944 gas conversion ?

johnr1

Hi guys,
Having recently watched wheeler dealers destroy a perfectly good Porsche 944 turbo, I've gotten a bit of a horn for the idea of buying one for about two grand euro/sterling and converting it to lpg for use as an every weekend car. Good idea or the most stupid ever ? Anybody here know a bit about them - which engine, manual/auto, common problems ?

InTheTrees

I'm a big 944 fan. I have two right now. A conversion is a great idea, they're cheap, adaptable, handle beautifully.

How about electric:

http://www.jstraubel.com/944EV/EVproject.htm

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2009/09/01/dcl.harlow.electric.drag.cnn?iref=videosearch

http://electricporsche.rwaudio.com/2010/12/electric-porsche-batteries-chargers-and-weight/

johnr1

Thanks InTheTrees, lovely car btw. I would be using it for general use on weekends though, which could involve driving the length of the country to meet whatever pretty lady I'd be seeing at the time so my range would be a bit limited by electric. :D:D Actually if I thought it wasnt a total guzzler I'd probably leave it alone on petrol cos having driven a gas powered golf in Poland a couple of years ago I was very unimpressd with the power. Some hope of them being half decent on petrol though metinks.:(

InTheTrees

Unfortunately they're not known for their power even with petrol and there's not much you can do to boost it besides stripping out weight or adding a chip (or both!). And gas is going to produce even less power isnt it?

The handling is a thing of beauty though and you should be able to keep that 50/50 balance with a gas conversion I hope.

Plus the ladies love'em...

:cool:

Ps. They came out with a new interior 1985.5 so get one of those and dont get an automatic! They all use the 2.5 litre motor, but there was a slight hp boost in 88. This is for the standard 944, there was also a 944S, 944S2 and Turbo and turboS, I wouldnt go converting any of those though.

gyppo

Stick in a nice old diesel lump from an old merc..................









(runs for the door ...................)

(Anyhow, I'd say any transplant would be very difficult in a 944)

Traumadoc

LPG makes no sense in Ireland, as you only get about 70% of the milage per litre.

Anan1

LPG is all but unavailable here.

Dades

gyppo wrote: »

Stick in a nice old diesel lump from an old merc..................

A frequent poster here in Classics is sticking a diesel in a 924!

gn3dr

I was never a diesel fan but I'm starting to get converted. Planning a Merc OM606 engined Jag myself.

Check this out http://retrorides.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=94175- 550 bhp should give a healthy boost to the 944 performance.

In answer to the original question though - i wouldn't bother converting a 944 if it is only for weekend use. The road tax would be a much bigger issue for me on one of them than the fuel consumption. I love 944's but the tax issue is why I don't own one yet.

a_v525

Dades wrote: »

A frequent poster here in Classics is sticking a diesel in a 924!

with an izusu engine too....

superfly35

It must be a beast of 924

InTheTrees

The easiest way to get more power in a 944 is to sell it and buy a 944 Turbo.

But the turbo's are more delicate.

a_v525

superfly35 wrote: »

It must be a beast of 924

i am reliably informed by a certain frenchman that it is indeed quite a car

superfly35

yeah I agree quite a car, hopefully by 2012 this project will be finished.:D

johnr1

Im a major diesel fan, but there is something just not right about the thought of a diesel 944. Actually I wouldnt be tooo bothered about the tax but doing maybe 300 odd miles at a weekend would hurt the pocket seriously in something that probably does 20 to the gallon - if that.
Does anyone know if they have any serious gremlins or which engine is more reliable - I see 2.5s and 2.7s for sale, also I like autos but maybe more troublesome in older cars ???

InTheTrees

The 2.5 is pretty much bulletproof. They do require a timing belt every 75,000 miles and some will say every 35,000 miles and that can be four or five hours labour to install. Oh and water pump at the same time.

I think the 2.7 came in the 16 valve 944s? (i'm in the usa now so details can be different). I know they're a tad more "delicate".

Auto? Argh! I dont know anything about their reliability but you need the extra control a manual gives you! Although if you like auto's it would be cheaper.

carchaeologist

I know of a jensen interceptor with a 3 litre merc diesel in it. Nasty. Unless you are using the car daily is there much need to change?

galwaytt

InTheTrees wrote: »

Auto? Argh! I dont know anything about their reliability but you need the extra control a manual gives you! Although if you like auto's it would be cheaper.

