When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
944S2 intake manifold has all the same bolt locations.
only difference is the "middle" bolt - it's in a different spot on the S2 intake vs the 928 head, shouldn't be an issue with the other 4 securely down.
944S2 intake manifold has all the same bolt locations, plus a few more not present on 928.
only difference is the "middle" bolt - it's in a different spot on the S2 intake vs the 928 head, shouldn't be an issue with the other 4 securely down.
this is a 944S2 gasket mounted on a plate that matches a 928S3 head (same bolt locations as 928S4 head)
This must be the engine with the coated pistons in the "changed Alusil process" which loose the coating when it gets cold and gall in the cylinder that I've heard so much about?
Appropriately named Locasil?
Seemed like such a great idea to take the perfected Alusil process with iron plated pistons that has worked for over 40 years and change it.....
I'm hoping this saved them a few dollars on each piston/cylinder.
Engineering Department or the Bean Counters hard at work?
Which brings up the question of how many years has it been since the great German engineering firm of Porsche has built an engine that would last as long as a small block Chevy or a Toyota?
Planned obselesence or simply ignorance?
Last I knew cylinder galling is a huge issue with Cayennes as well.
It is odd that they would change something so great and reliable like Alusil to save a few bucks. I personally think the bean counters took over from the engineers in 1995 but I digress
I personally think the last good engine Porsche made for any car really was the Mezger platform used in all GT models and turbos from the 996 up to the 997.2. Shame they stopped making it.
I personally think the last good engine Porsche made for any car really was the Mezger platform used in all GT models and turbos from the 996 up to the 997.2. Shame they stopped making it.
Not all the 997.2 had it either. Last Mezgers were in the 2009 Turbo (which is why I have one) and the 997.2 GT3, the last Mezger engined GT3. A production, non turbo, non GT3 911 has not had a Mezger engine since the 993.
Last I knew cylinder galling is a huge issue with Cayennes as well.
It is odd that they would change something so great and reliable like Alusil to save a few bucks. I personally think the bean counters took over from the engineers in 1995 but I digress
I personally think the last good engine Porsche made for any car really was the Mezger platform used in all GT models and turbos from the 996 up to the 997.2. Shame they stopped making it.
The reason for the change in iron plated pistons had nothing to do with the bean counters - it is to do with the environment. Iron plating has been banned on environmental grounds as the process is extremely poisonous. New pistons have plastic coating, which wears out under certain conditions and scores the bores. Similar reason, why you cannot find anyone in Europe to plate or re-plate fasteners (nuts and bolts) with cadmium. Unless you can prove your link to the aircraft industry...
The reason for the change in iron plated pistons had nothing to do with the bean counters - it is to do with the environment. Iron plating has been banned on environmental grounds as the process is extremely poisonous. New pistons have plastic coating, which wears out under certain conditions and scores the bores. Similar reason, why you cannot find anyone in Europe to plate or re-plate fasteners (nuts and bolts) with cadmium. Unless you can prove your link to the aircraft industry...
The cad-plating situation in the US is only slightly different. Here, the platers get to demonstrate their connection to the aircraft industry, rather than the end user. It's only a matter of time before someone will come up with an environmentally-sound non-metallic dip coating for metal parts. Or eliminate the metal parts and fasteners altogether, with plastic pieces merged together with adhesives and ultrasonic welding. That will rule out combustion engines until we find a formable synthetic that will take the 2500º combustion temps but form with much lower temps initially. Metal-reinforced epoxy, ceramic coating, glued together with J-B Weld. No worries about the correct torque on plated fasteners that aren't there.
-----
Meanwhile.... Mark, how's the A-M intake coming along?
944S2 intake manifold has all the same bolt locations, plus a few more not present on 928.
only difference is the "middle" bolt - it's in a different spot on the S2 intake vs the 928 head, shouldn't be an issue with the other 4 securely down.
this is a 944S2 gasket mounted on a plate that matches a 928S3 head (same bolt locations as 928S4 head)
it would be nice to get a picture of an 944S2 gasket on an S4 head.. if it is 53mmwide vs the 50mm i measured on the S4 intake, its not that much to mate up.. this will determine how much of the Am intake i use as it mates to the head vs the 944S2 runners that will mate up higher.
how did car transition the rectangular runners of his intake to the S4 heads? (or the hans adapters)
In the mid 90's there was an aftermarket company (XB...something) that made variable adjusting runner intakes for Mustangs. The intake looked a lot like the early 32V intakes ('85-'86) and I think it was vacuum operated. The variable system was in the side "tanks" of the intake. It was a plate that moved back and forth controlling the volume of the side "tanks". I can't find any pictures probably because I don't remember the exact name. It would be an interesting project to graft one of them on a 928.
944S2 intake compared to AMV8 intake and S4 template
it looks like there is a lot of material to work with, using the 944S2 intake. sure, it is a little off at the port face, but the legs are actually less round than the S4 , at the runner, which actually works out well , because it resembles the shape of the AMV8 intake runners after the port.
Im wondering if we can use the 944 runner , cut it at the base and angle the #1 and #4 area and weld it to the AmV8 intake runner as it enters the plennum area.
You see why there's no point chopping up the am intake?
think about the one thing you love about the am intake-- the runner design. That will get totally ruined trying to hack 944 runners to match the am bore spacing to the 928...
Originally Posted by mark kibort
actually, they are not that diff. 944S2 ports are 52mm x 48mm and the 928S4 ports (according to the jig.. 49 x 38mm)
and here is a picture of the curves of the runners... its looking like its better than i first thought using the 944S2 intake.
You see why there's no point chopping up the am intake?
think about the one thing you love about the am intake-- the runner design. That will get totally ruined trying to hack 944 runners to match the am bore spacing to the 928...
Actually, the runner design's most important and critically advantageous part, is the inlet and the progressive tapper. you kind of have to laugh when you look at what the air does in the S4 intake path.
what i see, is runners with the correct angle, but a side angle will be introduced by a cut at the base, ( and re weld) and an appropriate cut at the mating point with a weld . the welder will have to use the artistry to make the upper transition point work. Sure, there will be some turbulence, but the opening size and inlets should much more than make up for the losses.we can always flow bench it when it is done and i guarantee it will be night and day vs the S4 intake and probably near equal to what we have seen so far. maybe not the Carl's intake, as that thing looks like a beast!
12-03-2017, 08:59 PM
