The best sports car in the world...

[kary]

Jad, I do not believe your old 944 that you sold had 200,000 miles on it and it had major failures.

As for failures, it really only matters when your the person that has the failure. No matter the numbers, the expectations of Porsche to keep running exists and the newer Porsche's are having issue on the track. This will continue as they get older and others try and track them.

[Jad]

It had about 190K miles, but was running strong until (as I heard it) it was bottomed out, cracked the oil pan and driven a long time before all the oil was gone and it eventually seized. Not exactly the engines fault. My turbo only has 135K, but Dan's 944 is way over 200k, Ralphs is near that. In fact, I can't remember a single well cared for 944 needing a new engine??? I am sure I am forgeting some , but poor maintenance has caused all the 'failures' I know of (belts need changed, oil cooler seals need checked).

The point of my post was I wanted REAL numbers, not you saying the new cars suck and can't survive on the track caus you saw some or heard such and such. If your engine dies (yes it could happen to you) would that mean 993's suck - as you would be the person it happened to? No engine design is perfect and a few cases don't prove anything, on average, what are the chances of failure for each engine design? I really liked my 964, but I did need to rebuild the engine at ~60k miles. I still think it is a very strong and very reliable engine, just to expensive for track duty, despite my bad luck.

[kary]

Jad, was the "(as I heard it)" the first failure or the second failure after it was so called repaired? Or was that one also a failure to maintain the car?

As for numbers, please let us know when you get them. I am sure Porsche will release them to you if you ask

[Lewis Wise]

It had about 190K miles, but was running strong until (as I heard it) it was bottomed out, cracked the oil pan and driven a long time before all the oil was gone and it eventually seized.

Hey Jad, does this mean that the new owner drove over two quarters stacked on top of each other?

Oh, the humanity!!!

[Jad]

I think the key would be ALMOST drove over two quarters

Don't know what happened the second time, but Charlie, Amy and I all TT and AXed the car for 10 years with the original tranny and engine, both in great condition at 190K. It wasn't raced much afterwards, just street driven, so I guess 944's can't handle the street alone, they need the track to survive

[Dan Chambers]

The long, good life.

Jad is on to the reality of long-lived engines; maintenance.

As he indicated, my 944 has 226K miles, with a "maintenance" rod-bearing replacement done at 195K miles .... the first and only rode-bearing replacement. With original head (and head components - valve guides, valves, valve springs, valve seats), cam, pistons, rings, rods, crank, main bearings, balance shafts, on and on, and still producing very good and even compression, I figure I can reasonably expect to see nearly 300 K miles with little worry (as long as I keep shifting up at 5.6K to 5.8K RPM's on the tach ).

Thanks in large part to the previous owner's anal care , and my unwillingness to blow up a motor through neglegence , the car has been meticulously serviced and maintained. (When Steve G. writes comments like "car needs nothing" on the maintenance ticket, I just smile .)

The way I see it, durability boils down to regular inspection and maintenance , not out-of-this-world super-duper, Holy Grail Engineering Design . Design errors not withstanding, intelligent driving practices (the rev limiter is NOT when you should up-shift IMHO), and regular care will increase the likelihood of motor longevity, regardless of model or year.

Just my 226K -cents worth.

[gulf911]

While i can certainly appreciate your personal experiences with a couple 944's, when there is more than just discussion regarding a weakness in the engine, and it shows its head when tracked, and there is no known fix, I don't bury my head in the sand. Nor do I say its their fault because while 'racing' they went above 5823.33 rpm....The issue is the boxster and 996 engines were designed for the masses and not with sports in mind. They still know something about cars, thats why they use the 993 case for the GT3 , turbo , gt2.

[Jad]

Shall we talk chain tensioners, overheating, oil return tubes and general oil leaks among other problems? The old 911's were hardly bulletproof trackcars as delivered, but 40 years of development has developed fixes for the problems. Would anyone feel secure racing a stock 60's, 70's or 80's 911 without new tensioners, an added oil cooler, better brakes, tranny cooler, etc?

On the 944, if Porsche had put the redline at 6K instead of 6500, with the rev limiter even higher, the #2 bearing would not be a problem. So as Dan C. said, the known fix is to shift below 6K(and power drops off anyway). If you want to shift at 6500 you can, you can even add a chip and shift at 7k, but your engine life will decline or you change the rod bearings annually which isn't really that hard or expensive.

