924 power curve

[hpaulb]

OK, got my new car on the road and am a little disapointed with the power. I'll admit that with all the new parts on it, belts valves, head job, lifter, bearing etc, I forgot to replace the fuel filter. That's next but I'm not sure thats the reason. The pistons and cylindwers are in mint condition. Vertually no measurable wear. Put it on the road and slugish it is till it reaches about 3.5-4K rpm's. Is this typical?? It's also an automatic. My old 91 accord with 300K on it is much more responsive.

[924Sman]

Typical 924S. Power is in the 3 to 5000 rpm range. Not a lot of torque. You will hear them described as "momentum" cars meaning we need to stay in the range the power is best which is mid range perfect for cornering but not for long straights or for launching from a rolling start let alone from a dead start.

Automatic is your main problem here. Somewhat difficult to make full use of the power band available due to the lack of gearing. You have 3,manual has 5. Therefore we have 2 more gear selections to match or create the desired power needed. Long haul you are just as fast as a manual.

Base HP is 134 and after 18 years more likely 120 HP is what you have for power, provided the head is virgin.

924S is not meant to launch or cross the 1/4 mile line. It was designed to go real fast around curves.

GL!
Dal

[fast924S]

You also lose alot of HP threw the Automatic tranny, Do a manual swap

[AaronM]

Originally posted by 924Sman
Typical 924S. Power is in the 3 to 5000 rpm range. Not a lot of torque. You will hear them described as "momentum" cars meaning we need to stay in the range the power is best which is mid range perfect for cornering but not for long straights or for launching from a rolling start let alone from a dead start.

Automatic is your main problem here. Somewhat difficult to make full use of the power band available due to the lack of gearing. You have 3,manual has 5. Therefore we have 2 more gear selections to match or create the desired power needed. Long haul you are just as fast as a manual.

Base HP is 134 and after 18 years more likely 120 HP is what you have for power, provided the head is virgin.

924S is not meant to launch or cross the 1/4 mile line. It was designed to go real fast around curves.

GL!
Dal

147 HP at the crank for an '87 924S. No clue where you got 134.

Aaron

[924Sman]

This is the deal perhaps you can make sense of it.

Who cares about crank HP it is what you get at the wheel that counts. And it will be in the HP I mentioned at the wheel plus he has an auto which does not utilize all the HP available so 134 is as actual as one can get.

Weight to HP is the key and he has a heavier car also. That and I have not seen a 944 get 147 on a dyno after 18 years on a virgin motor. Even if it did have 147 as new he's not getting close to it at the wheel.


I should not of used the wording "base hp" I meant bottom line HP. My bad
Dal

[MAS]

I had a stock 87 924S (5 speed)... and it was one hellavalot more responsive than any early 90s Accord.

Sure, these cars are not "torque-monsters" compared to a V8, but compared to most other 4 cylinder engines, the Porsche 2.5 liter engine had more torque and delivers more of it lower down in the RPM range.

All of the Accords in the early 90s were 0-60 in the low 9 second range. A good (standard) 924S is in the mid to high 7 sec range in the 0-60 dash.

However, before I bought my old 924S, I test drove a number of other 924S's and 944's. Many of them were sluggish... but they are not supposed to be that way! Old, tired engines... probably

-MAS

[AaronM]

Originally posted by 924Sman
This is the deal perhaps you can make sense of it.

Who cares about crank HP it is what you get at the wheel that counts. And it will be in the HP I mentioned at the wheel plus he has an auto which does not utilize all the HP available so 134 is as actual as one can get.

Weight to HP is the key and he has a heavier car also. That and I have not seen a 944 get 147 on a dyno after 18 years on a virgin motor. Even if it did have 147 as new he's not getting close to it at the wheel.


I should not of used the wording "base hp" I meant bottom line HP. My bad
Dal

I am well aware that driveline losses are in the 10-20% area. But no manufacturer rates their engines at the wheels. For comparison purposes with other cars, it's best to say that the car has 147 hp because that's the number that's going to compare to what other manufacturers use.

I'll agree 100% that 134 at the wheels is a decent estimate, (given dyno numbers I've seen for stock 951's, the driveline losses are under 10% with an at the wheels reading of 198 hp versus the crank rating of 217 after 80,000 miles) but it doesn't work for most people to think of that number because it's not how cars are rated. Overall, that's a pretty efficient drivetrain.

So yes, you're right that he's only getting mid 130's at the wheels, but I maintain that given the current system of manufacturers rating the engine at the crank, it's a poor number to use when comparing it to other vehicles.

[MAS]

For the record about the 90-91 Accords:

"The new 2.2-liter engine pumped out 125 horsepower in DX and LX trims, and 130 horses in the EX."

That's at the crank. So even the most powerful one had 17 less HP at the crank than a 924S (and far less torque).


-MAS

[Brando]

Just learn to shift differently

5500 RPMs, you'll feel the surge of power at about 3200 rpms.

There's also the option of upgrading the DME chip.

Swap to a manual trans and shifting setup.

Switch to a later 944S or S2 engine...

Where do you want your kilobucks to go?