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.

First- Have you ever driven a N/A with a wilk chip? The performance change is huge, maybe not a lot of hp, but tons more usable torque down low and at $200 it is an amazing upgrade. That would be the first thing on my list of upgrades for anyone who has not purchased one.

Second - an S4 has a very conservatively rated 250hp stock and for $595 you can chip the ECU to get 300hp and 320 ft/lbs of torque. Because it is a twin turbo design there are tons of mods, some expensive, some not, but stock 0-60 is 5.5sec and with mods I've seen people claim 0-60's in the mid 4's. I love my 944, but I can only imagine the difference between an 80's 944 turbo and an 2000 S4 being like comparing a machete to a scalpel.

yes, i agree with the comment about european cars being faster. they dont have such draconian smogtest needs, and , generally this applies to all cars over there, they are downright tuned for maximum smoke! the drawback is that the engines dont last as long as their n.american counterparts.
as far as only an experienced driver getting the best out of a wilk chip, i'm confused by this one! the biggest difference i have found with this chip, is the amount of available torque from low revs, versus standard. we all know that the 944 series has no low end to talk of{s2 excepted from that statement}and this chip makes a huge difference to my car. being that not all cars are in the same state of tune, they will all differ somewhat, but at the end of the day, its torque that gets you going, that makes you leave the line. i have read ad nauseum all the reports about this and that/dyno/sotp etc. for my installation, it is night and day. i'm more than happy to let any nay-sayer test drive my car, to observe the difference between the two settings. if by chance, you get a chance to drive a car equipped with the dual chip, then try this test. standard setting, at 45 mph, then full throttle up to 80 mph {assuming you are on a loooong highway} observe your time. yes, how many would consider fifth gear accelleration with this car. now do the same in power prom position, and see the time difference. its amazing how much quicker it will be with just 1 hp difference, as many seem to think!
the amount of available torque from as low as 1500rpm with this chip, makes the standard setting feel like i'm driving a trabant!
no more waiting for torque at 3.5k, and especially relevant, no sooner does the torque/bhp come in at 3.5, then it starts to disappear at 5.5 k. the na{early} does start to run out of steam at 5.5k
so the other benefit of the chip, is that power/torque starts much earlier, and just builds steadily, with no hiccups/sudden surge/no disappearing act, right up to the redline. who would not want this??
as far as i'm concerned,for me, this is a great upgrade to the driveability of this car, and it is quicker than standard, which is very noticeable.

how do you know this? do you have before/after dyno's with the wilk chip?

i keep hearing how the wilk chip is the best thing for 944's since sliced bread, but have yet to see a SINGLE before/after dyno to prove this.

not that i doubt it, i'm sure it's a great chip, but if you're going to claim it makes 'tons more usable torque down low' i'd like to see the proof.

again, got before/after dynos?

also, what exactly is the time difference for the 40-80 acceleration in fifth gear with/without the chip?

well, my car is available for anyone to try out the difference between the two settings. as i have previously stated, you can read all the dyno sheets you want, about any aftermarket add-on, eg: headers/filters etc. i prefer to use my money to buy things i want/need. if i want to read anything, i'll get a mag!
why should i publish my findings, and get all manner of nonsense directed back at me? thats why i invite anyone to try the real thing, and see for themsleve. BTW, would you be interested in posting your fifth gear times from 40 to 80 mph for your turbo? i'd be interested in seeing how the low compression pistons do from low revs, with no boost to start.
i would direct you to take a look at AFJuvat's revue of this chip. dont just take my word for it, take the time to read his write-up. i assume i'm correct in saying that he is a much respected member here, and has a well balanced outlook. being a mechanic, his words and experience are more meaningful and pertinant.

the acceleration test for the turbo isn't 40-80, it's 60-100 in 5th gear. and it's been tested and documented many times over with various chips. you can find one of the many threads here;
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?t=104329&highlight=60-100

my current personal 60-100 time is 6.1 seconds.

on the flip side, i find it almost unbelievable that i can not find a SINGLE dyno test for the wilk's chip. hasn't ANYBODY tested this chip with empirical data? i'm not asking for YOUR dyno, i'm asking for ANY before/after dyno, and have yet to find a single one.

do you really think that dyno charts, air/fuel ratios, and torque graphs are 'nonsense'?

