'87 Porsche 924s
- Thread starter jvandyke
- Start date
quattrorules
Michael. 84X
I've always been tempted by these.
It seem that they don't have any value, even for a good one, so it's not worth fixing up a beat one. Mechanical parts are reasonable, because they're not really Porsche, but the rest of the car is all Porsche, and priced accordingly.
It seem that they don't have any value, even for a good one, so it's not worth fixing up a beat one. Mechanical parts are reasonable, because they're not really Porsche, but the rest of the car is all Porsche, and priced accordingly.
Sandgroper
True Classic
Ahh the first [for them] front inline 4 engine/rear transmission layout, that Porsche fans hated. 87 will be one of the last [with the detuned 944 2.5] as it ceased production in 88? Such a missed opportunity for VW, and an underrated car. I have a soft spot for this little underdog, just as the little Peugeot 205 did for Peugeot, buying back their design of the 924 helped to take Porsche out of financial ruin. Without it there may be no Porsche as we know it today. I remember 'back in the day' the saying the 924 was for those who always wanted a Porsche, but didn't know how to drive a 911! Heck I preferred the near neutral handling of the 924 over the 914 it replaced. As it wouldn't try and kill you as the 911/914 would.
If it’s the later 5-speed gearbox it may be the robust, but expensive due to some 915 internal parts, Audi 016 five-speed transmission IIRC that was in the 944, you can tell as it has the inverted 'German' gear-shift pattern. I like to poke fun at snob cravat wearing Porsche owners of a 944 who poo poo the 'inferior' 924 as the automatic in a 944 was actually from VW. The early 944 was largely based on the 924 Turbo so I never understood the love/hate thing between the two models. The 944 was supposed to replace the 924 in North America but they brought it back again, after a short absence. So they can't have been that terrible.
The somewhat problematic 944 engine is essentially half of the 928's V8 engine, prone #2 bearing failure also carried over and as a consequence is a completely different design from the 2.0 924 and shares no common components. Where the 944 engine changes are vast and convoluted during their 10 year run the 924 is essentially either the 2.0 Audi 100 cast iron or the 2.5 liter Porsche 944 alloy block, I say Audi as, whilst they were sold in Europe in VW dealerships, they were not made by VW but at Neckarsulm by Audi, in the old NSU factory. The 'specials like the GT were made in Stuttgart but both factories had Porsche management and quality assurance engineers. The later 1980's 924s with the 944's 2.5 litre engine were actually faster than the 944 because of it's sleeker body. It's only 10 or so more HP in the 944 but that extra power came from maps & higher compression. I seriously can't believe anyone would know the seat of the pants difference.
The ever sought after poster child 944 Turbo was powerful and had too much performance, for some. Underneath it's similar to the unloved 924 so you can have most of the fun without the pain in the wallet. Not too sure but I think you mean ‘under powered’ Squid, the cast iron block they also used in light trucks. If you had the cast block you could've 'boosted it' as the ["931"] Turbo 924 bottom end was essentially an untouched early NA 924, standard it had forged rod/ cross-drilled crank so well strong enough. The 2.5 is still a fairly tough motor, I'd drop the sump and plastigauge the bottom end, #2 rod to be sure, at least refresh the rod bearings. For the 924S you'll need both the 924 and the 944 manuals.
It is simply a fun car to drive. Bushes in the rear suspension are the first place I'd start, to try and restore that beautiful handling. By now the rubber bushings in the torsion carrier may be toast, delrin I have seen used. IIRC both the S and the 944 were interference engines, so unilke the 924 NA it will bend valves, do the cam belt ASAP - an easy change from memory. But don't cheat, do both belts, both tensioners n' rollers, if the seals are iffy do them too, waterpump if it doesn't look new, then you've done the front end service. Basically the 2.5 NA motor doesn't have a lot of effective bolt-ons, the 2.0 NA can take some mods like supercharger setups turbo, ecu, EFI, intercooler. With the 2.5 it's possible but it takes serious $$$. I wouldn't bother and enjoy the superb handling of the S.
