Learn me Porsche 924.

1978 to be specific.

So far I've gleaned that they had either (95-110 hp) 2.0 or 2.5 engines and 3- speed autos or 4-speed gearboxes. Oh and 48/52 front/rear weight distribution.

No, a 924 does not have a 2.5. All 924 had the Audi 2.0 four cylinder. Awful awful engine.

The 924S had a detuned 2.5 from the 944. By far the better car of the two.

Stay as far away from a standard 924 as possible.

The 924 turbo is tons of fun, but the parts are getting expensive slash impossible to find.

Oh, the autos, don't walk away. RUN away.

That 3 speed auto is GARBAGE, and a swap is more money than it's worth.

Thank you, I shall run.

I've been eyeballing that silver 924 that I posted and it began to infect me with the "I wants".

Supposedly a Audi 5-cylinder will bolt up the transmission.

A 1978 924 had a 2.0 liter making 110 HP and a four-speed manual or three-speed auto. Fun with the manual but not fast. Auto, yeah, run don't walk away.

David

The 924 was my starter car and it was great first car. You get the FR configuration, the wrenching experience, and the fact that it has just enough power to let you do stupid things but not enough to get you into real trouble. All my problems were maintenance, rust, and fuse box related.

I have always had a soft spot for these cars. Yes, they are slow, they use Audi engines, and they are slow. But from what I gather, they are very cheap to maintain.

All the info you could possibly want.

http://www.924.org/contents.htm

I don't know about other parts of the country, but after living here for 17 years I've never seen a 924 (excluding 931 and 924S's) in anything other than lawn ornament condition. They all seemed to have vanished before I got here. Do they actually exist in usable condition over here any more or are they the automotive equivalent of the offspring of a unicorn and a basilisk?

I actually love the simple pure shape of the 924, particularly in Euro form without those ghastly round reflectors front and rear. The thought of a nice light car makes me quiver.

There was a guy back in the 70's down the road from my parents with a then new silver 924, poor guy had to wipe our hand and nose prints off the windows daily I think!

I'd investigate if you can get the engine up to European spec cheap - the Euro ones aren't fast either but they've got a lot more power than the US spec ones and it does make a difference.

I'd still like to own an 924S at some point but they're not that easy to find as there aren't that many around. IIRC you should be able to get them to 944 spec (IIRC the difference is just in the engine management), which makes it a faster car than a 2.5L 944.

BoxheadTim wrote: I'd still like to own an 924S at some point but they're not that easy to find as there aren't that many around. IIRC you should be able to get them to 944 spec (IIRC the difference is just in the engine management), which makes it a faster car than a 2.5L 944.

88 924's is the same spec as the 88 944 but lighter.

Adrian,

They are mythical beasts. I'm hoping to go look at one this weekend. Will report back if it 'exists', and if so, what form it has taken (drivable car or planter).

It seems that by the late 80's, most of them had turned to junk around here. I think that they just fell by the wayside because even the early 944s were so much better.

I always thought that the 924S was a cool car, but aren't we supposed to love box flares around here? If I owned one, I'd be tempted to add 944 front fenders, 924 Turbo front grill panel, 924 Carrera rear flares, and wider wheels.

Unbelievably, I saw two kids driving around in a 924 Turbo with what looked like original paint last week.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

BoxheadTim wrote: I'd still like to own an 924S at some point but they're not that easy to find as there aren't that many around. IIRC you should be able to get them to 944 spec (IIRC the difference is just in the engine management), which makes it a faster car than a 2.5L 944.

88 924's is the same spec as the 88 944 but lighter.

Not true. 88 944 got the 2.7 liter. 88 924S stuck with the old 2.5. (oddly enough, both were rated at 160 horsepower...Porsche did tend to undervalue their power numbers.)

Woody wrote: It seems that by the late 80's, most of them had turned to junk around here. I think that they just fell by the wayside because even the early 944s were so much better. I always thought that the 924S was a cool car, but aren't we supposed to love box flares around here? If I owned one, I'd be tempted to add 944 front fenders, 924 Turbo front grill panel, 924 Carrera rear flares, and wider wheels. Unbelievably, I saw two kids driving around in a 924 Turbo with what looked like original paint last week.

Yes. 924S with those visual mods would be awesome. Even more so with a 951 swap.

http://www.944-20v.nl/

That is all.

Maroon92 wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

BoxheadTim wrote: I'd still like to own an 924S at some point but they're not that easy to find as there aren't that many around. IIRC you should be able to get them to 944 spec (IIRC the difference is just in the engine management), which makes it a faster car than a 2.5L 944.

88 924's is the same spec as the 88 944 but lighter.

Not true. 88 944 got the 2.7 liter. 88 924S stuck with the old 2.5. (oddly enough, both were rated at 160 horsepower...Porsche did tend to undervalue their power numbers.)

Not true right back at ya! The 88 944 and 924S got the same engine. It was the 89 944 that got the 2.7

m4ff3w that car is sweet.

Maroon92 wrote: Oh, the autos, don't walk away. RUN away. That 3 speed auto is GARBAGE, and a swap is more money than it's worth.

You're information is so wrong, its funny.

