Porsche Challenge

[Top Gear Girl]

On the Porsche challenge programme, all of the Porsches, 924, 944 and 928 were given power laps by The Stig around the TG test track.

Dose anyone know the lap times for each car?

Thanks

[Firecat]

RH 924 - 1:44
JM 944 - 1:43
JC 928 - 1:45

[Buba]

Which makes them only about 5% faster than a fucked up 106 hp Suzuki...

And I toyed around with the Idea of getting an old Porsche last week... But then my budget would have been 5000 Euros...

Buba

[janstett]

Originally Posted by Buba

Which makes them only about 5% faster than a fucked up 106 hp Suzuki...

And I toyed around with the Idea of getting an old Porsche last week... But then my budget would have been 5000 Euros...

Buba

I have owned a 1986 944 Turbo for the last two years as a track car. Here's my opinion:

(1) Old "fast" Porsches (including 911 turbos, 928s, 951s) are quick but not fast by today's standards -- honestly something like an Altima is as fast. The 951 was considered insane in its day but in top condition (unmodified) it's a 14 second car. Then again, some modern "fast" cars aren't really that fast either (see the Nissan 350Z, which is also a 14 second car).

(2) Old "normal" Porsches (911, 968, 944, 924, 914) are just plain slow, it's all about handling (assuming working order). The average econobox with a halfway decent engine is faster.

(3) If you're going to get one, get one in the best working order possible. Even then you will spend money (like me) to get it in proper working order. Then modify it (Konis, turbo upgrades, etc) and the situation improves. My 20 year old 951 keeps up with everything on the track except the monsters. The only worry is that the car IS 20 years old, something will fail under the stress of a track day, it's a question of what. For that reason I am seriously considring picking up a 2-3 year old Z06 Corvette.

(4) The cars the gang bought were obviously NOT in working order. I would like to see what each model in working order would have done.

[Top Gear Girl]

Originally Posted by Firecat

RH 924 - 1:44
JM 944 - 1:43
JC 928 - 1:45

Still there all faster than the Aston Martin DB5, at 1.46.0. Thats interesting

[Buba]

Originally Posted by janstett

I have owned a 1986 944 Turbo for the last two years as a track car. Here's my opinion:

(1) Old "fast" Porsches (including 911 turbos, 928s, 951s) are quick but not fast by today's standards -- honestly something like an Altima is as fast. The 951 was considered insane in its day but in top condition (unmodified) it's a 14 second car. Then again, some modern "fast" cars aren't really that fast either (see the Nissan 350Z, which is also a 14 second car).

(2) Old "normal" Porsches (911, 968, 944, 924, 914) are just plain slow, it's all about handling (assuming working order). The average econobox with a halfway decent engine is faster.

(3) If you're going to get one, get one in the best working order possible. Even then you will spend money (like me) to get it in proper working order. Then modify it (Konis, turbo upgrades, etc) and the situation improves. My 20 year old 951 keeps up with everything on the track except the monsters. The only worry is that the car IS 20 years old, something will fail under the stress of a track day, it's a question of what. For that reason I am seriously considring picking up a 2-3 year old Z06 Corvette.

(4) The cars the gang bought were obviously NOT in working order. I would like to see what each model in working order would have done.

Thanks for that insight. Appreciate it... I would have thought of a 928... But I guess, I'm destrying my Golf pretty much at the time I'm done with studying and then I should have a bit of money...

Buba

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by Top Gear Girl

Still there all faster than the Aston Martin DB5, at 1.46.0. Thats interesting

And those are also similar to the times celebs get out of the "Reasonably priced car"....go figure....

[Top Gear Girl]

Originally Posted by Buba

I would have thought of a 928... But I guess, I'm destrying my Golf pretty

Well Hampster dosn't agree, he recently brought a 928. You can see it parked along side some of the crew vehciles in the "how many time can we roll a car".

[Leppy]

Even after he saw how unrelieable they were?? Who buys a car without cylinder linings... I mean come on!