Of ALL the Porches I have two favourites, the 928S2 and 924 Carrera GTs. With it's 49/51 weight distribution the 924 handles well, is very reliable, has racing pedigree, and is one of the cheapest Porsches to maintain. Porsche now makes more SUVs than it does Sports cars, perhaps that could be a reason for the 924's growing recognition as an essential, fundamental model in Porsche's history. When new it was disliked because of what it wasn’t; now it is appreciated and enjoyed because of what it is. Make that one a keeper as it looks in pretty good condition, sadly I have great doubts it will ever appreciate greatly. To me that is a crime as a 924S is a pretty "rare" Porsche - with a 2-year production run (? 3 years) - that hasn't dawned on collectors yet since it hadn't gained the love it deserved in the past. So many were parted out due to the cost of labour over versus market value. The market is fickle like that but you just never know, if only we all had 20/20 hindsight.
Like the X 1/9 a 924 seat sits very low to the ground so first timers often remark they feel like they're sitting ON the road, so you'll fall in love if you love your X 1/9. Challenge will be will it stay a toofah or is the lure of the widebody going to suck you in? All in all a good pick there, the S is more refined than the angry 944 IMHO. The Young fella looks pretty chuffed, add back the 'as new' handling before adding any more horsepower. If it was me I'd be adding more suspension and less weight like Colin Chapman extolled. Alloy parts off the other models can be made to fit. Cheap upgrde for a S toofah to 4 pot Brembo brakes is aquire Four Brembos, Steering Knuckles, Strut Assemblies from an 1986 951 candidate, among others.
Best of luck
Sandy
If it’s the later 5-speed gearbox it may be the robust, but expensive due to some 915 internal parts, Audi 016 five-speed transmission IIRC that was in the 944, you can tell as it has the inverted 'German' gear-shift pattern. I like to poke fun at snob cravat wearing Porsche owners of a 944 who poo poo the 'inferior' 924 as the automatic in a 944 was actually from VW. The early 944 was largely based on the 924 Turbo so I never understood the love/hate thing between the two models. The 944 was supposed to replace the 924 in North America but they brought it back again, after a short absence. So they can't have been that terrible.
The somewhat problematic 944 engine is essentially half of the 928's V8 engine, prone #2 bearing failure also carried over and as a consequence is a completely different design from the 2.0 924 and shares no common components. Where the 944 engine changes are vast and convoluted during their 10 year run the 924 is essentially either the 2.0 Audi 100 cast iron or the 2.5 liter Porsche 944 alloy block, I say Audi as, whilst they were sold in Europe in VW dealerships, they were not made by VW but at Neckarsulm by Audi, in the old NSU factory. The 'specials like the GT were made in Stuttgart but both factories had Porsche management and quality assurance engineers. The later 1980's 924s with the 944's 2.5 litre engine were actually faster than the 944 because of it's sleeker body. It's only 10 or so more HP in the 944 but that extra power came from maps & higher compression. I seriously can't believe anyone would know the seat of the pants difference.
The ever sought after poster child 944 Turbo was powerful and had too much performance, for some. Underneath it's similar to the unloved 924 so you can have most of the fun without the pain in the wallet. Not too sure but I think you mean ‘under powered’ Squid, the cast iron block they also used in light trucks. If you had the cast block you could've 'boosted it' as the ["931"] Turbo 924 bottom end was essentially an untouched early NA 924, standard it had forged rod/ cross-drilled crank so well strong enough. The 2.5 is still a fairly tough motor, I'd drop the sump and plastigauge the bottom end, #2 rod to be sure, at least refresh the rod bearings. For the 924S you'll need both the 924 and the 944 manuals.
It is simply a fun car to drive. Bushes in the rear suspension are the first place I'd start, to try and restore that beautiful handling. By now the rubber bushings in the torsion carrier may be toast, delrin I have seen used. IIRC both the S and the 944 were interference engines, so unilke the 924 NA it will bend valves, do the cam belt ASAP - an easy change from memory. But don't cheat, do both belts, both tensioners n' rollers, if the seals are iffy do them too, waterpump if it doesn't look new, then you've done the front end service. Basically the 2.5 NA motor doesn't have a lot of effective bolt-ons, the 2.0 NA can take some mods like supercharger setups turbo, ecu, EFI, intercooler. With the 2.5 it's possible but it takes serious $$$. I wouldn't bother and enjoy the superb handling of the S.
