600hp 951
01-23-2003, 09:46 PM
#31
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Bryans951:
<strong>April 2003</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Grr! Barnes & Noble @ Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco had the February 2003 issue.
Has anyone picked up the April 2003 issue off of a newstand?
<strong>April 2003</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Grr! Barnes & Noble @ Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco had the February 2003 issue.
Has anyone picked up the April 2003 issue off of a newstand?
01-23-2003, 09:54 PM
#32
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> Has anyone picked up the April 2003 issue off of a newstand?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Feb. was all I could find also <img border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" title="" src="graemlins/cussing.gif" />
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Feb. was all I could find also <img border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" title="" src="graemlins/cussing.gif" />
01-23-2003, 10:06 PM
#33
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A suburb of Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
3 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I have seen the car. It was at the club race in hallet. It sprung an oil leak and broke down. Cool car but it has some reliability issues still. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">600hp + Reliability issues.....why does this not surprise me?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">The Windows beta software for the M800 seems very nice.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Milledge is a Motec authorized dealer.....hmmmm
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">The Windows beta software for the M800 seems very nice.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Milledge is a Motec authorized dealer.....hmmmm
01-23-2003, 11:24 PM
#34
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by D. Autry
idn't he sleeve the block to reduce bore??
Don't know anything about Norwood so I don't know what he did with the stroke but in my ignorance I'm only assuming they sleeved the original 104mm bore to something smaller for added strength.
Am I correct that he's dropped it from a 3.0L to a 2.6L??
Here's the million dollar question: Would the walls on a 968 designated block be thicker than an original 2.5 block bored to 104? Or is the 968 block simply a bored 2.5? If the walls of the actual 968 blocks were manufactured to be thicker than just a bored 2.5 then sleeving down to something like a 101mm would make mucho grande walls!!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I didn't understand the 2.6 thing either when I quickly read over this earlier, but it sounds like that's what it is- a destroked 2.6- that would give thicker walls- should be ~7mm thicker (than stock 968 which is 104mm, so now ~97mm) from what I understand- and would make the engine much closer to square- that sounds pretty wild- the stock 951 has a 100mm X 78.9 & the 968 is 104mm X 87.9 (I think that's right), so this engine should be ~97mm X 87.9 = 2599cc- that's assuming he used a stock 968 crank & didn't do something custom. Anyway, it sounds pretty wild- the extra TQ of the extra disp, especially the stroke, plus the extra compression @ 24psi, plus God only knows what else... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />
And yes, the 968 had a different block- I'm not sure if the walls weere actually thicker than those of the 2.5, but they are thicker than a 2.5 would be if it were bored out to make a 3.0 out of it. Someone who knows, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that both the 951 & 968 had ~12mm of wall thickness. So, if you bored the 100mm to 106mm, like John A. you would be taking almost HALF the wall thickness away- that's why he uses sleeves- sleeves also have the advantage of being able to replace them if you score the walls- pull them out & put new ones back in- of course, there are debates about specific metals, pistons, etc- John uses Chromoly sleeves (Rolls Royce)- isn't that right John? While other's have used steel & even iron I think. Anyway, the blocks are different b/t the 951 & 968...
Someone remarked on the reliability issue as if problems were expected- well, maybe so, to a point- when you're pushing the envelope that far, things will happen, but don't forget- Norwood built at least one of these engines to over 1000HP over 5yrs ago... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
idn't he sleeve the block to reduce bore??Don't know anything about Norwood so I don't know what he did with the stroke but in my ignorance I'm only assuming they sleeved the original 104mm bore to something smaller for added strength.
Am I correct that he's dropped it from a 3.0L to a 2.6L??
