Porsche 944S

[JimLill]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 6 2005, 01:07 PM
Jon Milledge is getting 209 bhp from IT legal 944S engines.

[snapback]67459[/snapback]

Is that crank or WHP? With 188 to start, I'd think you could get a tad more..

- exhaust header etc
- chipped ECU
- revised pre MAF intake
- blueprint

all legal I think.......

[lateapex911]

The 944 isn't like most cars, things are pretty optimized right from the factory, and historicly, they just don't see the gains typical in other makes.

The 911 E and S that are classed for ITS are even worse off, as getting more HP from them is even harder. I doubt you will see many...if any...of them, and certainly not at the front of a top notch grid, as the spec weight is just a tad too high to warrant the expense.

[Geo]

Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 6 2005, 03:06 PM
Is that crank or WHP? With 188 to start, I'd think you could get a tad more..

- exhaust header etc
- chipped ECU
- revised pre MAF intake
- blueprint

all legal I think.......

[snapback]67474[/snapback]

That would be at the crank. Custom header, MoTeC, etc. It's a full development engine. As Jake said, there just is not as much to be had. I didn't get into what limits the S engine. On the 8v engine it's the stock cam.

Jon does pretty heavy development on an engine brake dyno. While one might think there are standard gains to be made, that is not always the case.

[JimLill]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 7 2005, 12:49 AM
That would be at the crank. Custom header, MoTeC, etc. It's a full development engine. As Jake said, there just is not as much to be had. I didn't get into what limits the S engine. On the 8v engine it's the stock cam.

Jon does pretty heavy development on an engine brake dyno. While one might think there are standard gains to be made, that is not always the case.

[snapback]67493[/snapback]

Motec ? Is that legal?

[latebrake]

Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 7 2005, 06:34 AM
Motec ? Is that legal?

[snapback]67495[/snapback]

Just a change here, Will the 944s2 ever be an IT car? I think it makes about 225 or just under at the flywheel. What does the BMW make compaired to weight? They are good dependable engines and cars so the money to race would be kept down just a little and could make for fun racing with the faster cars.

Lawrence

[Geo]

Originally posted by latebrake@Dec 7 2005, 07:46 AM
Just a change here, Will the 944s2 ever be an IT car? I think it makes about 225 or just under at the flywheel. What does the BMW make compaired to weight? They are good dependable engines and cars so the money to race would be kept down just a little and could make for fun racing with the faster cars.

Lawrence

[snapback]67504[/snapback]

I don't speak for the entire ITAC by any means, but IMHO the car has too much power for ITS. If a class above ITS becomes reality, I think the S2 would certainly be up for consideration along with the 968. I personally would have a hard time endorsing it for ITS though.

[Geo]

Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 7 2005, 03:34 AM
Motec ? Is that legal?

[snapback]67495[/snapback]

A MoTeC is legal if it fits within the stock ECU (DME) box and the box still uses the same stock connector to connect to a stock wiring harness. This can and has been done with a number of cars including the 944S.

There are a lot of ideas floating around regarding how much of a diffrence the MoTeC makes vs a well developed set of maps on a chip in the stock board. According to Jon, the MoTeC is worth 4 hp over a good remap of the stock ECU.

[latebrake]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 7 2005, 12:47 PM
I don't speak for the entire ITAC by any means, but IMHO the car has too much power for ITS. If a class above ITS becomes reality, I think the S2 would certainly be up for consideration along with the 968. I personally would have a hard time endorsing it for ITS though.

[snapback]67515[/snapback]

I understand but help me out a little here. I have a line on a very good (rear end damaged) 944S and have found a 944S2 as well. What does the 944S2 make stock and what does the BMW make stock. I have considered selling the E production 944 car and building another IT car. Cost is a little high in production. I know I should do my own homework but you guys know IT way better than me.

If its only 10 hp difference bewteen the 944S and the 944S2 I would just skip any letters and fights that comes with getting something classed,if at all workable anyway.

Lawrence

[JimLill]

as while we are off on 944 tangents.....

What is the trick to make clutch replacement easier?

[latebrake]

Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 7 2005, 05:31 PM
as while we are off on 944 tangents.....