What does a dyno matter if the "seat of the pants" feel is much better and it makes the car a lot more fun to drive. I'll admit that I'd like to see a dyno also, not for proof that it works, but just to see what made such a difference in the drivability. Honestly, if the car lost hp and torque(I know it wouldn't) I wouldn't care because I could never go back to driving it stock.

yes, i agree mike. going back to stock is a disapointment.
i have seen a couple dyno's regarding this chip, and some say a couple hp, some say up to 20. hmm, thats very consistent,duh. like i said earlier, for MY car, there is a big difference and i certainly dont feel the need to visit a dyno shop, so that my brain can register this improvement, after reading it. its all about DRIVEABILITY!
i have driven all kinds of cars/motorcycles, for a long time, and can recognise, when something makes a difference, like this chip. i'm not one for bolting on a fart-can exhaust, and then because of the increased volume/noise, say, hey presto, my car is faster, because its louder!
as for the 60-100mph time for your turbo, yes thats great, i'm happy for you, but my point was the low end power of the na, from low revs,which is really bad. i have no doubt your turbo does not do much either at wot in fifth gear at 40mph, due to low compression pistons and little, or no boost. its all relative.
no chip/cam/header/filter on its own will work wonders,or double your hp/torque, but again, for my application, the increased available torque from low rpm, is easily far better than stock, by a wide margin, which translates to better driveability, and quicker pick-up.
i have no need to rev the head off the motor just to get going.
my last point, because i feel i'm flogging a dead horse here, is the throttle cam. ever wonder why so many people want to fit the aftermarket ones? major cause is the angled arm, which because of its shape means that for 1/2 pedal movement=1/4 throttle opening. not until the arm straightens out, do you get a 1:1 ratio, and its this movement that initially makes the car feel very underpowered. i'm not sure if i buy into the company line, that it was done to improve low speed driveability{wooo, so much power on tap}or more than likely, that the movement coincides with the torque spread coming around 3k, and giving the impression that the power? is coming on song.
one aspect of the new setting is the throttle settings are re-mapped, along with the fuel, and the pedal position is no longer governed by the trailing arm, that affects throttle position. its a 1:1 ratio at all times.
ok, i'm done. this subject has been flogged to death.
last advice to mike. drive your car, and enjoy the enhanced performance, dont read about it!

There is a set of dyno sheets for FR's chips floating around (and you won't see gains as you would in a turbo 'obviously')...but in the early NA's it definitely cleans up some driveability issues.

....... and in regards to all the bench racing............ a slightly modified 80's 944 turbo..........will eat all other 80's porsche models without breaking a sweat.. :D

okay i've finally managed to find the dyno. thanks everyone.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189098&highlight=chip+d yno

i am telling you, nize, the difference between a stock 944 and a PowerProm 944 is a BIG difference.

because YOU claimed:

"The performance change is huge, maybe not a lot of hp, but tons more usable torque down low and at $200 it is an amazing upgrade."

and i just wanted to see empirical data. otherwise i'd just believe any ricer out there when they tell me that super-loud exhausts and vinly stickers give more HP.

i believe you. i also believe that frwilk is an extremely talented tinkerer. in fact, i have so much respect for frwilk that i'm hoping he designs a chip for the turbo because i'd be the first to install one. i still wanted to see the dyno. i didn't think that was too much to ask but apparantly whenever someone brings up the 'where's the wilk chip dyno' question, five guys jump in and say 'who needs the dyno when the car's more drivable?'

now what's up with that?