Here's the million dollar question: Would the walls on a 968 designated block be thicker than an original 2.5 block bored to 104? Or is the 968 block simply a bored 2.5? If the walls of the actual 968 blocks were manufactured to be thicker than just a bored 2.5 then sleeving down to something like a 101mm would make mucho grande walls!!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I didn't understand the 2.6 thing either when I quickly read over this earlier, but it sounds like that's what it is- a destroked 2.6- that would give thicker walls- should be ~7mm thicker (than stock 968 which is 104mm, so now ~97mm) from what I understand- and would make the engine much closer to square- that sounds pretty wild- the stock 951 has a 100mm X 78.9 & the 968 is 104mm X 87.9 (I think that's right), so this engine should be ~97mm X 87.9 = 2599cc- that's assuming he used a stock 968 crank & didn't do something custom. Anyway, it sounds pretty wild- the extra TQ of the extra disp, especially the stroke, plus the extra compression @ 24psi, plus God only knows what else... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />
And yes, the 968 had a different block- I'm not sure if the walls weere actually thicker than those of the 2.5, but they are thicker than a 2.5 would be if it were bored out to make a 3.0 out of it. Someone who knows, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that both the 951 & 968 had ~12mm of wall thickness. So, if you bored the 100mm to 106mm, like John A. you would be taking almost HALF the wall thickness away- that's why he uses sleeves- sleeves also have the advantage of being able to replace them if you score the walls- pull them out & put new ones back in- of course, there are debates about specific metals, pistons, etc- John uses Chromoly sleeves (Rolls Royce)- isn't that right John? While other's have used steel & even iron I think. Anyway, the blocks are different b/t the 951 & 968...
Someone remarked on the reliability issue as if problems were expected- well, maybe so, to a point- when you're pushing the envelope that far, things will happen, but don't forget- Norwood built at least one of these engines to over 1000HP over 5yrs ago... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
01-23-2003, 11:29 PM
#36
Rennlist Member
There used to be a guy who showed up at MidOhio every summer with one of the wildest 944 turbos I have ever seen. Individual throttle bodies etc. He had 2 dedicated mechanics working on the car each day. When it ran it was awesome, when it ran. I hate to think of his cost per lap.
With enough dollars you can work out any problem. Thank God mine are small.
Alan
With enough dollars you can work out any problem. Thank God mine are small.
Alan
01-23-2003, 11:59 PM
#37
Nordschleife Master
sure, but what did he have for dampers? .... I bet he didn't have a 993 5 link gafted on under there <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
01-24-2003, 01:31 AM
#39
Race Director
Robby, you should go be an engineer for an F1 team somewhere, you're way too analytical for the restaurant biz!
Ok, here's a picture of the 951 vs. 968 block:
<img src="http://www.gururacing.net/ImagesMisc/Blocks-951vs968Blocks.jpg" alt=" - " />
As you can see, the 968 cylinders are siamesed together for rigidity (at least longitudinally). Both the cylinders are conical and gets thicker at the bottom. The 951 cylinders are 9mm thick at the top while the 968 is about 8mm. But don't let that fool you.
What is not obvious is the depth of the water-jacket. The 968's are only about 1/2 as deep as the 951. This means the height of the 968's exposed cylinders is 1/2 as tall as the 951, making for a much, much more rigid assembly than the 951's. Also note the thicker webbing on the outside of the block as well. Porsche did all these reinforcements in going to a non-turbo car as well, so I suspect they knew something was up with the 951's block that needed some extra help.
Outside of switching to a 968 block, you can replicate those same steps yourself like this guy: <a href="http://www.928sg.com/block.htm" target="_blank">http://www.928sg.com/block.htm</a> . Grouting the block to raise the floor and shortening the exposed height of the cylinder is an age-old hot-rodding trick. Welding in a block-brace is a little extreme. Luckily, we'll be coming out with a press-fit, pound-in-with-a-mallet brace that'll fit the open deck on the 944/951 blocks soon. We don't have to be jealous of the Honda boys anymore (they've had that mod for years!).
I suspect the reason Norwood de-bored the cylinders on that particular car was for increased flow and higher-revs. By making each cylinder suck in 13% less volume per stroke, but having the same head and valves, makes it that much easier for the engine to breath. So he can rev it up 13% higher for the same volume of flow through the head. Simple way to boost the power-output (at the sacrifice of peak torque).
One of my favorite Norwood stories had to do with a certain dyno-session where a turbocharged Viper was trailered in with its own life-support crew. They managed to get something like 800rwhp. Then Norwood pulls in off the street by himself with his twin-turbo Testarossa . Gets on the dyno and lays down well over 1100rwhp !!! Then he backs out and takes off down the street! heh, heh... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Ok, here's a picture of the 951 vs. 968 block:
<img src="http://www.gururacing.net/ImagesMisc/Blocks-951vs968Blocks.jpg" alt=" - " />
As you can see, the 968 cylinders are siamesed together for rigidity (at least longitudinally). Both the cylinders are conical and gets thicker at the bottom. The 951 cylinders are 9mm thick at the top while the 968 is about 8mm. But don't let that fool you.