What is the trick to make clutch replacement easier?

[snapback]67539[/snapback]

there is no real easy way IMHO.

All of them I have done was when the engine was out of the car.
I have one to do for a friend soon. They say you can do this without dropping the trans. Leave the axels hooked up and remove the mounts so you can pull it back,unhook the shifter rod/one set screw. Take the four bolts off the T-tube. This is supposded to leave you enough room to move the bell housing and have enough room to side the clutch off the splines forward. I guess the bolts on the T tube lets you move it up or down. dont forget to pull the fork off the bell housing,I know you knew that. Never did it this way so just second hand info.
If all else fails,drop the trans and you have lots of room.

I have dropped a trans and put it back by myself in one hour so this is my method the other sounds like 90+ % of the same work.

My oil pan is trick so I can move the engine forward over the cross beam if needed. A stock one will still come forward a few inches. Gets around the U bolts on the T Tube and the rust/exhaust.

Cut out the spare wheel well and rig it to pop back in. Lots of room to slide the trans back there,best idea I had all day.

Lawrence

[JimLill]

Originally posted by latebrake@Dec 7 2005, 06:03 PM
there is no real easy way IMHO.

Cut out the spare wheel well and rig it to pop back in. Lots of room to slide the trans back there,best idea I had all day.

Lawrence

Yeah, I was wondering about various holes in the floor pan being of help.... how about up front?

[latebrake]

Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 7 2005, 06:08 PM
Yeah, I was wondering about various holes in the floor pan being of help.... how about up front?

[snapback]67545[/snapback]

If you are asking bout the holes in the rear deck,I used them to lower the trans with cargo straps once. Made some extra ones forward,helps if you are working alone.

not sure about what you mean about up front. Its pretty much all required stuff up there(bell housing/fly wheel/pressure plate/bearing and fork.

You can cheat the T tube spline with the connector at the trans coupling. Two allen sets and move it all onto one side of the tube splines. good for about three inches.

The pain is the ass is the t tube housing. it has EARS that keep it from moving and they will only allow you to slide the housing back a few inches. If you have to do this a lot with one car you can mod the tube and cut these off. A plate between the bell housing and the engine with four holes will let you use hime joints as a motor toqure arrestor and do the same thing at the bell housing for the trans. No engine or trans movement at all,still allowes you to keep the soft engine and trans mounts. Drop the whole thing in record time. Dont know if you can do this in IT.

Lawrence

[Geo]

Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 7 2005, 02:31 PM
as while we are off on 944 tangents.....

What is the trick to make clutch replacement easier?

[snapback]67539[/snapback]

Pay someone else to do it.

[Geo]

Originally posted by latebrake@Dec 7 2005, 12:01 PM
I understand but help me out a little here. I have a line on a very good (rear end damaged) 944S and have found a 944S2 as well. What does the 944S2 make stock and what does the BMW make stock. I have considered selling the E production 944 car and building another IT car. Cost is a little high in production. I know I should do my own homework but you guys know IT way better than me.

If its only 10 hp difference bewteen the 944S and the 944S2 I would just skip any letters and fights that comes with getting something classed,if at all workable anyway.

Lawrence

[snapback]67534[/snapback]

The 944S was 188 bhp stock. The E36 Bimmer is 189 bhp stock. I can't imagine any car with more hp being classed in IT.

[latebrake]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 7 2005, 09:10 PM
The 944S was 188 bhp stock. The E36 Bimmer is 189 bhp stock. I can't imagine any car with more hp being classed in IT.

[snapback]67552[/snapback]

I didnt know it was that close. Sounds like the 944S is a good choise if you want to build a P car.

Tweeks may get close to 200 hp legal with out sending it out to Jon Milledge. I am guessing here. What are the BMW making in racing trim?

I have several dog box trans that I use in Production. Quaife and tricked ring stuff. Is anything other than stock ring and LSD parts legal in IT?

I know what. I could tie the engine to a virgin and lower it into a volcano during a full moon. I bet thats good for another 3 hp.