[Top Gear Girl]

I've just watched this agian, on the new Top Gear Revved Up DVD. And when you see all three cars together driving though London, the 924 looks the best. (before Richard customised it) May be it's the colour, as the 944 looks a bit flat in white and so does the 928 in dark red. But, the 924 seemed to stand out. Odd as it's supposedly the basic one.

However, Top Gear seemed to prove it was the BEST one. In fact Jeremy said "Hammond's 924 was the star of the show".

How was it the best? Well firstly, as I said, it looked the best. May be just the colour, but still. Then there was the fact that the 924 didn't brake down. Is this because it had a VW engine? A lot of people say, that is a bad point about the 924. But then from what we saw on Top Gear it was more reliable. It did the best MPG. Dispite the fact that the 944 is billed as the better replacement for the 924 it only managed to be 1 secound faster round the Top Gear track. In fact when you look at the power lap times the 924 holds it's own quite well, considering it's 23 years old and the most basic Porsche there ever was, with a VW engine and the cheapest car on the list. It was 2 secounds faster than the Aston Martin DB5. It's only 9 secounds slower than the Ferrari 575, thats not a lot, considering how old, and clapped out the 924 is, when you compare it too a fairly new Ferrari. A Ferrari that cost over £100,000 and what did the 924 cost? £750. I would expect more than a 9 secound difference for £99,250. And the 924 is only 25 secounds slower than a Ferrari Enzo, thats not bad. And it's only 36 secounds slower than the current fastest road car (on the list), the Aston Martin DBR9. I don't think thats bad really for a 23 year old classic, come on thats pretty amazing. And for a £750 thats fantastic.

[marcos_eirik]

The Porsche 928 is an awesome car, a timeless classic. You just have to find the right one that has been cherished and looked well after, with a comlete service history. Unless you are planning a total rebuild of the car anyway... The 928 is also a very good crossing between sportyness and comfort, as lots of the chassis and body is made from aluminium and the gerbox is on the rear axle (Transaxle)

The 928 Jeremy bought was obviously a pile of screws, you don't really get it any worse than that, for £5000 you should be able to get a pretty decent one.

[marcos_eirik]

@ Top Gear Girl; The Top Gear track is very small and tricky, so a high powered supercar doesent really show it's full abilities there. And as it's so small, a difference of 5-6 seconds is rather significant, but mind you the 924 was (sort of) track focused, stiffened, lightened and lowered and on low profile tyres. That definately bought it an advantage over how a completely standard 924 would have been...

When it comes to realiability, the 924 isn't any better than the others. It was cheper in the first place, and therefore it's worth much less now than a 944 or a 928 would have been worth in the same condition as Richard's 924.

[zyran]

I really like the 944. I'm really interested in buying one. I'll consider what you said janstett, thanks a lot.

[Z Draci]

It's interesting that you bring this subject up.

As some of you know, I"m driving around in a 35 year old Datsun 240Z. As with all old cars, they aren't fast by today's standards. It takes a lot of time and money to convert it to more modern technology. Old cars have the strength in that they are lighter and simpler than modern cars. The minimum amount of electronics in an old car make it VERY easy to modify.

I'm in the process of modernising my car right now. I'm installing current suspension as well as swapping in a newer 280ZX turbo engine--2.8 liter straight 6 turbo! As those numbers indicate, it has a HUGE ton of potential. I already swapped in a newer drivetrain with shorter gears. Just doing that made a significant improvement in acceleration.

Even if an old car is slow by today's standards, a little bit of time and money can make it as fast as a modern car. It's a great option if you hold sentimental or nostalic value towards a classic.

Hey, I'm not complaining about the lack of luxury and comfort in my 35 year old Datsun. It weighs only 2300 pounds and soon to have a 2.8 liter straight 6 turbo in there! Just imagine how fast it'll be after that!

[Top Gear Girl]

Originally Posted by Z Draci

It's interesting that you bring this subject up.

As some of you know, I"m driving around in a 35 year old Datsun 240Z. As with all old cars, they aren't fast by today's standards

I love the 240Z, there a great looking car. As for fast by today's standards it depends what you compare them too. For example, the Porsche 924 has a higher BHP and top speed than a Lotus Elise 1.8 Mk2 Conv. A car that would be one of it's compettitors if the 924 was still being made.

