Performance upgrades

[sausagehacker]

Get something like a Megasquirt ECU, they make a pnp version for the 16v cars. Then tune it (or have it tuned) for the best fuel you can readily get in your area and enjoy your 200bhp for well under $1000. You can incorporate 1 of the factory knock sensors to control detonation if you so choose.

[v2rocket_aka944]

Bob...might also be better tires in 1992 than 1983

[OPRN]

Originally Posted by flash968

lol - the early 944 only cornered at .83g. that moved up .85 as years went on

As I said, my experience is limited to the '83 and '85 that I presently own, both in stock form. The '85 is disappointing in the handling department - far too soft and mushy and I have been told they got worse as they got heavier and Porsche leaned these cars more toward the luxury market.

Originally Posted by flash968

the 968 cornered at .9 on the 16" wheels, and a bit better on the 17" set

slalom speeds are better with the 968 too, due largely to the lower profile, wider tires, slightly wider stance, larger sway bars, and stiffer suspension

Is that all stock?

I can't imagine Porsche being able to sell these cars if they were stiffer than my '83!

[flash968]

yes - all stock

stiff is relative, and many people misinterpret shock resistance for suspension stiffness, but being a unibody car, a stiffer suspension can translate to a more even distribution of loads and forces.

[OPRN]

So the ride in your 968 is not harsh?

Perhaps the biggest difference between my '83 and '85 is the wheels and rubber. The '83 came with 16" Fuchs and the '85 has 15" phone dials?

[flash968]

the stock 968 suspension is actually very compliant, and not harsh at all. that's one of the things i liked about it, and had to work hard to maintain as i upgraded the suspension. staying clear of gas shocks was the key. hydraulics are so much smoother.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by flash968

lol - the early 944 only cornered at .83g. that moved up .85 as years went on

the 968 cornered at .9 on the 16" wheels, and a bit better on the 17" set

slalom speeds are better with the 968 too, due largely to the lower profile, wider tires, slightly wider stance, larger sway bars, and stiffer suspension

eee gahds no.

semi trailing arms are awful, and mcstruts up front arn't much better.

even in the 1980's most of porsche's competition had moved on to multi-link or double wishbone everywhere setups that are far more advanced than the 924/944/968 mcstrut/semi trailing arm setups.

the gains in cornering G were almost all related to better OEM tire fitment. skid pad G is a far better measure of tire adhesion than it is of "handling" for instance, you can take an old 83, bolt new tires to it and pull 1g lateral all day, bone stock. tire technology has come A LONG way since 1983.

having driven many a car, i don't find the 924/944/951 handles particularly well. they are smooth cars though, they reward a smooth driver. they are just so heavy, and have very poor rear suspension.

[OPRN]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

eee gahds no.

semi trailing arms are awful, and mcstruts up front arn't much better.

even in the 1980's most of porsche's competition had moved on to multi-link or double wishbone everywhere setups that are far more advanced than the 924/944/968 mcstrut/semi trailing arm setups.

the gains in cornering G were almost all related to better OEM tire fitment. skid pad G is a far better measure of tire adhesion than it is of "handling" for instance, you can take an old 83, bolt new tires to it and pull 1g lateral all day, bone stock. tire technology has come A LONG way since 1983.

having driven many a car, i don't find the 924/944/951 handles particularly well. they are smooth cars though, they reward a smooth driver. they are just so heavy, and have very poor rear suspension.

Ah! That is more consistent with what I have heard! My '85 has a much softer ride than the '83 which decreases it's ability to handle the corners.
So the secret to getting better cornering out of a 944 is just the same as the old VW Bug, stiffen it up and get better tires!

[flash968]

the spring rates increased as the years went on. what you are probably experiencing is a shock issue. many people confuse shock stiffness with spring stiffness or general suspension stiffness.

shocks are there to do one thing, and one thing only. they are there to control the spring. a stiff shock can "feel" like a stiff suspension, but in reality it is no stiffer than a soft shock. the bumps will suck though. gas shocks, which are incredibly common to be installed, are probably the single worst thing you can do to these cars.

the key to improving cornering (not to be confused with handling) is to balance out weight transfer across the car. sometimes this is done by spring rate increase. sometimes by sway bar increase. sometimes by chassis bracing. sometimes by tire change. most of the time, it is a balance of all of the above.

that is why the 968 outcornered the 944. they did a bit of all.

[v2rocket_aka944]

They certainly get all the "kinks" worked out when they brought out the 944.
The 944 was 10 years of live R&D before they could build what they really intended to...

I wonder how much of the better ride of the 968 was simply due to the higher overall sprung weight, helping to dampen out the jolts from the suspension?

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by flash968

the spring rates increased as the years went on. what you are probably experiencing is a shock issue. many people confuse shock stiffness with spring stiffness or general suspension stiffness.

shocks are there to do one thing, and one thing only. they are there to control the spring. a stiff shock can "feel" like a stiff suspension, but in reality it is no stiffer than a soft shock. the bumps will suck though. gas shocks, which are incredibly common to be installed, are probably the single worst thing you can do to these cars.

the key to improving cornering (not to be confused with handling) is to balance out weight transfer across the car. sometimes this is done by spring rate increase. sometimes by sway bar increase. sometimes by chassis bracing. sometimes by tire change. most of the time, it is a balance of all of the above.

that is why the 968 outcornered the 944. they did a bit of all.

really, its just because of 10 years of OEM tire improvements.

there isn't really anything more magical than that. the 968 doesn't corner or isn't set up or any has intrinsically better handling prowess than the 944 or 924 before it. its the exact same geometries.