Lawrence

[alexands]

This is a timely thread as I am looking to build a 944 ITS car. I've built a 951 for PCA, so am familiar with the 944 line. The 944S seems to be the way to go to be competitive in ITS. I'm familiar with 944 short-comings (#2 bearing, etc..) and I'm trying to figure out the additional shortcomings of the S model. I have heard about the timing chain between the 2 cams being a weak spot. Can anyone elaborate on that and point out any other things I should be concerned with?

Also, back in 2003 the 3.0 liter S2 engine was allowed in ITS if it was installed in a regular 944 car. Am I imagining this?

Scott

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by alexands@Dec 10 2005, 09:09 AM


Also, back in 2003 the 3.0 liter S2 engine was allowed in ITS if it was installed in a regular 944 car. Am I imagining this?

Scott

[snapback]67819[/snapback]

Yes, you were imagining it.

AB

[alexands]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 10 2005, 03:57 PM
Yes, you were imagining it.

AB

[snapback]67823[/snapback]

Just checked the GCR. You're right. You can run the 3.0 litre in a 944 in GT class.

[JimLill]

This relevant to 944 etc.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6815

The S uses:

944 618 124 01
0261 200 080 (or 187)
CU151X

[timo944]

Interesting thread - I haven't been following until today.

I've raced 944's in PCA, NASA 944CUP, and SCCA for 7 years in the southeast. It's a battle to keep a car legal for all three venues and still be competitive. Bottom line is this:

PCA is full of PCA-legal cars and is a ball. The racing is clean, the fields are large (up to 20 944's), and the competition for 1st place has always been heated. Sometimes it's ruined by a visitor from outside the SE who comes in with a well developed car (I'll refrain from using the "cheater" word). the problem with PCA is they treat us like kids sometimes. They can be overbearing with the 13/13 rule. However, they try to keep the competitioon fair and all in all it's a good time.

SCCA is fun but totally uncompetitive in a 44. However, I have done well in some enduros and for the last year have done enduros only. The longer the race, the better you do, but it all comes down to attrition. The 944 is very reliable, and as long as you have good air flow to the rad you should not have reliability problems.

NASA is fun in the SE, but I have heard that in the NE and Florida, there are a lot of questionable cars. They say that you can run either a PCA car or an SCCA car. I have seen many cars that fit neither definition, and are flat out illegal for either series. There is no enforcement (at least in the south), so you run what you bring. It's fun however - NASA is very laid back. This year a bunch of us are going to run the series for points.

My car has a bone stock engine with 183,000 miles. I just replaced the rod bearings for the first time (ever). I have the Stahl exhaust (worth every penny for the reliability) and a 2.5" exhaust, and use a factory air box with K&N. The chip is stock. I get 139.7hp at the wheels, according to Balanced performance's dyno. We played with the air flow meter spring and the computer switch to get this far. Personally, I woudl not build a 944S. The reason is that it woudl cost too much to convert, and I'm not convinced that it is a better solution.

The biggest problem is weight. At 2715 with driver in SCCA, and 2844 without driver in PCA , there is a huge spread. I am down to 2620lbs without the driver, so I can stand to lose another 100lb. To switch from SCCA to PCA, I bolt the add-on weight to the floor behind the driver so I don;t have to jack the weights around too much when I corner balance. This has worked really well.

I think that the investment $$$ to get the add'l HP are too high. Just collect junk motors, rebuild them and keep them ready in your garage (I have two!). I use only '88 pistons, and have a spare trans as well. Since the 944 will never have an ITS winning motor, there is no point in trying (until the rules change!).

If you're serious about ITS, you can build a car to the limit. You will do better in NASA and will run GT4S in PCA (if you care about NASA or PCA).

PCA is considering a rules change for 2007 that would make the 944 more competitive in GT class. If this becomes reality, I would gut the interior to SCCA specs and build the engine to ITS specs (i.e. ship to Jon Milledge).

It's a shame that there aren't more 944's racing in ITS. That may change this year as more 944S's come on to the track. I don;t see how a weight reduction will help that much - there are not many good (safe) ways to lose weight. We've proven in NASA that a difference of 200 lb. in a 944 does nto help that much with the lap times.

I've asked many of my buddies in PCA and NASA about ITS but they don;t seem interested. Oh well, their loss.

Tim Betteridge