What is not obvious is the depth of the water-jacket. The 968's are only about 1/2 as deep as the 951. This means the height of the 968's exposed cylinders is 1/2 as tall as the 951, making for a much, much more rigid assembly than the 951's. Also note the thicker webbing on the outside of the block as well. Porsche did all these reinforcements in going to a non-turbo car as well, so I suspect they knew something was up with the 951's block that needed some extra help.
Outside of switching to a 968 block, you can replicate those same steps yourself like this guy: <a href="http://www.928sg.com/block.htm" target="_blank">http://www.928sg.com/block.htm</a> . Grouting the block to raise the floor and shortening the exposed height of the cylinder is an age-old hot-rodding trick. Welding in a block-brace is a little extreme. Luckily, we'll be coming out with a press-fit, pound-in-with-a-mallet brace that'll fit the open deck on the 944/951 blocks soon. We don't have to be jealous of the Honda boys anymore (they've had that mod for years!).
I suspect the reason Norwood de-bored the cylinders on that particular car was for increased flow and higher-revs. By making each cylinder suck in 13% less volume per stroke, but having the same head and valves, makes it that much easier for the engine to breath. So he can rev it up 13% higher for the same volume of flow through the head. Simple way to boost the power-output (at the sacrifice of peak torque).
One of my favorite Norwood stories had to do with a certain dyno-session where a turbocharged Viper was trailered in with its own life-support crew. They managed to get something like 800rwhp. Then Norwood pulls in off the street by himself with his twin-turbo Testarossa . Gets on the dyno and lays down well over 1100rwhp !!! Then he backs out and takes off down the street! heh, heh... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
01-24-2003, 02:53 AM
#40
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Danno:
Robby, you should go be an engineer for an F1 team somewhere, you're way too analytical for the restaurant biz!
One of my favorite Norwood stories had to do with a certain dyno-session where a turbocharged Viper was trailered in with its own life-support crew. They managed to get something like 800rwhp. Then Norwood pulls in off the street by himself with his twin-turbo Testarossa . Gets on the dyno and lays down well over 1100rwhp !!! Then he backs out and takes off down the street!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I'm not sure if I should thank you or cuss you for the first remark
I really would like to get a real life eventually...
That's always been one of my favorite Norwood stories too- I thought the forced induction Viper was a in the mid 600's @ the wheels, but could be wrong- in any case, everyone was supposedly ecstatic about the run. It was definately the highest of the day at that shop & by a good margin. It was supposed to be in the summer & Norwood rolled in right off the streets of Dallas (in mid 90 degree heat) & then right back out while the Viper guy's were pampering their trailer queen & picking their chins up off the floor
Thanks a lot for the pics- I've heard that about the depth of the water passages before, but had never seen it- the press-in mod you're coming tou w/sounds cool too- keep us informed. It looks like I'll have to save up a lot more $- you guys are coming out w/so many new things, that by the time I can afford to rebuild my engine, there'll be twice as many new things I'll need to go ahead & do while it's apart...
Robby, you should go be an engineer for an F1 team somewhere, you're way too analytical for the restaurant biz!
One of my favorite Norwood stories had to do with a certain dyno-session where a turbocharged Viper was trailered in with its own life-support crew. They managed to get something like 800rwhp. Then Norwood pulls in off the street by himself with his twin-turbo Testarossa . Gets on the dyno and lays down well over 1100rwhp !!! Then he backs out and takes off down the street!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I'm not sure if I should thank you or cuss you for the first remark
I really would like to get a real life eventually...That's always been one of my favorite Norwood stories too- I thought the forced induction Viper was a in the mid 600's @ the wheels, but could be wrong- in any case, everyone was supposedly ecstatic about the run. It was definately the highest of the day at that shop & by a good margin. It was supposed to be in the summer & Norwood rolled in right off the streets of Dallas (in mid 90 degree heat) & then right back out while the Viper guy's were pampering their trailer queen & picking their chins up off the floor
Thanks a lot for the pics- I've heard that about the depth of the water passages before, but had never seen it- the press-in mod you're coming tou w/sounds cool too- keep us informed. It looks like I'll have to save up a lot more $- you guys are coming out w/so many new things, that by the time I can afford to rebuild my engine, there'll be twice as many new things I'll need to go ahead & do while it's apart...
