Once and for all - why is the 944S so bad???
 

I have been on this board and the Rennlist and have seen many debates about the 944S (which I happen to own). Can someone tell me EXACTLY what is supposed to be wrong with them???

I've had mine only a short time now and have had no problems with it. All the belts, water pump, etc. were done at 90,000KLMS (about 65,000 miles) and I'm getting the Cam Tensioner done this summer. The car only has 124,000KLMS (around 75,000 miles). Once I have the Cam Tensioner done (and an Idle Stabilizer Valve) - should I expect my engine to just blow up at any point?? Should a Porsche engine just do that?? Many people on these boards seem to think that will happen.

What I can't understand is why someone would buy a 944 N/A if they thought the 944S engine would blow up?? Wouldn't the fact that Porsche seems to have made such a horrible engine in the "S" have detered someone from buying a 944 N/A due to the fact that the people who made this so called "lemon" 944S, also made the car they will be driving?

So, why is the "S" sooooooooo bad? Why do 944 N/A owners always (not everyone, mind you) tell people "Don't buy an S" or "Stay away from the S"?

And how many S owners are there on this board?

I'm just curious as to the amount of S owners VS the amount of S owners who have "horror" stories or have already had to replace an engine due to the mysterious "blowing up" of the S engine.

I'll will start the debate by saying the positive things I know about the S model.

1. 951 tranny - tougher and less likely to fail

2. Extra horsepower

3. Air bags

4. 951 brakes - also stronger

5. The "exoticness" of the S on the back

6. 16 valves vs 8 valves

.....I'm sure there are a few more, but don't know them off-heart.


......as for the things that make it worse than the N/A, all I can think of is the fact that the Cam Tensioner must be cared for and replaced. Anything else???

oops, i just read your post. i thought you were considering an s, not an owner.

they're ok.

<img src="http://home.pacbell.net/nirky/turbo_120.jpg">

my dad wouldnt let me get an S, he said the 16 valve motors in the S were full of problems. And he sold the cars when they were new. I dont know any details, but clearly the S motor, if taken care of seems to last a long time.

944SBoyee: I think the biggest problem with the 944S is it's reputation. When it first came out, all of the auto magazines were unimpressed with the overall performance of the car, vs. the 944 na. So almost overnight, the 944S became the black sheet of the 944 line. Media has a wonderful way of influencing people. (Another example of this how Ralph Nader single handedly killed the Corvair!)

However, the media did have reason to be critical: the cost of a 944S was substantially greater than an n/a, but the performance wasn't much better. Back in 1987-1988, the idea of revving a car above 5,000 rpm wasn't really accepted as it is now. The 16valve head was a new design back then: it worked, but it wasn't greatly developed yet.

The 944S is a good performer, don't get me wrong. It was just the price to performance ratio wasn't good at all. But that was then, this is now. The 944S is a more developed and modern engine than a 944 n/a, and prices are similar these days. So I agree with you that a 944S shouldn't be black balled as it is.

Another issue is maintenance: the 944S is more expensive to maintain than a 944 n/a. Is it worth the extra costs to gain marginal performance over the n/a? Most people don't think so.
The 944S costs about the same to maintain as the 944S2.
Look at it this way: 944S vs. 944S2: 2.5l vs. 3.0l. 190hp vs. 208hp. So it seems logical that a 944S2, from a maintenance view, is a better car to invest in. (Side note: You mention the tranny is a 951 tranny: I am not sure of this: I do know that the clutch hub is the rubber centered one, ala the n/a, and not the turbo's spring centered clutch)

There's a 944S guy in my PCA who autox's with me. He's got a chip, so his power is closer to about 200hp. We run neck and neck, but he's a better driver than I am. Phil absolutely loves his 944S, and based on our autox times, he knows how to extract the power of that engine the right way. (By the way, the score this year was: he was faster than me one, I was faster than him twice! :P )

So there you have it: my views on the 944S. Good car, but bad reputation and marginal increase in performance mean most people don't like it.

-Zoltan.
Click for more:
http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate...ds/Zslalom.JPG

We have a bit of confusion here;

The 944S uses all stock 944NA suspension, brakes, transmission,
wheels etc.. It does not have air bags.

The 944S2 is the same as a 951 except it has the 16V motor.

The problem with the S is mainly the chain tensioner, which if it breaks, basically means the car is junk due to the cost of repairs.
Usually the cylinder head is broken and many owners are not willing to spend that kind of money on a 12 year old car.

The 944S2 is a much superior car..but completely different so you can't really compare.

1988 944S Had Air bags. Also had the *newer* suspension setup from the 951's due to the fact that it was now available with ABS. You might want to check your data again. I would not second guess but I am looking right at an 88 S N/A and it has airbags and ABS.

This is quoted straight from the 944 FAQ page.....


1987-88 944S
The 944S had the series' first sixteen-valve engine, at the same 2.5 litre displacement as its forebears. Duel camshafts were connected by a chain that was kept taught by a somewhat problematic hydraulic tensioner. A larger camshaft timing belt also went through some "teething problems" early in the model's lifetime.

The S also received an updated transmission that featured a larger, meatier pinion gear, the Achilles' heal of its eight-valve older brothers. It had the same gearing as the 944 Turbo, but a shorter final ratio like the eight-valve, aspiros.

From '87 on, ABS brakes were available in the 944 series as an option. In '88, dual driver/passenger airbags became standard equipment.

Oooppps...wrong info from me there

Mitigation....

The 'new' suspension is not the 951, but all 87 onwards suspension had the capability of having ABS sensors installed.
The struts and shocks are NA. (F&S not koni as stock)
The brakes are most definitely NA.

Ok, about air bags,....I have never seen one and in Europe they were not installed until the 944S2 was introduced and then only as an option. In fact I checked the database at work...we have never worked on a 88 944S (database goes back to 1992) So I guess there aren't many about. The trans is still based on the NA one...

You still end up with a car that has a significantly lower resale value than expected. There is nothing wrong with them, but the tensioner "scare stories" frightened a lot of people off.
Also the 89 NA was available with the 2.7 8v engine and that seems to hold it's value fairly well.

"The 944S2 is the same as a 951 except it has the 16V motor. "

Maybe this was a typo, but...

... the 944S2 has the 3 liter 16v engine, whereas the 951 has the 2.5 liter (8v).


-MAS

No typo, I just sort of assumed that everyone knew that the S2 engine was a 3.0litre.

While painting my valve cover, I noticed that shiny little chain running through the middle of my block. And pray tell how would one know if the tensioner was going bad? Actually more to the point, where is the tensioner? Internal, external? As often as I've been in the engine bay I can't say I've seen it on the outside of the engine.

So if it's internal, wherabouts?

BTW, I own an '87 "S". No airbags, no abs, no turbo brakes.

Hey, the car is nice. Just doesn't really have the pull of a Turbo. 'Course I am selling my "S" off to finance the purchase...of...a...Boxster. Ow...stop throwing things at me already!

So if y'all (don't suppose Britwrench will) know of anybody in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area looking for a 944, let me know.

Yes - good question. When we have the valve cover off, is the tensioner visible to the eye or does stuff have to be moved around?? On the "Cam Tensioner Replacement" site, they show pics of the engine with the valve cover off, but when they show a pic of the tensioner, it looks different than the original pic of the valve-coverless engine.....but when they show the newly replaced rails and tensioner, it can be see right next to the chain.

So, what gives???

Do you have an address for the site about cam tensioner replacement?

Yuppers - this is the site.......

http://boerger.golden-tech.com/images/cam_chain_tensioner_replacement.htm

Wow. Learn something new everyday. Well, looks like I'll be doing this soon...