Of ALL the Porches I have two favourites, the 928S2 and 924 Carrera GTs. With it's 49/51 weight distribution the 924 handles well, is very reliable, has racing pedigree, and is one of the cheapest Porsches to maintain. Porsche now makes more SUVs than it does Sports cars, perhaps that could be a reason for the 924's growing recognition as an essential, fundamental model in Porsche's history. When new it was disliked because of what it wasn’t; now it is appreciated and enjoyed because of what it is. Make that one a keeper as it looks in pretty good condition, sadly I have great doubts it will ever appreciate greatly. To me that is a crime as a 924S is a pretty "rare" Porsche - with a 2-year production run (? 3 years) - that hasn't dawned on collectors yet since it hadn't gained the love it deserved in the past. So many were parted out due to the cost of labour over versus market value. The market is fickle like that but you just never know, if only we all had 20/20 hindsight.
Like the X 1/9 a 924 seat sits very low to the ground so first timers often remark they feel like they're sitting ON the road, so you'll fall in love if you love your X 1/9. Challenge will be will it stay a toofah or is the lure of the widebody going to suck you in? All in all a good pick there, the S is more refined than the angry 944 IMHO. The Young fella looks pretty chuffed, add back the 'as new' handling before adding any more horsepower. If it was me I'd be adding more suspension and less weight like Colin Chapman extolled. Alloy parts off the other models can be made to fit. Cheap upgrde for a S toofah to 4 pot Brembo brakes is aquire Four Brembos, Steering Knuckles, Strut Assemblies from an 1986 951 candidate, among others.
Best of luck
Sandy
jvandyke
True Classic
Thanks for that write up.
Running well and stopping well then looking good, that's the process.
Can't wait to get back home and start in on it. (we're on vacation, where I'm spending my time working on my dad's '63 Lemans Convertible, 326, so far I've managed to trouble shoot his no turn signal issue and repair the switch so they self cancel again. Tomorrow we'll go after the voltage regulator.:hammer::hammer:
Running well and stopping well then looking good, that's the process.
Can't wait to get back home and start in on it. (we're on vacation, where I'm spending my time working on my dad's '63 Lemans Convertible, 326, so far I've managed to trouble shoot his no turn signal issue and repair the switch so they self cancel again. Tomorrow we'll go after the voltage regulator.:hammer::hammer:
Sandgroper
True Classic
No worries
Sorry I don't check in often as Net access a problem, hope all went will on your 'working holiday'. At first I thought you meant 356 Cab, AKA Speedster, as we were talking Porsches so I had to look that up:read::read: as I'm not that good with my knowledge of American iron.
"1963 Pontiac LeMans with the 326 V-8?" Facinating rear-mounted transaxle with a big V8. Looks like a nice summer cruiser. Just the sort of obscure, quirky old iron that might have a slight chance to draw me into putting old American iron in the garage. I skimmed something about the abandonded alloy Buick V8 - the one that Rover in the UK bought the rights to?
Really nice to hear that you spend time with your dad, so many sons don't value their pa.
[where's our Papa Tony gone?]
Do take a look at the counter ballance and timing belts on the 924S, cheap insurance.
Keep the shiny side up
Warm regards
Sandy
Sorry I don't check in often as Net access a problem, hope all went will on your 'working holiday'. At first I thought you meant 356 Cab, AKA Speedster, as we were talking Porsches so I had to look that up:read::read: as I'm not that good with my knowledge of American iron.
"1963 Pontiac LeMans with the 326 V-8?" Facinating rear-mounted transaxle with a big V8. Looks like a nice summer cruiser. Just the sort of obscure, quirky old iron that might have a slight chance to draw me into putting old American iron in the garage. I skimmed something about the abandonded alloy Buick V8 - the one that Rover in the UK bought the rights to?
Really nice to hear that you spend time with your dad, so many sons don't value their pa.
[where's our Papa Tony gone?]
Do take a look at the counter ballance and timing belts on the 924S, cheap insurance.
Keep the shiny side up
Warm regards
Sandy
jvandyke
True Classic
Yes, and I could use some advice.
Engine is seized.
Pulled starter in the hope that it was frozen and the bendix was holding up the flywheel.
Still can't turn crank via breaker bar on crank pulley.
removed accessory belts and timing belt cover and the belts "look" fine.
Not broken, no stripped teeth, not sure what the tension is supposed to be (although there is a $600 Porsche special tool to tell me.mg
I can move the cam a little back and forth until either the timing belt stops it or the valves smashed into the pistons does!
So I ordered up a cheap boriscope in the hope I can peer into the cylinders for some info.
I can't verify engine timing since the only way that I know of to check that is via the flywheel and of course, that doesn't move, maybe the marks for the balancer can tell you that, I don't know.
I'd love to know if cam and crank are still in sync and thus avoid pulling the head but will tear down if we need to.
