jason1972

those of you who are interested in 944 vs 911 shoot out.. there is a big article (front page)
of november issue of Motorsports magazine. It talks about EVERTHING..including if 944 deserves to be called a true porsche, track times, cost to maintain, depreciation, etc. Very good article! At the end, 911 wins of course..but 944 is considered a great value!

schlag

I'll relish the day these sort of comparisons stop.


But hey, by then I'll probably be driving a 911

Ahmet

I didn't see that as a clear decleration at the end of that article.
Ahmet

SoCal Driver

You can call it what you want.

I just drive!

BartW

can anyone post the article??

Z-man

[quote]Originally posted by jason1972:
<strong>snip...At the end, 911 wins of course..but 944 is considered a great value!</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think that was necessarily the point of the article. If you look at the lap times, you'll see all three cars ('83 911, '84 944, and 89 944S2) had pretty close numbers: too close to call anyone an outright winner.

And: put on a set of racing rubber, re-work the suspension, and any of the aforementioned cars will be much quicker than the rest!

I thought it was a very good article: the writer tried to stay as fair about the comparison as possible.

And don't forget: Grassroots isn't a big magazine like Road & Track, Car & Driver, et al. Their resources are very limited. Most likely they found two readers who lived in Florida that were willing to have their cars used. IMHO, the comparison they made is a fair one.

Just my $0.42.
-Zoltan.

Micah

I believe the '44s belonged to a Rennlister and his brother...


Micah

dave120

Yup that was my brother's '84 944 and the small feature on the S2 was my car (too bad my car still had the stock wheels when we did that, picture coulda been better hehe). I think the track test wasn't the best it could have been. The track they used was a go-kart track that was really so tight that the speed difference in the cars made little difference. I mean the straight couldn't have been more than 100-150 ft lol.

Apparently the original owner of the '84 was a bigtime autocrosser or something because the suspension on that car is set up for serious track duty. On a full size track I think it might have taken that 911 despite the speed differences. Originally we were supposed to get a better testing ground but delays made them push it back and this place was the best they could do at the time they wanted. It was a cool experience anyways though seeing how they do all the different things and then seeing how the final article comes out.

RPG951S

First off, I NEVER understand this idiotic 911 to 944 comparissions to begin with.
But more importantly, why don't they ever compare cars of similar price range? A clean, well maintained SC goes for what? 15K-20K?
For the same price, your get a clean TurboS, which, no offense, can flat DESTROY the SC in practically every way.
Seems like they never want to have the 911 'lose' a comparission, so they always make it ridiciously one-sided. The TurboS is a better car and a better performance value. Period.

sweanders

Can anyone scan the article, can't get hold of it here in Sweden otherwise (me thinks)?

dave120

[quote]Originally posted by RPG951S:
<strong>First off, I NEVER understand this idiotic 911 to 944 comparissions to begin with.
But more importantly, why don't they ever compare cars of similar price range? A clean, well maintained SC goes for what? 15K-20K?
For the same price, your get a clean TurboS, which, no offense, can flat DESTROY the SC in practically every way.
Seems like they never want to have the 911 'lose' a comparission, so they always make it ridiciously one-sided. The TurboS is a better car and a better performance value. Period.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually the owner of the magazine mentioned (not in the article) that he was actually trying to prove that the 944 is a "cooler" car to have than a 911, because you get very similar performance for much less money, practically 1/3 the price in this case. It talks about the 911's reputation and the fact that it makes the car not depreciate nearly as much as the 944 does. Which is true, as much as we love the 944s, the 911 IS Porsche's flagship and always has been since it was introduced. The 911 is much more of a status symbol than a 944, meaning we know what we have in the cars, and we aren't worried about the status thing with them, regardless of what anyone else thinks about the 944 line.

The point of the article was not to test the cars based on price range, hence why they didn't use a Turbo S, etc. It was to compare cars of the same year (or close to it) and what you get with one vs the other for the money. I don't see it as being a 911 biased article at all. It's almost like, by the way you guys react to these comparisons, you're scared to put the 944 against a 911 directly. We know 944s give you more for the money, so why worry about what anyone else thinks anyways? Lighten up...