Originally Posted by v2rocket_aka944

I wonder how much of the better ride of the 968 was simply due to the higher overall sprung weight

and this is the reason why they had to spring it stiffer, bigger bars etc .... more weight to control.

more weight = worse handling car 99% of the time.

i find my 944 turbo with ~300hp and 3,100lbs to handle kinda like a fat pig. the 968 has 60 less horsepower .... its gonna feel even heavier and handle that much worse.

[flash968]

the 968 chassis is not exactly the same as the 944. there is some extra beefing up in there, though not nearly as much as was needed (only about 20lbs). the extra weight came mostly from the engine and transaxle. the suspension geometry, particularly in the front, is a bit different too. for starters, they moved the strut tower tops inward on the 968. some of the bushings got stiffer too.

tires can certainly make a difference, but there was really no difference between later 944 tires and 16" 968 tires, yet the 968 cornered better. don't even get me started on the M030 version or ones with 17" wheels.

some of this was due to the 968 gaining some weight in the REAR. the hardtop version (the cab was different) was slightly tail biased (about 65lbs), regardless of what you read about 50/50. it was about as tail biased as the 944 was front biased. it's not huge, but it adds to the equation.

we really do have to keep handling and cornering as separate items in this discussion. they are NOT in any way the same. as an example of extreme, my i3 handles great. it corners for crap.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by flash968

the 968 chassis is not exactly the same as the 944. there is some extra beefing up in there, though not nearly as much as was needed (only about 20lbs). the extra weight came mostly from the engine and transaxle. the suspension geometry, particularly in the front, is a bit different too. for starters, they moved the strut tower tops inward on the 968. some of the bushings got stiffer too.

tires can certainly make a difference, but there was really no difference between later 944 tires and 16" 968 tires, yet the 968 cornered better. don't even get me started on the M030 version or ones with 17" wheels.

some of this was due to the 968 gaining some weight in the REAR. the hardtop version (the cab was different) was slightly tail biased (about 65lbs), regardless of what you read about 50/50. it was about as tail biased as the 944 was front biased. it's not huge, but it adds to the equation.

we really do have to keep handling and cornering as separate items in this discussion. they are NOT in any way the same. as an example of extreme, my i3 handles great. it corners for crap.

slightly more negative camber does not change the fundamental issue with struts in the front.

stiffer bushings is again, a weight issue.

the 968 is not even really a marginally better handling car compared to a 924 or 944, in fact, i'd argue that the 924S was probably the best handling of the entire series. never-mind this insane notion you have of the 968 being a head and shoulders above the 924/944 in the handling department. any differences are really just due to 15 years of technical progress in tires and dampers. which, if you care about handling, you are throwing in the trash anyway.

[dgcantrell]

I'm just going to go with the 4 degree cam key on my 87 NA when I do the belts again and leave it at that. The stock air intake box is a "cold air" intake since it pulls air from the cold side of the engine compartment anyway. I would like to convert the suspension to the M030 option though. I'll beef up the sway bars on the S's (87 and 88)that I have at some point. The 87S will be getting an S2 engine when money allows. Suspension and turbo brakes too. The 87S will be my non-stock project car as the original engine is long gone so I'm not worried about keeping it "original" as much as the other two.

[flash968]

you can google this yourself. the 968 outhandled AND out cornered all previous 944s. it had the SAME TIRES as the later 944 too, so it wasn't the tires.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by flash968

you can google this yourself. the 968 outhandled AND out cornered all previous 944s. it had the SAME TIRES as the later 944 too, so it wasn't the tires.

there is no magic, im sorry. the 968 is a poor mans porsche the same way the 944 and the 924 were. it has the same archaic 1970s based mcstrut/semi trialing arm design with essentially identical performance.

im sorry your porsche is not special.

[flash968]

i didn't say the 968 was special. i didn't say it still wasn't limited by the nature of the suspension design. in fact, it's limitations, in spite of the $150k i spent on it, was why i sold my blue one, and bought a new targa GTS.

i only said the 968 outhandles and outcorners the 944. proven fact.

.83g and .9g are a long way apart. that's the difference between an SUV and a car.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by flash968

i didn't say the 968 was special. i didn't say it still wasn't limited by the nature of the suspension design. in fact, it's limitations, in spite of the $150k i spent on it, was why i sold my blue one, and bought a new targa GTS.

i only said the 968 outhandles and outcorners the 944. proven fact.

.83g and .9g are a long way apart. that's the difference between an SUV and a car.

and any of these cars with a modern summer tire will pull more than 1g without issue.

so it doesn't matter.

[flash968]

i doubt it. it is a LONG way from .83g (or even .9g) to 1g. i had to spend a small fortune to get my blue 968 to corner past 1g.

heck, without the extra goodies and bigger tires and wheels i ordered in my GTS, the brand new targa 4s only corners at .99g, and it has the best tires (ridiculously huge by comparison), all wheel drive, and a VERY modern suspension, but still does not cross the 1g mark.

there are extremely few cars that can hit 1g on street tires. i would not go around making claims that a simple tire change will get you there. it won't even get you close.

[v2rocket_aka944]

there's a point at which talk of "G" goes into "who cares"...
i know if i go into a turn fast enough and turn the wheel just right i can hang the ass out or make it follow the corner with rear tires squealing but not letting completely go...where it's FUN