Well, here's the obvious question - if Porsche could have done this, why didn't they? In other words, what sacrifice is being made to obtain the increases in the power band from 3,000 to 4,000? Is it simply trading safety factor by not retarding the timing as much, increasing fuel flow a bit, how? The thing with "upgrades" is moving the curve around a little is a good start, but operationally a good driver can simply adjust shifting patterns to keep the car "in the power band" more of the time. I still think side-by-side the two cars would be fairly evenly matched in the hands of competent drivers. I'd be curious to play with a set of Wilks, but it's rather pointless given the transformation the car is going through with the Callaway conversion and all. By the time I'm done, I'll likely be running a 951 DME / KLR anyway so minor chip upgrades don't make sense. I WOULD like to see and experience it for myself though.

I think the Wilks are a decent product but I just don't see the demand being very high - the people that would want Wilks are typically those that want more performance and if you want more performance (not just the feel of it, I'm talking actual substantial and quantifiable increases in tq/hp and reduced lap times) they'll end up going forced induction. I'm not bashing the product - those chips DO seem a helluva lot better than the junk ones out there that simply re-map the system and dump more fuel (which does little, if anything). They (I suspect) push mixture levels closer to optimum for power and either advance timing (or prevent premature retard of it). FWIW though, I imagine dollar-for-dollar you'd get better results out of running better fuel / toluene blends. :flamesuiton:

If I can find a set of Wilks for cheap (as in under 100 bucks) I'll get 'em just to play with until I get the Callaway stuff on. I'll even volunteer to do additional dyno tests.

i'm still interested in seeing a before/after wideband afr graph for the wilk chip. i'm still surprised i can't find a graph of this anywhere.

EMISSIONS

I have had both cars....The turbo is by far MUCH MUCH MUCH faster and fun to drive. Once you go Turbo, youll not go back to an NA. Night and Day....

Ive seen some nice S2's around for sale about the same price as a turbo though.

Hell...just go for it and buy my 911:-)

I disagree. I still LOVE to drive my n/a. That point of view is a very snobbish attitude held by some 951 owners that have no respect for the lineage of their cars and as such, frankly don't deserve them IMO.

Typically the people with this attitude are no better than 911 guys that claim 944s (including turbos) aren't "real" Porsches. It's important to remember: without the 944 n/a or even the 924 - no 944 turbo. Also, these are people that typically have no appreciation for the superior HANDLING characteristics of these autos, they just get hooked on the turbo and don't care about anything else. They might as well drive Supras or Honda Civics, so long as they're turbocharged. Their appreciation stops at about that level. I'm not saying this is you, but as one that started with an n/a and still likes it AS an n/a (yes, it will be converted via the Callaway kit, but that's more a function of my desire to tinker / experiment / conduct R&D than any NEED for a turbo - I do have a 951. . . ) I have to say they are still excellent cars and most n/a guys love their 944s just as much as any turbo owner. It sucks that snobbish 951 guys have to make them feel "second class" by putting them down all the time and thinking "they're all that". I truly hate this divisive attitude among 944 owners - come on, let's all get along.


If all you care about is fast / turbo then get a 993.

Dont get me wrong...IM not saying ANYTHING bad about the 944 na at all...

And even after having a 911, i think the 944 is a better car overall.

Its just really hard to go back to the na after having a turbo for me. I guess im a power junkie.

That's fine. . . I just hear too many comments from 951 owners that are like "oh, an n/a. . . how cute" or "why bother with an n/a" or stuff like that. As long as you understand the role they had in (1) saving Porsche as a company and (2) allowing for the development of the 951/968 then fine. Heck, I even get a little PO-ed when I hear people trash talk the 924 calling them "gussied up VWs" and other unfair things. The 924 is certainly not in the same league as the 944 or 944 turbo, but still had a pivotal role in the history of water-cooled Porsches. To any that look down on them: remember, for every 924 you mock, there's a 993 twin turbo that looks at your 951 as an "insult" to the Porsche marquee. It isn't right by EITHER party and I'd just like to see us "all get along" regardless of model, ya' know? I'm an idealist I guess. . .