High mile 944 turbo value

[puddy]

I know of a 1986 944 turbo for sale, black on black leather, it's got 300,000kms on it. Which is approx 180,000 miles. The owner has driven it every year since he's owned it. But very little. It appears to be in very good well maintained shape. I'm not sure how many owners it's had or how long the current owner has had it. I'm just trying to get a rough idea on an offering price, assuming it runs & drives good. I understand these cars can be difficult to work on. And is higher mile car will probably need more work. I'm thinking $5k may be a fair offer. What do you think?

[touringmandan]

There is another high mileage 951 on the Hilton Head SC craigs. In Beaufort, SC. (A very cool little town). Similar miles. a bit rough, he's looking for $6k. If you haven't owned one, understand these are not "easily serviced" vehicles. Parts are expensive and labor is extensive. They do go like hell and are well balanced when in good condition.

[puddy]

Thanks for the info. Yes I've heard they can be a pain. What attracts me to them is that my 911 turbo hotrod is worth a lot more than 944 so I thought A 944 turbo would be a more economical track car. Meaning if I had an incident on track I'd rather fix a 944 than 911.

[touringmandan]

Chris,
When I was club racing, I prepped an '83 944 NA with manual steering. Once I had Lunati do the crank drilling mod and I installed a 944S transaxle w/LSD, I had a trouble free weekend racer. Did well with it. Early 944's are cheap to buy and easy to maintain. You really have to conserve speed due to the low power, but I think that makes a better driver in the long run. It's the most fun for the buck, IMHO. I have seen many well prepared PCA I class cars sell for well under $10k. Most of these cars are NASA compliant as well.

[sugarwood]

Originally Posted by touringmandan

If you haven't owned one, understand these are not "easily serviced" vehicles. Parts are expensive and labor is extensive.

Originally Posted by touringmandan

Early 944's are cheap to buy and easy to maintain.

Why is the Turbo so costly and hard to work on, while the NA is easy to maintain?

[touringmandan]

I mis-spoke. I meant "easier to maintain". The basic difference is access. The NA 944 is a bit of a pain to replace an engine or a clutch (about 12 hrs. each, for a skilled tech who has done it previously). Add another 4-6 hrs. for the same job on a 951. The turbo also has a much tighter engine bay, with much more plumbing (both charge ducting and cooling). The electronics have an additional layer of complexity with the KLR (boost/timing control) unit. Add to that the relative scarcity of used parts, and the high expense of new parts.
I don't mind addressing minor issues at the track, but I am not pulling a cylinder head on a "recreational" race weekend.

[Catorce]

Everything on the 951 is nested such that it requires half a dozen parts to be removed before you can access the part you need to get to. Generally speaking, access to just about everything in the car is really, really poor.

Want to remove the torque tube? No problem. Pull either the transaxle or the motor to get it out (your pick).

Chain an oil pan gasket? No problem. Remove the entire front suspension crossmember.

The turbo? Buried on the left side of the motor about mid way up where you can't see it, and of course, all the bolts that hold it on (some hidden ones) are frozen.

Lastly, it is the most evil, unforgiving and poorly designed car I have ever worked on from a maintenance perspective.

As an example:

I had to adjust timing belt tension once. To do this right you need to remove the electric fans, the AC and alternator pulleys. Did my thing, and put it all back together.

During the dissasembly, I must've misplaced one of the coarse philips screws that holds the electric fans onto the radiator. No worries. I have tons of these from the other cars. Grabbed one, installed it.

Guess what? It was a quarter inch too long, and as I screwed it in, it pierced the frigging radiator and put a hole in it. That little tiny bit of length put a pinhole in the radiator.

My stupidity? I will confess to that, but the idiot Porsche engineers who designed this evil car made the clearances so tight, EVERYWHERE, just like that.

When it runs, its awesome. But it frequently ****s the bed.

I currently own a 951 as well as 7 other different Porsches, and I have built both the 951 and S2 motors, so I know what I am talking about.

[touringmandan]

But changing the spark plugs isn't too bad.....

[Catorce]

^That's the only halfway decent thing because of the way the motor is cocked in there strangely.

[Nick Triesch]

Would be better to find a 260 horse power 1999 to 2002 Mustang GT with a 5 speed. Fast fun car and much easier to work on than a 944.

[touringmandan]

That thing got a HEMI in it?

[puddy]

Thanks for all the info fellas! Maybe the 944 isn't the best car to get. I thought it could also be a daily driver / track car for my girl. She doesn't drive far everyday. Maybe i'll offer a low figure and see if he bites. Then just drive it til it needs something see if its worth investing more into it.

[Matt Monson]

Originally Posted by puddy

Thanks for all the info fellas! Maybe the 944 isn't the best car to get. I thought it could also be a daily driver / track car for my girl. She doesn't drive far everyday. Maybe i'll offer a low figure and see if he bites. Then just drive it til it needs something see if its worth investing more into it.

That's what I did with the 924s. Bought it for my soon to be wife as a daily. She drove it for 2 years then dumped it at a dealer as a trade-in, and $1000 profit. I did the timing belt and battery right when we bought it and never spent another cent beyond gas and oil.

[Nick Triesch]

Yup, I owned a 77 924 for a few years. Really gutless! I was driving up the long hill in San Diego up interstate 8 from mission valley south and my Wife in her nice 67 Bug passed me like I was standing still. No wonder they are only worth $600.

[sugarwood]

Originally Posted by Nick Triesch

Would be better to find a 260 horse power 1999 to 2002 Mustang GT with a 5 speed. Fast fun car and much easier to work on than a 944.

I think these are the best value in sports cars, period.

[Matt Monson]

Originally Posted by pmax

Still faster than the 912.

Except that it isn't. 912 is 1 second faster 0-60. 1/2 second faster to 1/4 mi.

[puddy]

Originally Posted by Nick Triesch

Would be better to find a 260 horse power 1999 to 2002 Mustang GT with a 5 speed. Fast fun car and much easier to work on than a 944.

I agree. But mustangs are a dime a dozen around here and I have no emotional attraction to them whatsoever.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by puddy

I agree. But mustangs are a dime a dozen around here and I have no emotional attraction to them whatsoever.

I have a couple of street legal 944 track cars for sale.

[Nick Triesch]

I owned a 99 Mustang GT with a 5 speed for several years. Solid as a rock and would really move. About 0-60 in 5.4. With Z rated tires and a 5 speed it was great fun. And had that sound or burble at idle. Ford is also great for available bolt on performance parts. I think my 85 911 is just as fast but the Mustang just seemed faster.

[Rawknees'Turbo]

Originally Posted by pmax

Still faster than the 912.

Originally Posted by Matt Monson

Except that it isn't. 912 is 1 second faster 0-60. 1/2 second faster to 1/4 mi.

And I bet that both of you could out accelerate either of them, on foot - especially if there was a neekid hottie waiting at the finish line!