OMG here we go again.........'it's not a sports car if it's not a manual' mantra. Nonsense. I have an even better car than the 944 - it's successsor, the 968. In fact, I have 2. One a 6-speed manual, the other a Tiptronic automatic. The Tip is not not only no less a car, in my opinion, on balance, it's a nicer car. It handles identically. It brakes identically. And funnily enough, even with higher mileage than my manual one - 165k miles - it's actually got a nicer engine - it spins a few rpm higher than the manual at the same road speed (because it's only a 4-speeder), and so is always a bit more.......eager.......

The 944 auto would be an older beast, I agree, but it wouldn't spoil the car. Funnily enough, being a rear-transmissioned beast, it's one of the few cars where an auto or petrol engine would be identically mounted and coupled. No clutch or torque convertor to line up, etc etc - they're all on the back axle........

OP - if you're looking for a cheap 944, you don't need to go to UK - load's here. I'm aware of 3, in various state's, not far from me.

johnr1

Many thanks all who posted, GalwayTT, I have looked around the sites here and most of the 944s listed seem to either have serious potential problems or are on at 'Hail Mary' prices. Sellers in the UK seem to be more realistic about the actual value of these. Having said that, it would save a lot of hassle to buy here.
PM me if you have a contact.

Seweryn

johnr1 wrote: »

Many thanks all who posted, GalwayTT, I have looked around the sites here and most of the 944s listed seem to either have serious potential problems or are on at 'Hail Mary' prices. Sellers in the UK seem to be more realistic about the actual value of these. Having said that, it would save a lot of hassle to buy here.

Hi John,
I looked at this car about 2 months ago:
http://cars.donedeal.ie/for-sale/vintagecars/1670940
I wasn't too much interested in buying it, but the owner was looking for a swap with my car. The car had all service works up to date, including the cam belt and cam chain with tensioner. Looked like a decent example anyway and it was nice to drive.

InTheTrees

galwaytt wrote: »

OMG here we go again.........'it's not a sports car if it's not a manual' mantra. .

SO would you trade your tiptronic 968 for an auto 944?

Didnt think so...

They're not even in the same league are they? The tip functions very differently and in addition there's waaay more power out of the 968.

A 944 is a slow 80's car and when you add a slow auto box the result is obvious.

Point made.

gn3dr

I have to say - I don't know which would be worse - a diesel 944 or an auto one. Galway TT nothing personal - but I just cannot understand why anyone would buy an automatic "sports car". It is one of my pet hates.

galwaytt

InTheTrees wrote: »

SO would you trade your tiptronic 968 for an auto 944?

Didnt think so...

They're not even in the same league are they? The tip functions very differently and in addition there's waaay more power out of the 968.

A 944 is a slow 80's car and when you add a slow auto box the result is obvious.

Point made.

Not only is your point not made, you've missed mine. Namely that, if the OP likes auto's, then he's probably more-than-aware of their limitations. In either case the fundamentals of the car: handling, power, brakes are all good. Changing it from manual to auto won't give you any extra power, either..........Being an automatic won't affect any of it.

Of course I wouldn't change my 968 for a 944 - I bought it after driving a 944turbo, and thinking it the better car. I was merely illustrating the fact that there are few people who would have the opportunity to compare the exact same car back-to-back, and I just happen to be able to. That it's a Porsche as well is coincidental. That it's a 'relative' to the 944 being discussed is well, just freaky !

As for the '80's speed comment: yes, there are faster/better cars out there. Any recent Golf Gti probably being one of them. But that's irrelevant: he's looking at 20 yr old cars anyway.

And, there is the bonus point: an auto Porsche of that era may be possibly cheaper to buy, and be better minded, for all of the reason's you espouse. If that work's in OP's favour, then win-win.

gn3dr wrote: »

I have to say - I don't know which would be worse - a diesel 944 or an auto one. Galway TT nothing personal - but I just cannot understand why anyone would buy an automatic "sports car". It is one of my pet hates.

It may be your pet hate but there's a reason that most cars are traditionally manual: price. They're cheap to make. It has nothing to do with prowess, control, or some other ethereal reason. If manufacturers were able to churn auto's out cheaper than manual's, manual's would have virtually disappeared from the market a long time ago.

For sport's cars, automatics have had limitations that most people - like yourself I'm sure - didn't/wouldn't want. But in the last 10 years 'automatics' have made enormous grounds in terms of dynamics, ease of use and capacity for power. This is the reason the majority of premium sports cars are now automatic. In fact, Porsche themselves predict that in a short few years time, some 80% (iirc from the tour...) of all their car's will be automatic, not manual. And no matter what you think, you couldn't accuse Porsche of making any poor cars these days, performance wise..........
And you can say this of other manufacturers too.

gn3dr

galwaytt wrote: »

It may be your pet hate but there's a reason that most cars are traditionally manual: price. They're cheap to make. It has nothing to do with prowess, control, or some other ethereal reason. If manufacturers were able to churn auto's out cheaper than manual's, manual's would have virtually disappeared from the market a long time ago.