So we're stalled at the moment wondering what to do.
The oil is clean and full which either means someone changed the oil like a good dooby or a bad dooby changed it after it seized hoping that fresh oil would fix it.
PO says "ran when parked" but well, sellers are sellers.
I did put a bunch of PB Blaster down the spark plug holes thinking maybe it just rusted in the bores but if it really ran a year ago, was not opened up, then that is virtually impossible, I would think.
So I don't know.
Another factor was the starter, after I pulled it I tested it and then had it tested, it works (a bit poorly) but the front bushing is gone (if indeed it's supposed to have one) and the nose hole is noticeably wallowed out. Maybe the bushing failed, fell apart and bits of it are jamming the flywheel, long shot I know.
Video of starter
http://vid1148.photobucket.com/albums/o578/javandyke1/924s/IMG_0440_zpsps8qsi9q.mp4
Pic of starter nose.
Looks like part #21 is MIA
Pic of belts; the timing belt is the deepest in there, one sided teeth
Engine is seized.
Pulled starter in the hope that it was frozen and the bendix was holding up the flywheel.
Still can't turn crank via breaker bar on crank pulley.
removed accessory belts and timing belt cover and the belts "look" fine.
Not broken, no stripped teeth, not sure what the tension is supposed to be (although there is a $600 Porsche special tool to tell me.
mgI can move the cam a little back and forth until either the timing belt stops it or the valves smashed into the pistons does!
So I ordered up a cheap boriscope in the hope I can peer into the cylinders for some info.
I can't verify engine timing since the only way that I know of to check that is via the flywheel and of course, that doesn't move, maybe the marks for the balancer can tell you that, I don't know.
I'd love to know if cam and crank are still in sync and thus avoid pulling the head but will tear down if we need to.
So we're stalled at the moment wondering what to do.
The oil is clean and full which either means someone changed the oil like a good dooby or a bad dooby changed it after it seized hoping that fresh oil would fix it.
PO says "ran when parked" but well, sellers are sellers.
I did put a bunch of PB Blaster down the spark plug holes thinking maybe it just rusted in the bores but if it really ran a year ago, was not opened up, then that is virtually impossible, I would think.
So I don't know.
Another factor was the starter, after I pulled it I tested it and then had it tested, it works (a bit poorly) but the front bushing is gone (if indeed it's supposed to have one) and the nose hole is noticeably wallowed out. Maybe the bushing failed, fell apart and bits of it are jamming the flywheel, long shot I know.
Video of starter
http://vid1148.photobucket.com/albums/o578/javandyke1/924s/IMG_0440_zpsps8qsi9q.mp4
Pic of starter nose.
Looks like part #21 is MIA
Pic of belts; the timing belt is the deepest in there, one sided teeth
Last edited:
jvandyke
True Classic
It is looking more likely that the belt slipped a tooth(teeth) and smashed valves, just because I can't think of any other reason for the crank to be immobile. I think I'll wait on the scope to get here peek in the bores in the meantime we'll start in on the interior, I don't want to tear down more than I have to. No rush. We will make it cool for him, yes we will! :guns::guns::guns:
Last edited:
Rod Midkiff
True Classic
even if the valve/piston have meet by crash. you should still be able to turn the motor the other way (away) from the crashed valve.
If the belts look reasonable. I would think a valve bend is unlikely.
Now I did see on a boat once where the out drive seized up (boats version of a transmission).
If this is a manual have someone hold the clutch peddle and try again.
If it's an auto chances are slim that it's is the trans (could happen) but typically their is nothing strong enough in an auto to dead stop a motor. usually what ever tried to stop the motor breaks and fly's apart allowing the motor to move again.
Sounds like you are on the best track. Oil that thing down and wait. If you are going to stick a camera in their be carefull how much oil you put in (and/or watch carefully when you are putting the camera into the oil).
Good luck!!
If the belts look reasonable. I would think a valve bend is unlikely.
Now I did see on a boat once where the out drive seized up (boats version of a transmission).
If this is a manual have someone hold the clutch peddle and try again.
If it's an auto chances are slim that it's is the trans (could happen) but typically their is nothing strong enough in an auto to dead stop a motor. usually what ever tried to stop the motor breaks and fly's apart allowing the motor to move again.
Sounds like you are on the best track. Oil that thing down and wait. If you are going to stick a camera in their be carefull how much oil you put in (and/or watch carefully when you are putting the camera into the oil).
Good luck!!