I think the 944 is much more attractive than the 924. And then there are the Porsche advertised aerodynamic advantages over the 924.

I would think the early 944s are as light as if not lighter than the 924S models made in the 80's

I think the original 924 looks good in a simplistic sort of way. In fact, lookswise, I like it better than a 968.

I also like the original 240Z over the 350Z and the original 911 over the 996 and the early 944 interior over late 944 interior.

But I'm also a sucker for anything old......

Seems like this is one of those posts where there's a fine (i.e. blurred) line between opinion and fact. So many know-it-alls in one venue, all with differing opinions, and all from an innocent post asking which 924 would be the best one to look at for a potential purchase.

Good luck!

1. The US 924Turbo has quicker 0-60 and much faster 0-100 accelleration then the Early, US944 NA

2. The 924 has a lower drag coefficient then the 944, fender flares accommodate wider tires, not better airflow.

3. The standard, early US 924 N/A is more then a couple hundred lbs. lighterRefrence

I like the 924 and I like the 944, Im not trying to point out the 924 is the best in the water cooled line up as it simply isn't but im sick and tired of poeple just pulling out numbers from the top of there head because it supports there own idea of how a 924 or 944 should perform.

I'm still laughing at the liking 924 = liking fat chicks analogy.

fwiw, I think the looks of the 924.

LMAO!!

924S 1986-1988 is 2627 lb. each.

944 1983-1986 is 2675 lb. each.

1986 944 Turbo is 2758 lb.

1987 944, 944s is 2637 lb.
1987 944 Turbo is 2758 lb.

The 90-91 S2 is 2857 lb. (Cabriolet 2968 lb.)

:D

Thanks for the info. I thought the 924S and early 944s were similar. I can't imagine 50 lbs making all that much of a difference though.

I was refering to the newer 924S made in the 80s that your link shows to be slightly heavier than the early 944s.

Actually the coefficient drag of the early model 944 is 0.35. That number is equal to the 924 Turbo only.

Do you think the folks over at the 964/993/996 forum are dishing dirt on early 911s? I doubt it. They see the legacy of the 911 in their car. The same holds true here. You can't look at a 944 and not see the 924 within.

If a 924 is a fat chick, what is a 944? I see a Anna Nicole Smith analogy coming: 924 is small Anna, 944 is big Anna. Which to choose???

Anyone see the article in Excellence called "How not to buy a 944"?

LMAO! I like all P cars.

Would that make me a biggamist?

Minus,
I have an issue of CAR AND DRIVER right in front of me, from late 1982 - the first 944s were appearing on U.S. shores. Of course, being the responsible magazine that they are, they compare the 944 to the 924 Turbo (both in U.S. spec).

The 944 is faster in 0-60 (7.6 vs. 7.8) and the slalom.

ok, ok, if i could not own a 944, sure, i'd settle for a 924, but since the 944 is much purdier (looks are important too...), performance isn't EVERYTHING. i think that there is not another car IN THE WORLD that looks better than the '44 turbo.

if performance is the deal breaker, then why not a WRX? i mean, they are pretty impressive, only thing is it would attract the attention of men who like to pound other men in the ass.

Mmmmmm a neighbour!

Batunas,are you sure 924´s are cheaper there than 944´s? Here 924´s are starting to be more expensive due to be considered historic models.

Personally,i would´nt buy it at a dealer,check the second hand market,even spanish one since we are all europeans and it´s easier to buy.If you could find a decent 944 at the same price more or less than a 924,I´d go for it.But if you are worried about maintenance and don´t have too much money,i´d go for the 2.0 924.

My 2 cents.. Ive owned 3 - 924's, dated from 1977.5 to 1982. COnsidering the maintenance I did on those cars vs my 944.. Ill NEVER own another 924.. My 944 is faster, funner and more reliable than any one of my 924's. But any car will require maintenance..