The fastest most powerful racing Porsches have been watercooled for a LONG time, so what does that prove, the '76 watercooled 924 is better than an aircooled 993tt? It must be, as watercooling is better because racecars are watercooled, so the fact that the 924 is significantly slower doesn't matter as it is built like a racecar and thus better. Isn't that the logic you are using Dan??? (just incase you miss the sarcasm, the first 924's really sucked and were very slow with VW motors)

[kary]

While i can certainly appreciate your personal experiences with a couple 944's, when there is more than just discussion regarding a weakness in the engine, and it shows its head when tracked, and there is no known fix, I don't bury my head in the sand. Nor do I say its their fault because while 'racing' they went above 5823.33 rpm....The issue is the boxster and 996 engines were designed for the masses and not with sports in mind. They still know something about cars, thats why they use the 993 case for the GT3 , turbo , gt2.

Hey, don't burden people with the facts

[MikeD]

OK, Jad wins the 944 is best...


Oh wait, Dan wins the 911 is best...


Oh wait, no Jad wins the 944 is better....


No, I take that back Dan's right the 911 is better...


No, wait I win the 986 is best!



Just an observation, but I seem to see a LOT of posts (here and other places) defending the 944. Me thinks them owners doth protest to much.

[Dan Chambers]

Apple, oranges, and the right cart to carry them in. Come on, people. Let's start up the gray matter rev's a little, shall we?

The issue I see (and I'm biased), is:
the element of design spec.'s
+ undertanding of the design spec.'s by the owner/driver,
- the sales pitches and historical rhetoric of the vehicle.
= actual longevity and performance aspect of the motor.

(Yes, it's the 21st Century math system.)

Look. If you buy a vehicle that is built for daily road driving (with all the lovely leather trim - jeweled clocks in the dash - coffee cup holder - mascara mirrored sun visor - 17 different electronic vibrating seat adjustments - matching supple leather trimmed door handles - ad nauseim) by a company with "A renowned history in the Racing World" - and you're willing to ignore the actual physical and mechanical realities of the vehicle - and go out on to the track in high G turns with buble-gum sticky tires, resting on the rev limiter squeezing every Nano-Kilo-Calorie for that extra .0000001 second at the timing lights, you'll blow her up. Duh!

What Dan A. might be eluding to is (and I can never figure out what those "air-head 911" driver are thinking), the 996 is a different vehicle mechanically than a GT-3. Uh, yea. That might be why they give it different nomenclature. However. The driver/owner may not recognize the significance of the inherent physical/mechanical differences - (Hey, its'a "Porch", Dude. World renowned auto racing legacy, Man.) - and try to drive a 996 like a GT-3. The result? Well.... let's just say "Your results may vary. Actual performance may be less than expected. Vehicles shown on closed courses with professional driver."

I really don't think you can carry any expectation of a vehicle's durability based on the history of a manufacturer alone. I would think you should look at each individual model, if not each individual car and assess the capabilities separate from all the rest. Sure, some makers have a better percentage of endurance. But assuming your particular vehicle will be bullet-proof is, I think, naive.

I think (and that's a stretch, I know) the issue is knowledge. Knowledge of the driver. Knowledge about the true capabilities and limitations of the individual vehicle. Knowledge of what may be perceived or assumed rather than what is factual.

I'd guess this would be why this forum is so great .

Just my musings.

[gulf911]

Jad,
Please take your head out of.. er uh the sand...

"Would anyone feel secure racing a stock 60's, 70's or 80's 911 without new tensioners, an added oil cooler, better brakes, tranny cooler, etc?"

I did for almost 5 years, so did the person before me that owned my 73E. Are you saying while Porsche was winning races in the 70's, they didn't feel secure?? To my knowledge 911's weren't blowing up motors out of the box, If leaks and chain tensioners that wear out over time is all you have, try again....

[David J Marguglio]

Though the 924/944 has long been considered by the masses to be the red-headed stepchild of the Porsche family tree it vital to the diversity of the Porsche family. After all a family tree that lacks branches becomes…well…the state tree of West Virginia, I suppose. Anyway, I digress.

The 944 is a great car in its own right and I have long contended that if it had been born into another family (Audi, VW, etc.) it would have been the finest sports car to roll out of their factories and would likely still be in production.

It must be tough having the 911 for your older brother.

[gulf911]

The old 911's were hardly bulletproof trackcars as delivered, but 40 years of development has developed fixes for the problems.

Well since the 944 came out in 1983, Porsche already had all of that experience when they built them, essentially 1/2 of a 928 engine. What, did they forget how to build a sports car that doesn't starve itself of oil? as far as the boxster and 996 , Their experience over the last 40 years doesn't carry forward? C'mon Jad you want to say it, you're aching to say it...The 911 is better....C'mon say it with me...

[martinreinhardt]

Porsche is the best sports car in the world.

But what about the best looking Porsche? Personally, the 964(5) Turbo as in the movie "Bad Boys" is my favorite.