For sport's cars, automatics have had limitations that most people - like yourself I'm sure - didn't/wouldn't want. But in the last 10 years 'automatics' have made enormous grounds in terms of dynamics, ease of use and capacity for power. This is the reason the majority of premium sports cars are now automatic. In fact, Porsche themselves predict that in a short few years time, some 80% (iirc from the tour...) of all their car's will be automatic, not manual. And no matter what you think, you couldn't accuse Porsche of making any poor cars these days, performance wise..........
And you can say this of other manufacturers too.

Don't agree with you on everything there

Yes you are right - automatics are too limited for real performance enthusiasts

The reason the majority of "premium sports cars" are automatic is because they are probably bought when new for their looks or badge rather than their actual performance. I'd argue that if it is automatic then it isn't a proper sports car.


Yes in the last 10 years automatics have made advances - but the 944 doesn't fit in this category - which is the point.

I think that Porsche's figure of 80% is indicative of where they are headed - Cayenne - Panamera etc....:(

If you were honest from a performance perspective which of your 968's would you keep - the manual or auto?

gn3dr

LIGHTNING wrote: »

But that was his point he has put more miles on the auto regardless if it is a little slower,he prefers it to the manual. I dont like autos but if you look at it another way all the top tiers of motorsport use autoboxes.

I don't know him but maybe he's getting old.:D

Rallying doesn't use auto boxes and are you mixing up auto changing boxes with auto boxes (i.e. with a torque converter)?

gn3dr

LIGHTNING wrote: »

WRC, F1,F3,GP2 all use sequential boxes which for all intesive purposes are auto boxes.

Sequential is absolutely not the same as auto - that was my point.

Driving a car with a torque converter - i.e. as in a real auto box is like having an elastic band connecting the accelerator to the throttle - delayed response. That is why no top motorsport would use an auto box. There is also too much drivlinepower losses - that is why autos generally drink more fuel than the same car with a manual box.

Anyway different horses for different courses I guess - I think we have probably hijacked the original thread enough.

unkel

galwaytt wrote: »

the majority of premium sports cars are now automatic. In fact, Porsche themselves predict that in a short few years time, some 80% (iirc from the tour...) of all their car's will be automatic, not manual.

And all new model Ferraris will be automatic ONLY. There will never be a manual Ferrari again. Manuals are so 20th century. Good riddance I say

unkel

Nope. I've driven mainly manuals in my 25 years of driving and unfortunately I drive a manual at the moment. Can't wait to be driving an auto again though

galwaytt

gn3dr wrote: »

If you were honest from a performance perspective which of your 968's would you keep - the manual or auto?

The Tiptronic. Even my sig has a clue: I want rid of the manual. I can spend my time on cornering, balance, progression, and not humouring some mechanical whirlygigbox under the floor And in particular in mine, and other big-engined cars it's equally relevant I suggest, gearchanging is a necessary evil - big engined cars, by their very nature, need fewer - such is the beauty of big wide powerbands - even if the 'power' wer'e talking about, is modest. More of my car's performance is more easily accessible, more of the time. It also, by happy accident, means weight transfer under gearchanges is far less dramatic, and that consequently grip is more easily maintained.
None of this means I will be quicker around a track - but it does mean I'll probably enjoy it more

LIGHTNING wrote: »

WRC, F1,F3,GP2 all use sequential boxes which for all intesive purposes are auto boxes.

Exactly, imho, all gearboxes that change 'gearing', either fully or partially automatically, is 'automatic'. I included torque converter, cvt, sequential and double-clutch gearboxes in this.

unkel wrote: »

And all new model Ferraris will be automatic ONLY. There will never be a manual Ferrari again. Manuals are so 20th century. Good riddance I say

Did you know the key gear-change part of all those new Ferarri's are built in............Galway Yes, really ! And the reason they are flat-out (sic), is that demand for manual Ferrari's is off a cliff, and 'flappy-paddle' gearboxes are in.

rotorhead

Guys how about meeting half way
a 911 sportmatic

galwaytt

rotorhead wrote: »

Guys how about meeting half way
a 911 sportmatic

...you know, I was just thinking the exact same thing !!