver. If you want big power, you have to go with forced induction ($$$) or a high-displacement engine ($$$). No way around it. The n/a cars are still great fun and can be driven on twisty roads with great spirit, but as has been said, they'll get demolished on long sweepers or any sort of straights. Given a choice, I'd rather have an S2 than a stock 951. The power coming out of turns is right there (you have to wait for the turbo on the 951) and the overall max. power is virtually the same - and the S2s are newer. However, a 951 or Turbo-S can be modified far easier. Depends what you want.

I think dollar for dollar, the 951 is the best for the buck. It goes pretty quickly stock and can be easily modified to build big h.p. About $1,000 worth of upgrades in a 951 will put you right around 260-ish h.p. To get to the same level from an n/a 944 would probably cost several thousand. Even to get to that point from an S2 would be quite pricey.

That said, if there ever IS a viable upgrade to forced induction for the n/a cars, they'd be very dangerous contenders. The Callaway conversion I'm working on for my n/a will lay down very close to 300 RWHP when I'm done with it - and that's in an early n/a car that's FAR lighter than a stock 951. TOTAL cost of parts upgrades will be less than a Stage II supercharger kit, and it'll absolutely kill one of those. It'll even blow even a modded 951 out of the water when I'm done with it. Drawback: there were only 32 of these conversions done, so parts to do them are limited. Manufacturers / race shops do not emulate the technology because the market is soft and they'd be unlikely to recover the costs of fabrication unless they could do it all "in house". VERY few shops have that kind of skill and access to the kind of machinery necessary to produce the turbo manifold, intercooler, plumbing, etc. This is probably one of the reasons they are what they are - very rare and produced by a high-end engineering / fabrication shop (Callaway) and the conversions were NOT cheap, adjusting for 1985 dollars!

The key is to decide what you want and choose accordingly. If you want good economy and enough to be fun once in a while, an n/a will suit you just fine. If you want balls-out power and the ability to tear up a track on a moment's notice, get a 951. If you want a truly beautiful piece of machinery that LOOKS good and goes pretty fast (or a convertable), get an S2 or 968. Heck, you could even get a 914 and do a V8 conversion if you're so inclined. I've heard those are absolutely insane with their power-to-weight ratios. Major drawback: the 914s were not galvanized, so you're likely to have rust issues. That's why I won't touch one.

Actually the BEST car (IMO) - the "holy grail" that I'd LOVE to have for myself would be a 951 cabriolet. Sadly however (as is the case with most "good" stuff) there were none imported to the U.S. so I'd have to go to Europe, find one, deal with all the idiotic import bull$hit, bring it over, and make it comply with all the CA smog nazi crap. Not worth it. Ditto on the 959, but that's a different league ENTIRELY and a completely different discussion. Face it - Europe gets the good cars (their drivers are better) and the U.S. gets the dregs. Even Euro spec. n/a cars will absolutely SMOKE the U.S. spec versions of the same year(s). The U.S. gets the leftovers. You want a GOOD performance Porsche? Go to Europe.