[fbc]

Originally Posted by Top Gear Girl

[freakster_991]

^ditto

[Z Draci]

Originally Posted by Top Gear Girl

I love the 240Z, there a great looking car. As for fast by today's standards it depends what you compare them too. For example, the Porsche 924 has a higher BHP and top speed than a Lotus Elise 1.8 Mk2 Conv. A car that would be one of it's compettitors if the 924 was still being made.

Figures like 0-60 acceleration, braking, and handling are really bad in old cars. Take a stock 240Z. It was advertised by Datsun as having a 0-60 time of "under 9 seconds." It also has a SOLID front brake rotor and rear drum brakes. The suspension is a very basic design that gets misaligned as soon as you take it to the track. Top speed on a 240Z is drag limited to about 135mph no matter how much power you have because its aerodynamics are so bad.
But I still love the car!

I'm sure the front engined Porsches of the 80's made huge progress over the design of the 240Z (which was done in the 60's). But I'm sure the same weaknesses still exist to a lesser extent than my car.

Also, I found that you cannot rely on those old factory performance figures when the car was brand new. Those old hp, torque, 0-60 numbers were when the car was brand new. After a few decades of use, those numbers go down significantly. The best thing you can do to a classic is make it run right before you go about modifying it!

[Top Gear Girl]

Originally Posted by Z Draci

you cannot rely on those old factory performance figures when the car was brand new. Those old hp, torque, 0-60 numbers were when the car was brand new. After a few decades of use, those numbers go down significantly. The best thing you can do to a classic is make it run right before you go about modifying it!

True, but it's still fun to quote that an older car has more BHP or Top Speed than so called fast new cars. I got the trick from the man himself Jeremy. I noticed he would sometimes quote a BHP for a car he was testing, then say "and thats more than a (whatever name of car)". Then I realised what he had done. He had just looked though the BHPs in Top Gear Magazine to find a car that had less BHP than the one he was testing. Because, it sounds good. A trick of the trade.

And here it is, the Porsche 924, has a higher BHP and top speed, than a, Lotus Elise. It also has more BHP and faster top speeds than, Caterham Super 7, Fait Punto, Jaguar X-Type, Mazda MX5, MG ZR, MG ZS, MG ZT, MG TF, Mini Cooper, Morgan 4, Peugeot 206 GTi and Subaru Impreza.

Sounds impressive, like the 924 is more powerful than a Lotus, Jaguar and
Impreza.

Porsche 924 2.0i, 125bhp, Top Speed 125mph (Source Retro Car Magazine)

Caterham Super 7 Roadsport SV Conv, 115bhp, Top Speed 112mph
Fait Punto 1.9 JTD, 100bhp, Top Speed 115mph
Honda Civic 1.6i VTEC, 108bhp, Top Speed 116mph
Jaguar X-Type 2.0D Classic, BHP 125, Top Speed 125mph
Lotus Elise 1.8 Mk2 Conv, 120bhp, Top Speed 124mph
Mazda MX5 1.6i conv, 108bhp, Top Speed 119mph
MG ZR 120, 115bhp, Top Speed 115mph
MG ZS 1.8, 115bhp, Top Speed 122mph
MG ZT 1.8, 118bhp, Top Speed 121mph
MG TF 1.8, 114bhp, Top Speed 118mph
Mini Cooper 1.6, 115bhp, Top Speed 125mph
Morgan 4, 114bhp, Top Speed 115mph
Peugeot 206 GTi 1.6, 110bhp, Top Speed 118mph
Subaru Impreza 2.0 GX sport, 124bhp, Top Speed 119mph

(Source BBC Top Gear Magazine New Car Guide)

[Z Draci]

I see what you mean though. I can't wait to see what my power to weight ratio will be after I finish the turbo swap into my 240Z! Then I can really play around with numbers like Jeremy.

Jeremy sometimes makes numbers up! Do you remember him praising the Ferrari F40 in the last series? (The one with all the supercars in one episode)
Most of the numbers he gave were a little twisted. The F40's weight isn't a passenger away from an Elise. It doesn't sprint from 0-60 faster than a McLaren F1. Where was he getting these figures from?