Auto is a VW sourced unit and can be quite stout. A gentleman in Australia has one built with a supercharger and some common auto modifications to make a pretty decently quick car. I wouldn't buy one though as I don't think the Auto is a good combo with that motor (unless you're planning on boosting the crap out of it)

The engine was originally designed by Mercedes for Audi and is the basis of the later 5-cylinder motors. It is beyond stout. The bottom end was used in diesel applications. It isn't very powerful, thanks to Porsche's work to hamstring the cylinder head to force it to be slower than the base 911 at the time.

5-cylinder motors are almost a bolt-in (motor mounts need to be moved and only the cross-flow motors will clear the strut tower) Biggest issue is the 924 N/A used a non-common clutch spline, while the 924 Turbo and 944 used a more common Ford and Chrysler compatible clutch spline.

Chassis is essentially the same as the 944 (mostly off the shelf Rabbit and Beetle/911 parts combined creatively) Most of the improvements from the later 944's can be bolted onto the 924 to make an already good handling car, better.

CIS system is often neglected or hacked by morons, luckily CIS is used by so many cars that repair isn't bad if you can read and follow directions. Electrical ground issues tend to cause the majority of strange problems combined with old fuel sitting in the fuel system gumming it all up. EFI isn't a hard conversion either (cylinder head spacing is the same as Ford and Chrysler 4-cylinders, so fuel rails and injectors aren't hard to come by).

4-speed transaxle was Audi sourced and based on the one used in the Audi cars (including the sloppy shifter issue that plagues the later 944). It can be updated to the later Audi 5-speed used in later 924's and 944's by bolting in the 5-speed and appropriate shift lever. Just be aware of the spline count changes, so you don't get caught out.

Interior was carried over to the 924S and first years of the 944. Dashboards all crack in the middle. Seats are interchangeable with other Porsches. Early 924 is the lightest chassis available. Later 924S and 944 had more power and more features added. Early 924's only were galvanized up to the middle of the car. 79 and later were galvanized in their entirety, so be careful if you need to do any metal repairs.

To give you an example of what a 924 could grow into:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/2680466629.html

They paid way too much for fiberglass copies of factory 931 and 951 parts, but the effect is pretty cool. Add in a 20-valve turbo motor and go hunt some unsuspecting folks :)

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Maroon92 wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

BoxheadTim wrote: I'd still like to own an 924S at some point but they're not that easy to find as there aren't that many around. IIRC you should be able to get them to 944 spec (IIRC the difference is just in the engine management), which makes it a faster car than a 2.5L 944.

88 924's is the same spec as the 88 944 but lighter.

Not true. 88 944 got the 2.7 liter. 88 924S stuck with the old 2.5. (oddly enough, both were rated at 160 horsepower...Porsche did tend to undervalue their power numbers.)

Not true right back at ya! The 88 944 and 924S got the same engine. It was the 89 944 that got the 2.7

Wrong again. 89 was the first S2, and all S2s had 3 liter DOHCs.

turboswede wrote:

Maroon92 wrote: Oh, the autos, don't walk away. RUN away. That 3 speed auto is GARBAGE, and a swap is more money than it's worth.

You're information is so wrong, its funny. Auto is a VW sourced unit and can be quite stout. A gentleman in Australia has one built with a supercharger and some common auto modifications to make a pretty decently quick car. I wouldn't buy one though as I don't think the Auto is a good combo with that motor (unless you're planning on boosting the crap out of it)

I didn't mean that it couldn't handle power, just that autos are hunks of crap to begin with. That 3 speed is a power robbing, slow shifting, mismatched piece of GARBAGE.

Sure, it's garbage that will last a long time. I agree with you there.

turboswede wrote: 5-cylinder motors are almost a bolt-in (motor mounts need to be moved and only the cross-flow motors will clear the strut tower) Biggest issue is the 924 N/A used a non-common clutch spline, while the 924 Turbo and 944 used a more common Ford and Chrysler compatible clutch spline.

Two questions. Which motors are cross flow? And is there a way around the clutch spline problem?

Maroon92 wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Maroon92 wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

BoxheadTim wrote: I'd still like to own an 924S at some point but they're not that easy to find as there aren't that many around. IIRC you should be able to get them to 944 spec (IIRC the difference is just in the engine management), which makes it a faster car than a 2.5L 944.

Nope, I'm right, in 89 you could get the 2.7 8V 944, the 3.0L 16V 944S2 and the turbo 88 924's is the same spec as the 88 944 but lighter.

Not true. 88 944 got the 2.7 liter. 88 924S stuck with the old 2.5. (oddly enough, both were rated at 160 horsepower...Porsche did tend to undervalue their power numbers.)

Not true right back at ya! The 88 944 and 924S got the same engine. It was the 89 944 that got the 2.7

Wrong again. 89 was the first S2, and all S2s had 3 liter DOHCs.

Wrong. In 89 you could get the 2.7L 8V 944, the 3.0L 16V 944S2 and the Turbo, three different models

89 2.7L 8V 944 for sale http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1989-porsche-944-very-rare-year-californial-car-clean-tittle-no-reserve-/150688340943?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2315b99bcf#ht_500wt_1173

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

That person should have asked someone else to write their ad.

Tittle...