What's a 924S ?

[Superman]

What is this? 924 with 944 running gear?

[Dave L]

yes thats right

[Superman]

How much does one of these cars weigh? How much horsepower? I'm trying to get a sense for what it might be like to drive one of these.

[ronin]

they weigh around 2700 lbs and make 150 hp. the car handles quite well, as it has a practical 50/50 weight distribution. I just bought another n/a 944 because they're such a blast to drive (and cheap too). you thinking about autocrossing?

[JHinOH]

I just picked one up myself, I love the light weight of the 924. With manual windows/sunroof/steering, AC delete, race seats, and euro bumpers I'm guessing I can get it close to 2400lbs.

[John_AZ]

The 1988 924S has the larger engine-10.2 compression ratio. Very noticable improvement to the 1987. JHinOH has the 1988. Here is a bit of Pelican info:

In 1988, the regular 944 received a slight increase in compression ratio, raising engine output from 150 horsepower to 158. 1988 also saw the introduction of the Turbo S, which came with a modified turbo, more favorable computer, heavy-duty clutch, limited-slip differential, Koni shocks, 928 brakes and stiffer bushings. Only 1000 examples were built. 1989 pretty much signaled the end of the 944. It was the last year for the standard 944 and the 944 Turbo. Both 1989 models are pretty special, however, as the "normal" 944 featured a 2.7-liter, 162-horsepower engine, while the 1989 944 Turbo received the goodies that make the 1988 Turbo S so appealing. The 3.0-liter, 16-valve 944 S2 also made its debut that same year, and remained the only 944 model available until the 968 replacement arrived in 1992.

"I don’t think there isn’t one you couldn’t buy under $10,000," Randy says of the regular 944 models. Even so, he recommends buying the best car you can afford, as the newest 944 is still more than 10 years old. As for year-to-year differences, Randy likes the 1985 ½ and up cars, calling the early ones developmental cars.

His other recommendation is the 1987-’88 924S. For two years, Porsche offered the 924S to U.S. consumers. The narrow body and early interior harkened back to the original 924, but the 924S features the 944’s engine and drivetrain. Prices tend to be on the lower end, yet performance is right there with the 944. "They’re great Club Race cars," he says, "and they’re kind of sneaky on the street."

John_AZ
1988 924S + 1987 924S

[JHinOH]

Actually, my understanding is the '88 does use the 10.2 compression engine for 158hp but it is a 2.5l and is actually the same engine in the '87 944. The '87 924S uses the lower compression engine from the '86 and earlier 944's (still 2.5l) as Porsche seemed to want a slight difference in the two cars for the same model year. Confused yet?

[924RACR]

Originally Posted by Superman

How much does one of these cars weigh? How much horsepower? I'm trying to get a sense for what it might be like to drive one of these.

See early 944 - very little difference, only in obscure little details that waterpumper geeks like us care about.

Of course the bonus of the 924S's is that they're later cars, in usually better condition, but with the pricetag of early 944's.

[Superman]

Hmmmm........

I was imagining that 924's were perhaps not as heavy, and that 944 engines might be a bit stronger. Can I admit here that I own a 911? If so, it would be a 2450-lb unit that makes 205 hp at the flywheel. That would make it "own" any and all of these (water-pumper) cars except the Turbo.

Now, before you guys go assuming that I'm badmouthing these vehicles, be aware that I am definitely NOT. I've gotten my ass handed to me on many occasions at AX by 944's of various badging, and I also noticed a 924, which was a legitimate S1 car, campaigned to the winner's podium of the GTU class in the very highly competitive PNW region. Pretty impressive. I also know that 944 S2's kick butt, and that 944 Turbos can have fairly violent acceleration.

I was just thinking that perhaps an '87 924S might be quite the street "sleeper." But again, at 2700 lbs and only 150 hp, they're not going to scare anybody.

[JHinOH]

No, you're correct in assuming the 924S will not scare most with it's power, I also have a 911 with about 200hp and it's a touch lighter than yours. The 924/44 series is a better driving position for me, and better pedals. I personally like the entry level cost of the 924 (read=cheap) and I like that it's the underdog of the watercooled family, but you sure can have fun with them in the corners.

[924RACR]

Originally Posted by Superman

Can I admit here that I own a 911? If so, it would be a 2450-lb unit that makes 205 hp at the flywheel. That would make it "own" any and all of these (water-pumper) cars except the Turbo.

Now, before you guys go assuming that I'm badmouthing these vehicles, be aware that I am definitely NOT.

That's OK, we won't hold it against you... too much!

Indeed, if you want some sleeper street cars, you're going to want a turbo ('44 or '24), or engine swap... the 924's are lighter, yes - the early ones, like 76-77. Then they got about to the same weight as the 944, quickly - 2700#, as you said.

But there's plenty of other reasons to avoid the early '24's, at least as far as street cars.

OTOH, a 924S with a 951 or 968 engine swap... now THAT'S a sleeper...

[Dantilla]

Hi, Super!

Yeah, I hang out here, too, having the silly 944 and all.....

[dfwdiesel]

I bought a 1988 924S as an entry level Porsche a few years or so ago for my son.
To drive it every interval had to be brought up to date. There is some salvage yard support. Ebay is there and can add up.

Alot of car for the money and we, or at least I don't know what the limits are.
Cornering and handling is the car's forte. Some say it is faster off the line
then a non turbo 944.

