92 RS vs. 8? Porsche 944
05-26-2004, 10:21 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Shelby Twp. MI
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 Z28
Engine: Rebuilt and modified 350
Transmission: rebuilt T-5
92 RS vs. 8? Porsche 944
Me and my friend were joking around one day. and we went to an industrial parkway to race. I had my 92 RS 3.1L in good tune, and he had his Porsche 944 beater. Needless to say I won, and I have the video to prove it!
05-26-2004, 10:30 AM
#2
Supreme Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL
Posts: 2,967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1989 TransAm GTA
Engine: One sweet modified 355 TPI.
Transmission: The kind that shifts....
Thats sad as just about any 944 should walk away from the 3.1L v6 f-bodies. Not saying you didn't win. Just that its sad that the 944 was in such a state of tune that it lost.
The slowest of the 944's are the 83' 944 non-turbo's. And those still managed a high 15 @ 85mph.
The Turbo models are mid to low 14 seconds cars, and should run neck and neck with a good running L98.
The slowest of the 944's are the 83' 944 non-turbo's. And those still managed a high 15 @ 85mph.
The Turbo models are mid to low 14 seconds cars, and should run neck and neck with a good running L98.
06-01-2004, 12:59 PM
#3
Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Bedford Ma
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Iroc-Z
Engine: L98
Transmission: 700R4
83 944's had the least power but were NOT the slowest. They didn't have a lot of the options of the later cars which made them light weight. in 85.5 they got a new cam and a little more power. At the same time they got that, they got crammed with more weight.
944 should have walked you no sweat. In my 86 944 (cat back, cold air, chip) i was able to ride almost dead even with the average stocker 5.0 stang. Only time stangs really beat me (stock stangs that is) was if the driver was a really really good driver. Before them mods the fastest I could get at the track was a 15.1. I got that car down to a 14.6 before I got rid of it.
As far as the 944 turbo, they were pretty mean little cars. I had a 1988 turbo S that I took to new england dragway and ran a 12.93
and all I did to that was a MAF conversion, boost controller, and a chip.
What year was the 944 that you raced?
944 should have walked you no sweat. In my 86 944 (cat back, cold air, chip) i was able to ride almost dead even with the average stocker 5.0 stang. Only time stangs really beat me (stock stangs that is) was if the driver was a really really good driver. Before them mods the fastest I could get at the track was a 15.1. I got that car down to a 14.6 before I got rid of it.
As far as the 944 turbo, they were pretty mean little cars. I had a 1988 turbo S that I took to new england dragway and ran a 12.93
and all I did to that was a MAF conversion, boost controller, and a chip.
What year was the 944 that you raced?
Last edited by XJOSHX; 06-01-2004 at 01:02 PM.
06-01-2004, 03:52 PM
#4
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto CANADA - GM Parts Rep.
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1987 Iroc Z28
Engine: The KING of the 3rd gen TPI's.
Transmission: Beefed up T5
Axle/Gears: Aussie 3.45's
Sorry, seen too many pathetic 944's. They don't and never have impressed me. I would be surprised if they majority of the ones left on the roads today could better a 16 sec quarter.
06-01-2004, 04:09 PM
#5
Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Bedford Ma
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Iroc-Z
Engine: L98
Transmission: 700R4
Originally posted by freestylzz
Sorry, seen too many pathetic 944's. They don't and never have impressed me. I would be surprised if they majority of the ones left on the roads today could better a 16 sec quarter.
Sorry, seen too many pathetic 944's. They don't and never have impressed me. I would be surprised if they majority of the ones left on the roads today could better a 16 sec quarter.
I agree, there are many many poor ones and i doubt many can pull a 16 but they will lay the fbody smack down in autocross even if they are total ****.
06-02-2004, 12:02 AM
#6
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: Z28
Engine: LS1
Transmission: 4L60E
I stomped a 944 about 4 years ago in my old 305 RS 3rd gen. I put about 5 car lengths on him from a 45-90 MPH punch and he was humiliated. his car looked sharp as hell but he was another punk *** kid like me at the time and his ego was definitely hurting 
06-02-2004, 12:15 AM
#7
Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Bedford Ma
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Iroc-Z
Engine: L98
Transmission: 700R4
a lot of people think because it has a porsche crest that it is hot ****. Fact is, it is what you make it. Some people are idiots though. If I wasn't so scared of going over bandwidth I would post some pics of my last 944...... Custom super charger.
Trending Topics
06-02-2004, 05:05 PM
#8
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Shelby Twp. MI
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 Z28
Engine: Rebuilt and modified 350
Transmission: rebuilt T-5
Originally posted by XJOSHX
83 944's had the least power but were NOT the slowest. They didn't have a lot of the options of the later cars which made them light weight. in 85.5 they got a new cam and a little more power. At the same time they got that, they got crammed with more weight.
944 should have walked you no sweat. In my 86 944 (cat back, cold air, chip) i was able to ride almost dead even with the average stocker 5.0 stang. Only time stangs really beat me (stock stangs that is) was if the driver was a really really good driver. Before them mods the fastest I could get at the track was a 15.1. I got that car down to a 14.6 before I got rid of it.
As far as the 944 turbo, they were pretty mean little cars. I had a 1988 turbo S that I took to new england dragway and ran a 12.93
and all I did to that was a MAF conversion, boost controller, and a chip.
What year was the 944 that you raced?
83 944's had the least power but were NOT the slowest. They didn't have a lot of the options of the later cars which made them light weight. in 85.5 they got a new cam and a little more power. At the same time they got that, they got crammed with more weight.
944 should have walked you no sweat. In my 86 944 (cat back, cold air, chip) i was able to ride almost dead even with the average stocker 5.0 stang. Only time stangs really beat me (stock stangs that is) was if the driver was a really really good driver. Before them mods the fastest I could get at the track was a 15.1. I got that car down to a 14.6 before I got rid of it.
As far as the 944 turbo, they were pretty mean little cars. I had a 1988 turbo S that I took to new england dragway and ran a 12.93
and all I did to that was a MAF conversion, boost controller, and a chip.
What year was the 944 that you raced?
Im not sure, but I'll ask. Also, one more point I'd like to make, the 944 was a stick, so I'm guessin he doesn't know how to race with a stick.
06-04-2004, 11:19 AM
#9
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont underestimate those 944s, especially the turbos. my brother has an 86 944 turbo with map kit, chip, boost controller, and exhaust and it feels very fast. i dont have any numbers but id say it could definitely keep up with or take most near stock or lightly modded camaros
06-04-2004, 12:00 PM
#10
Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Bedford Ma
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Iroc-Z
Engine: L98
Transmission: 700R4
Originally posted by rsn932
dont underestimate those 944s, especially the turbos. my brother has an 86 944 turbo with map kit, chip, boost controller, and exhaust and it feels very fast. i dont have any numbers but id say it could definitely keep up with or take most near stock or lightly modded camaros
dont underestimate those 944s, especially the turbos. my brother has an 86 944 turbo with map kit, chip, boost controller, and exhaust and it feels very fast. i dont have any numbers but id say it could definitely keep up with or take most near stock or lightly modded camaros
If he has them mods and can not make a stock camaro look terrible something is very very wrong.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
