Don't you just hate it when somebody thinks that they know everything there is to know, or at least more than the layman, about a subject, just because they work in a related field?
I've had an arguement with a friend who doesn't know the first thing about Porsches of the 70's and 80's, about the engine of the much maligned 924. As us back roomers know, it is a direct transplant of the VW lt van engine, however as my friend works (selling advertising) for a small specialist motorsports magazine, he thinks he by right knows better than me... "They wouldn't just take the same engine... it'd be a modified version... it's a SIMILAR engine, or BASED ON the van engine but not identical" etc. I repeat the only Porsche this guy could recognise in the street is the 911.
Guy's who's right here? I'm asserting that it is exactly the same engine in both vehicles - the torque used for pulling a van was hoped to equate to enough power to pull the birds with a 'poor mans Porsche' and they hooked it up in the 924 'as is' - am I right or not?
|
|
BTW obviously I know the part was originally an Audi engine, and I believe they used the same on in the Audi 100
|
|
There are differences in the engines used, but not many. If you really want to know ask on the 924/944 board at forums.pelicanparts.com
|
The joy of the internet is that it allows you to know very little. I know very little, but will now sound like an authority thanks to Used Car Buyer, June 2003.
'The engine was modified by Porsche in several ways with larger crankshaft bearings and forged crankshaft...special sump so no seperate oil cooler, larger oil pump and enlarged inlet valves for Europe - also a Bosch K-Jetronic fuel injection system'.
Between 76-85 110,427 were produced. The racing version had 320bhp and had some success at Le Mans.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
I understood it to be a modified VW engine. The LT van engine story is one of those media produced ones that won't go away.
The Porsche 924 was a nice little car that was originally destined to be an Audi, a forerunner of the TT if you like. Then the top man at Audi changed, the new guy said no to the 924. Porsche had been paid handsomely by Audi for developing the car, which meant they had a nice little sports car on their hands for nothing.
They just couldn't resist, so marketed it instead as a Porsche.
|
|
|
BTW I once drove to northern Italy in an LT mini-artic. That engine wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, though I dare say it was very nice when Porsche had done with it.
The owner of the LT didn't like diesels, so we had to go to Italy at 5,500 rpm, 8 mpg, fuel range of less than 200 miles, slowed to a 1st gear crawl on any hill - it was terrible.
I told him, if this was a turbodiesel we'd be romping along up hill and down dale at 3,000 rpm, we'd be doing 15+ mpg and refuelling every 350 miles or so at least. He got the picture.
|
|
Ha! Ha! this all reminds me of when i went with a freind to collect some door handles & locks for his 83 924 in total it came to just under £300 the dearest being the rear as it passes throught he rear glass,anyway as we were struggling to fit the 2 front one's another freind happens along and points out that he has 2 locks for a Lt that would fit . I laughed as my mate was bickering with the smug parts assisant to get his money back ,but no .He said "i'm sorry sir we can't refund on special order parts" ...Phew i did'nt know those old Lt*** i mean 924's could go that quick on the way back.....with the "new" locks tinkling in the back OoopS!
|
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/fallback/coming-soon.jpg)
