Here's a fun little engine. Stock GT that's a 5.8 liter.
#31
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
I don't see Jim's dyno results with and without prototype intake, in my files.
Calling Jim Corenman or Rob Edwards.....
#32
Shameful Thread Killer
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I'm not sure how this became a sociological discussion. The point I was trying to make and on which Greg provided some examples is that there's no single cost figure that gets a 928 from state A to state B. Outside of the detailed context of a specific 928's present condition (state A) and what that 928's owner wants to achieve (state B), any number tossed-out into the air is going to be setting the wrong expectations. Wrong expectations result in either lost clients or unhappy clients.
Furthermore, it's an unhappy fact that "state A" can't be precisely determined until the 928 is in pieces.
Furthermore, it's an unhappy fact that "state A" can't be precisely determined until the 928 is in pieces.
Now, for my defense of asking. the 911 was brought up in passing, and we have an engine builder who would be considered the erzats GB over there. Suppose one were to lunch their intermediate shaft bearing on said 911 engine, and want it sorted. Even the baseline job, with modest upgrades starts over $20k. The chassis is only worth $7-9k sans engine. Like all engines, 928, 911, 904, it's obvious a teardown, and inspection is required.
#33
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,561
Received 1,682 Likes
on
1,092 Posts
I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend anything. I didn't 'attack' you. I assumed your sarcasm might have been due to poor communication on my part. But, that's apparently not the case. /done with this.
#34
Shameful Thread Killer
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
'Defense of "asking" ', not "attack". If you setup a strawman, it's easy to knock it down. BTW, if you would go back to the start, I didn't request anything from you. You felt the need to lecture us on why pricing is not included. I get it, but you just won't leave it alone. Really, find out what "/sarcasm" means.
#35
Rennlist Member
You're making me want to tear down my 5.0 hybrid again and stick one of your GTS stroke cranks in it.
So tempting with the 16 valve top end I spec'ed. I wonder if one of them will eventually come to a 928 event so we can see it in person.
Because from the way you describe it makes it sounds like a 928 engine cranked to 11 vs a 6.5 stroker which is a strong 16 lol.
So tempting with the 16 valve top end I spec'ed. I wonder if one of them will eventually come to a 928 event so we can see it in person.
Because from the way you describe it makes it sounds like a 928 engine cranked to 11 vs a 6.5 stroker which is a strong 16 lol.
#36
Rennlist Member
I get the distinct impression that this motor, presumably something similar to what Jim C commissioned you to build, is probably the motor Porsche should have built had they not given up on the 928 when they did. To do it in a motor that looks stock and is so elegant is very commendable.
That extra layer of power and torque would compliment the auto box [2.54] very nicely and would bring the car right up to date performance wise and mated to a 6 speed box even more so.
Well done!
That extra layer of power and torque would compliment the auto box [2.54] very nicely and would bring the car right up to date performance wise and mated to a 6 speed box even more so.
Well done!
#37
Archive Gatekeeper
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Here's a dyno chart from Jim Corenman's 5.8 liter build - 968 pistons, Carrillo rods, Greg's crank, Devek headers, cats, Colin's cams (IIRC), and a massaged S4 intake. It made more peak hp than my 6.5 stroker did before I added Greg's exhaust.
#38
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
And over 350 ft.lbs of rear wheel torque from 2800 to 5800.
....This also pulls around a 928, quite briskly.
#39
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,561
Received 1,682 Likes
on
1,092 Posts
#40
Shameful Thread Killer
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
#41
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
You're making me want to tear down my 5.0 hybrid again and stick one of your GTS stroke cranks in it.
So tempting with the 16 valve top end I spec'ed. I wonder if one of them will eventually come to a 928 event so we can see it in person.
Because from the way you describe it makes it sounds like a 928 engine cranked to 11 vs a 6.5 stroker which is a strong 16 lol.
So tempting with the 16 valve top end I spec'ed. I wonder if one of them will eventually come to a 928 event so we can see it in person.
Because from the way you describe it makes it sounds like a 928 engine cranked to 11 vs a 6.5 stroker which is a strong 16 lol.
Known for a very long time ("old school" Chevy small blocks) there's a bit of "magic" to be found in the stroke to connecting rod length ratio. A 1969 Z-28 engine, with the shorter stroke (and same length rod) has a completely different personality than a 350 Chevy with the same heads, compression ratio, and camshaft. The 302 is a very "free reving" engine, which just loves to keep on pulling in the higher rpm range. The 350 is more of a "lump"....kinda lazy.
The "long" rod rod in these 5.8 engines completely changes the personality of these engines.
#42
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Didn't we also dyno Jim's engine with the prototype intake manifold?
I know the "crudeness" of the prototype was very flow restrictive on the "top end" of the 6.5, and we were not "thrilled" with the results, but didn't it show the potential of this change on the "little engine"?
#43
Archive Gatekeeper
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The dyno curve of Jim's 5.8 liter motor above was done in January 2016. We never ran the prototype intake on his 5.8 motor. But we did run it on his 5.0 motor in October 2013 (which had what, 240,000 miles on it?). I confess I can't remember its configuration (ie- whether it had the GT++ cams and L2 headers on by then- I assume so since it put down 320 rwhp, and Jim had XX,000 miles of sharktuning tweaks in that 5.0). Here's the dyno of that 5 liter motor with and without the prototype intake, it picked up 38 hp and 24 tq . I particularly like the slope on the hp curve between 5900 and 6300 rpm- the runner length was close for that displacement.
Would be bitchin' to see the 5.8 with that intake. You'd be close to 500 crank N/A hp.
Would be bitchin' to see the 5.8 with that intake. You'd be close to 500 crank N/A hp.
#44
Shameful Thread Killer
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Known for a very long time ("old school" Chevy small blocks) there's a bit of "magic" to be found in the stroke to connecting rod length ratio. A 1969 Z-28 engine, with the shorter stroke (and same length rod) has a completely different personality than a 350 Chevy with the same heads, compression ratio, and camshaft. The 302 is a very "free reving" engine, which just loves to keep on pulling in the higher rpm range. The 350 is more of a "lump"....kinda lazy.
The "long" rod rod in these 5.8 engines completely changes the personality of these engines.
#45
Rennlist Member
I remember at the time thinking that the new intake was better suited/optimized for the 5.0 - exciting results for sure since I'm a 5.0 kind of guy.