I would, however, like to see a test of an '89 944 Turbo S vs an '89 911 Turbo. Why compare an '89 Turbo to a '83 911 SC? We KNOW the 944 would kill it. (Although look at my previous post, the turbo wouldn't necessarily have killed it by much in this case!)

RPG951S

I'd have to respectfully disagree

The only real way to 'compare' two cars is by price range. Anyone who's looking at an '84 944 is NOT also looking at an '84 SC, unless he's really, really liberal with his/her cash

I said it before, and I'll say it again, the comparrisions are never fair.
I've only seen one semi-'fair' comparission, the (automobile mag?) article of the ($65K+) 911 Turbo vs (39K) 944 Turbo S. With no less than Derek Bell at the wheel, the turbo S was 2 seconds faster at Willow Springs. The TurboS was considered better, faster, and more reliable. The 911 Turbo was more extoic and desirable.

Bringing resale value into is also interesting. Notice, how in the last few Excellence 'market reports', that the turboS has been holding it's own, or even going UP in value? The SC is not.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about 'status' on the street. It's a joke.
I prefer to provoke 'fear' and 'respect' at the track
It seems like people are 'afraid' to say it.
Where it counts, the turboS is a BIG DOG.

Sean

With regard to depreciation, at this point it appears the 944 has depreciated to the max. In other words, values have dropped to the point that...they really can't drop much further!

But in recent years, 951 values have stabilized a bit and may have even risen. You may be able to buy a clean 944 or 951 and, at the very least, suffer little to no depreciation.

I don't know, maybe the same is true of the 911SC. Maybe not.

The 911 appears to be very resilient to depreciation, 'tis true. But so is the 944, since values have already hit rock bottom.

I think that over the coming years, clean 944s will be harder to come by. Well maintained examples will at the very least hold their value, if not appreciate a bit.

924RACR

Raagi, please withhold your criticism until you've actually read the article?

I have the magazine, have subscribed for years. I enjoyed the article greatly. One of the more substantial questions asked was is the 911 of the same year really worth three times as much! It was intended to focus on the used car market, not new cars. Therefore the cars chosen were in part selected as representative of a fairly well taken care of car, and with some expected upgrades typical for the model, like strut bars or turbo tie rods.

And I appreciated that the final conclusion was very much as I feel - to each his own. The 944 is without question bang-for-the-buck, even if not perhaps as much as the 951, and it's a very nice car. All the same, there are those people, not typically ones who own waterpumpers, for whom a good deal of the purchase is image and appearance. While I can't pretend to sympathise or even understand their sentiments, I am at least mature and capable enough to recognize that not every does or should think like me, so I can leave those people to buy the 911's while I stock up on waterpumpers.

Chill, guys. It's a nice article, go read it if you think you might enjoy it. If not, don't.

dave120

[quote]Originally posted by RPG951S:
<strong>I'd have to respectfully disagree

The only real way to 'compare' two cars is by price range. Anyone who's looking at an '84 944 is NOT also looking at an '84 SC, unless he's really, really liberal with his/her cash

I said it before, and I'll say it again, the comparrisions are never fair.
I've only seen one semi-'fair' comparission, the (automobile mag?) article of the ($65K+) 911 Turbo vs (39K) 944 Turbo S. With no less than Derek Bell at the wheel, the turbo S was 2 seconds faster at Willow Springs. The TurboS was considered better, faster, and more reliable. The 911 Turbo was more extoic and desirable.

Bringing resale value into is also interesting. Notice, how in the last few Excellence 'market reports', that the turboS has been holding it's own, or even going UP in value? The SC is not.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about 'status' on the street. It's a joke.
I prefer to provoke 'fear' and 'respect' at the track
It seems like people are 'afraid' to say it.
Where it counts, the turboS is a BIG DOG.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I think you missed what I was trying to say, and what the article was trying to say. By the numbers listed in there, it more or less says "Why buy a 911 for $15k when you get something just as good on the track for $5k?"

They try to justify that price difference by the reasons mentioned above with the whole status thing.

I could take a $5k Honda and make it a lot faster than a 951 for the same money, would you drive the Honda? Probably not, I know I wouldn't.

I KNOW the 951S will kill anything short of a fairly modern 911T stock vs stock. You don't need to remind me of that.