Thank God I'm not one of those....

 

This is a cool thread with some very interesting discussion.

334 hp is obviously a very race-focussed build, and if it is really attainable, than one could extrapolate that very driveable 200+ hp motors are possible. At any rate, anything over 100 hp/liter for a N/A motor is impressive.

I've often thought idly that these motors do have some characteristics that lend them good potential for a build. They are fundamentally strong. The one-piece crank cradle is a great feature that must add great rigidity to the lower end, and I remember how amazed I was when I saw (and subsequently confirmed) how little wear there was on those alusil bores. When my motor came apart, I was overall very impressed in its condition (FYI it had spent its life up to now as a daily driver, no racing).

d_roedel, I'm really keen to hear how your build turns out.

 

As you say, no offene but are you talking about the engine that is the sugject of this thread or something else in your head? I believe it's the latter. If so, no problem, but let's just get on the same page.

Do you really think you can get 334 bhp from an 8v 944 engine without really lumpy cams and big ports? I rather doubt it.

The engine that is the subject of this thread is a race engine so wide powerband and a nice idle are not important, only max power in the rev range expected on the track.

 

I'd highly recommend talking with Jon Milledge if you're serious. He's doing development work on the S engine these days and I suspect much of what he finds out should help you greatly. He has cams for your car and with this S engine development program should be able to recommend a header that works.

Does the S2 have an MAF or an AFM? If you have a MAF you should be OK for engine management as it should accomodate reasonable changes in VE OK. If you have an AFM you will likely have to play with engine management since changes in VE will not be accompanied by additional fuel that will be needed.

 

I'm talking of a setup capable of producing the same hp as this engine specified here,if run on race fuel...it might not be identical in every aspect to the engine described in this thread,but if it provides the goods,I don't really care that my engine isn't identical to theirs...I'm not running race fuel on any setup,period,consequently I won't run quite as much as 13:1 CR,or as aggressive ignition settings.

Enlarging the ports barely 3mm more than stock is not what I consider to be "big ports"...not considering the high rpm and hp goal. And I'm not saying the cams won't be brutal...they have to be....but as long as the port isn't excessivly enlarged the low rpm isn't as abysmal as a "normal" race engine's idle. Neither is the midrange.

Then why do we argue over if it has a lumpy idle or not?

 

One thing I'd like to get back to.. as advertised , didn't it say long block no external mods required?? I'm definately not seeing that. With a really nicely tuned intake and exhaust reworked combustion chamber, custom pistons(bumped compression and reworked for efficiency) then match a cam, I could see it.

 

What were the numbers for the Stage 3 motor?

IIRC, his catalog included pages and pages of engines. It's not surprising that he hasn't built all of them (or even a majority of them).

 

http://www.dimebank.com/monster/burst/00483.html

Doesn't sound like Paeco has the best reputation.

 

I had seen that post when doing my own search on their products and came to find out the those were both reposts from many years ago. The guy who got shafted on the alpine engine has been sharing that story for many years and its always popping up. There are a few other bad stories I've seen on the net but I've read alot of good posts that are more recent than the bad ones. The previous owner, Mr. Stringfellow, is from what I understand was the reason for the bad Rep.. They have a new owner and new staff with which I did spend a great deal of time talking to and they seem to know their stuff. Next year I'll be going back with my S2 engine to get worked on. The plan is to lighten the internals, install 106mm pistons, lower the compression, and have an intake manifold fabricated so I can mount a turbo but this another story.

 

Man this is a lot of stuff. We should have somebody ridiculously stupid, like me or Campeck, try and make this engine. Then who will be laughing ahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Also ive read through all of this, and id say Geo has some good points. He knows his shat.

 

Actually, I have to bow to Skunk. He's knows more about this than I. We seem to be arguing about semi-trivia.

In the end, getting power is possible. All it takes is development. Of course, I make that sound easy. It's not. I also sometimes think I should keep my mouth shut about this because in the end I'm building a race car with VERY limiting rules. I'll never build a really powerful street 944. Having a race car is like going to the bank and getting cash to flush down the toilet. By the time I even hit the track I would have been able to buy a very cherry 951 and a whole lot of go-fast goodies.

However, the Porsche engineers are not gods sprinking fairy dust on these engines. There is NO doubt in my mind a 8v NA can be made as powerful as a stock 951 w/o breaking the bank. But, for some reason most folks choose to believe it's impossible. Shoot, I even think 200 bhp is possible on a totally stock bottom end.

How many people here run a Milledge cam? How many people have tried a Stahl header or better yet, tried to develop a header that works better with an improved cam (the stock cam just sucks for trying to make more power). How many people have built a good short runner intake manifold? How many are running a stand-alone engine management system? How many run low mass pulleys or an aluminum flywheel? How many have played around with ceramic coatings to improve output? How many besides Skunk have played around with porting these heads?

Untili someone starts putting all of the above together, there won't be any power to be found.

 

Of course it's possible - Porsche did it with the 944s (regardless of the extra valves, the camshafts are more aggresive that the 8v). The hard part is trying to not compromise too much.

If the 951 didn't exst, we would see some really neat stuff done with these cars. Unfortunately, when most 944 owners want speed, they take the easy route and buy a 951.

 

...and if the usual 944S 16V head is similar to the 968 head,it flows 60-ish % more than a 944/951 8V head,with only a slightly larger port area....that's one of the reasons for it making more power.

 

Yeah, but Skunk - "flow or power"????????

The vertical cross section of the lifter carrier on the "S" head is about 3/4 inch tall. Very weak looking. These heads are known to fail in race conditions on the NA engine with higher spring pressure and revs, etc.

The cam caps also crack and blow apart.It needs a girdle - similar to the bottom end.

This is a 200 HP head, not 334.

The 968 head is MUCH better and stronger.

 

Yeah Tool...flow or power...as in if you win on the flowbench that might lead to your car being an unruly beast that's has no useable power curve. A head flowing less,but with better tuning always makes a better,more useable,power curve...and usually more power than the "ultra-super-mega-flow gigantic ports"...being the "supa Toona" you know this...don't you?

Ok...had to ask...just seen and tested the 968 head,never laid hands on a S-head. Yet.