Today is extremely reliable, inexpensive on gas, and driven most every day.

With new found condidence on things such as timing belts, he is looking for a
928 that may have no record of belts etc.

We have it for sale at $3950, but not much room to go down. It was alot of work
to get it right. Even if we found another 944/924 would be tough to come out even and get it reliable and safe. It is a really fun collector car at a used car price.


John

[Tam Lin]

Originally Posted by Superman

Hmmmm........

That would make it "own" any and all of these (water-pumper) cars except the Turbo.

Just beware of 924Ss with 944S2 or 968 powerplants, like 911s, they're pretty easy to upspec with later engines.

I have a 924S, and had a 911 3.2 (euro spec, so around 330 bhp), both 1988. In a straight line, the 911 would blast past. In a high speed corner, I'd need to leave the handbrake on in the 924 for the 911 to catch up.

[The Glademister]

From the Porsche site 924S Specifications page...

1986 & 1987, engine code M44/07, displacement 2479 cc., 150HP/5900RPM, 9.7:1 compression ratio, 2734 lbs. (U.S.)

1988, engine code M44/09, displacement 2479 cc., 160HP/5900RPM, 10.2:1 compression ratio, 2627 lbs.

So I'm reading higher compression, more horse power and lighter weight for the '88 model. I'm very happy with mine and feel it's the best handling sports car I've driven to date.

[dangerous]

Originally Posted by JHinOH

Actually, my understanding is the '88 does use the 10.2 compression engine for 158hp but it is a 2.5l and is actually the same engine in the '87 944. The '87 924S uses the lower compression engine from the '86 and earlier 944's (still 2.5l) as Porsche seemed to want a slight difference in the two cars for the same model year. Confused yet?

Does your '88 924S have the same engine code as an '87 944?

[The Glademister]

Tell me were to find that code Dangerous and I'll post it here.

[70SWT]

It wasn't quite as cut and dried as the official books indicate, as is often the case with Porsche. This is probably due to the need to "use up" the remaining low comp engines as a main factor in the situation. I have seen some late 87 924S examples with the high comp engine from the factory. If you have an 88, you should definitely have the high comp.

Originally Posted by JHinOH

Actually, my understanding is the '88 does use the 10.2 compression engine for 158hp but it is a 2.5l and is actually the same engine in the '87 944. The '87 924S uses the lower compression engine from the '86 and earlier 944's (still 2.5l) as Porsche seemed to want a slight difference in the two cars for the same model year. Confused yet?

[bearone2]

Originally Posted by Superman

Hmmmm........

I was imagining that 924's were perhaps not as heavy, and that 944 engines might be a bit stronger. Can I admit here that I own a 911? If so, it would be a 2450-lb unit that makes 205 hp at the flywheel. That would make it "own" any and all of these (water-pumper) cars except the Turbo.

Now, before you guys go assuming that I'm badmouthing these vehicles, be aware that I am definitely NOT. I've gotten my ass handed to me on many occasions at AX by 944's of various badging, and I also noticed a 924, which was a legitimate S1 car, campaigned to the winner's podium of the GTU class in the very highly competitive PNW region. Pretty impressive. I also know that 944 S2's kick butt, and that 944 Turbos can have fairly violent acceleration.

I was just thinking that perhaps an '87 924S might be quite the street "sleeper." But again, at 2700 lbs and only 150 hp, they're not going to scare anybody.

naw there not gonna scare anybody and you don't need to admit it, says 83sc at the bottom of your post.

we don't drive 911's and just might be smarter than you gives us credit for.

[spuggy]

Originally Posted by Superman

I was just thinking that perhaps an '87 924S might be quite the street "sleeper." But again, at 2700 lbs and only 150 hp, they're not going to scare anybody.

Supe, they're very good for what they do well. Drive a sorted one down that pass in Oregon sometime... Be careful of neglected ones - much cheaper to spend $1,500-2,000 more and get one in great shape...

They won't out-drag some new minivans, much less a 911. (That said, I know someone who replaced the stock air cleaner with a K&N and fabbed a bracket to bolt a BMW/Mini supercharger in the resulting hole... That might make a difference.)

However, they're very sure-footed, intuitive cars to drive - and they're more agile than you might think.

Modern (compared to an SC, anyway), civilised, well-mannered street car. Motronic, EFI... You can drive it away as soon as it fires with no fuss..

After a 911, you'll be astonished at the storage capacity of a 924/944 with the rear seats folded. Very practical - no issues with "where do I put the removable sun-roof". I know I was gob-smacked at how little I could get in the 911...

Relaxed high-speed touring all day long - I think this is what they do best, I drove mine from Seattle to San Diego, it loved it. And did 450 miles on 3/4 of a tank - which 2 19 gallons is smaller than a 911 tank. I needed to stop more often than it did. And much less twitchy than a 911 with an aggressive alignment at speed.

A decent chip provides you with a fuel map that resembles the Euro one. There was a pronounced difference between the US 944 I used to own and a RoW 944 - both '86's... This gives lots more mid-range punch.

The chip and a quick-action throttle cam (or turn the stock one 180) make a lot of difference to pickup around town and the "feel" of the car.

If you want fun with a 924/944, make sure you have a rear sway (not all do) or better still, uprate the sway bars with take-off ones from a turbo car from a couple of years later - and then simply don't slow down for corners. At all.

I'd buy another as a daily driver if I did a lot of traffic work.