01-24-2003, 07:20 AM
#42
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida...the wang of America
Posts: 1,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Danno:
<strong>Luckily, we'll be coming out with a press-fit, pound-in-with-a-mallet brace that'll fit the open deck on the 944/951 blocks soon.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"><img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" /> exactly what i've been wanting you to say......
ot...was the bill norwood tt testarossa his creation or one of those insane koenig (sp?) competitions (they were also 1100hp turbo'd testa's)
<strong>Luckily, we'll be coming out with a press-fit, pound-in-with-a-mallet brace that'll fit the open deck on the 944/951 blocks soon.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"><img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" /> exactly what i've been wanting you to say......
ot...was the bill norwood tt testarossa his creation or one of those insane koenig (sp?) competitions (they were also 1100hp turbo'd testa's)
01-24-2003, 10:50 AM
#43
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Based on a conversation with Norwood years ago... The engine was a 968 based block, sleeved, deck plate, titanum rods, ligh crank, dry sump, 968 head with mechanical lifters.. It was supposed to last a duration of a race, had a huge intercooler, and much much more boost than 24psi... I believe they got almost 900hp with 30+psi boost... So if you don't care how long it lives you can make plenty of HP.
Some people like high compression, I tried it (9:1) and unless you run race gas it's no good especially with the 2 valve head.. Norwood installed an Motec M4PRO on a 3.0L 951 I had, I'll stick to low compression and higher boost.
Some people like high compression, I tried it (9:1) and unless you run race gas it's no good especially with the 2 valve head.. Norwood installed an Motec M4PRO on a 3.0L 951 I had, I'll stick to low compression and higher boost.
01-24-2003, 11:00 AM
#44
Nordschleife Master
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by special tool:
<strong>2.6 is the overbore permitted by scca or pca for the turbo, I don't remember which.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">2.6L is the max engine displacment for turbo's in the GT-3 Class, so that explains the displacment of the engine from one aspect, and I think we have sort of covered the engineering side of things...
<strong>2.6 is the overbore permitted by scca or pca for the turbo, I don't remember which.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">2.6L is the max engine displacment for turbo's in the GT-3 Class, so that explains the displacment of the engine from one aspect, and I think we have sort of covered the engineering side of things...
01-24-2003, 11:47 AM
#45
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by ian:
<strong>[QUOTE]...I think we have sort of covered the engineering side of things...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Actually, what hasn't been covered, or maybe I missed it, was the trade off between valve area and piston speeds. Namely, a large bore allows large valves and works well at high engine speeds. A shorter stroke allows a slower piston speed for a given rpm. Theoretically, this would allow a higher rpm. The bore to stroke ratio on a F1 engine is AT LEAST 2 to 1 allows them to get away with crazy engine speeds.
I haven't seen the Norwood article, but I suspect the engine was designed for a displacement class like PCA GT3 (3.4/1.3=2.615) and he used a 968 block with a 951 crank and sleeved the cylinders to get the displacement to the limit of the rules. (Or at least, that's what I would build, short of a custom crank with a stock or even enlarged 968 bore, along with some significant decking of the block that may be required to make it all fit).
<strong>[QUOTE]...I think we have sort of covered the engineering side of things...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Actually, what hasn't been covered, or maybe I missed it, was the trade off between valve area and piston speeds. Namely, a large bore allows large valves and works well at high engine speeds. A shorter stroke allows a slower piston speed for a given rpm. Theoretically, this would allow a higher rpm. The bore to stroke ratio on a F1 engine is AT LEAST 2 to 1 allows them to get away with crazy engine speeds.
I haven't seen the Norwood article, but I suspect the engine was designed for a displacement class like PCA GT3 (3.4/1.3=2.615) and he used a 968 block with a 951 crank and sleeved the cylinders to get the displacement to the limit of the rules. (Or at least, that's what I would build, short of a custom crank with a stock or even enlarged 968 bore, along with some significant decking of the block that may be required to make it all fit).