John Liu

The article on this month's Excellence, on the alloy 928 racer, says that Porsche considered the 928's engine to be wholly unsuitable for racing.

Why might that have been? What was considered lacking in the design? Is it merely the wet-sump?

I know that some are racing the 928 successfully today, so perhaps Porsche was wrong, at least for some types of racing. My question is why Porsche thought the 928 engine was unsuitable.

goodspeed928

Maybe 5L, to big for class racing and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

2V4V

Porsche considered it unsuitable because it would have shown the 911 to be the poorly designed Beetle Evo that it was and still is.

By the time the 928 coulda/shoulda/woulda gone racing, the internal politics had changed again at Porsche - the 928 was now out of favor, it was back to that silly uber VW.

The 928 has more displacement, and (at the time) the 911 was still aircooled - so on both accounts the 928 puts out way more power and (more importantly) more HP per liter of displacement. Then you start development - 911's pushrods and underhead cams - good luck with that compared to the accuracy of OHC. Yes, the 928 was a bit heavier - perhaps that's why they went with an aluminum body for the racer?

The 928 had better suspension (for crisssake, the 911 had torsion bar suspension and it had it past 1950.)

The 928, like all true Porsches that have followed, does not follow the VW/911 rubric - it is layed out logically with functional weight distribution, a water-cooled powerplant, and they look like real cars, not just another Beetle with a body kit. Yeah, I know, they finally watercooled the 911. Little late, isn't it?

There are of course, those who feel the 911 is the only "true" Porsche. I don't believe they admit to themselves that every time the engineers get to do a clean-sheet car - it looks nothing like a 911. Why? Because the 911 layout is an enginering disaster and is nothing but an upsized Beetle.

Simply put, internal politics at Porsche preclude "beating" the cherished 911 - the 928/44/51/68 variants were certainly far better cars to drive, and with larger engines, would have easily eclipsed the 911.

Take a Boxter, install a larger flat -6 in it. You now have a better chassis, with far better dynamics (rear mid-engine) v. the 911's rear-engine layout.

Drive one sometime, you'll wonder why Porsche didn't just inch the engine forward in the 911 over a couple of years, God knows the folks who (generally) buy 911's wouldn't notice.

The Boxster chassis has been demonstrated to handle more than 500 HP. Wonder why Porsche doesn't sell a Boxster Turbo? Hmmm. Another 'embarassment' to the vaunted 911....

There are a lot of people who think "911" when they think Porsche. These people are so ignorant of auto design that they think a rear-engine layout not only works, but is actually good. As long as they exist and keep buying 911's, Porsche will keep selling them.

Apparently, the Cayenne is now the 'saviour' of the 911, allowing Porsche to make enough money to subsidize that stone-age throwback a little longer. Maybe, if Porsche was allowed to build just one car, they would learn the 911 should have gone away long ago. Perhaps they would figure out that keeping the 911 (and it's buyers) going has almost sunk the company more than once. But I doubt it.

Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

Cheers,

Greg

Old & New

They were undoubtably aware of the bearing failure propensity?

Lagavulin

I am speculating part of their reasoning may be that the 928 block is an open deck design which leaves the top of the cylinder unsupported. It is a lame design whose justification was that it made it easier to cast the block. In my opinion, this is the 928's Achilles heel for high horsepower applications.

2V4V

Lag,

True enough there are some issues with open deck, but they seldom appear till well into the huge HP and revs range - unless something's very wrong.

It really is easy to fix anyway, just weld in a deck-plate. Takes a few hours of labor and some extra machine time. Or, fill the bottom of the block so as to make the cylinder "tube" much shorter.

No excuses for the oil thing really. Oiling problem might have taken a couple of weeks (maybe a month) if they seriously set out to fix it.

Greg

T Colvin

Good constructive debate without ripping into each other. I like it.

PorKen

gbryon said: "...weld in a deck-plate...fill the bottom of the block..."

Sterling did both on his super-bad 6.4L Vario-cam engine: http://www.928sg.com/block.htm

I wonder when he's going to supercharge that *****...

heinrich

If an open deck plate is an issue or a design weakness, I've never seen a failure of a 928 engine because of it. I was unaware that Porsche had considered the V8 unsuitable for racing but if I had to guess I'd say 1) weight; 2) size/heft. The oiling issue would not have been a problem for Porsche as they would have simply installed a drysump as can be found in all racing Porsches afaik. Btw, the 911 is not at all a poorly-designed beetle evo, the Porsche 911 is a unique sports- and racecar, which has existed and triumphed in places and evensts where other cars could only dream. The Porsche 911 has been a serious sportscar for over 40 years.

Had it not been for the Porsche 911, we would today not have the pleasure of owning and driving Porsche 928's, because the 911 has sustained Porsche financially since the first day, and more than that ... it has allowed Porsche to gain invaluable race technology which has benefited the 928 design.

ErnestSw

Please forgive my ignorance, but will someone please explain what an "open deck" means?

ViribusUnits

The deck is the area of the block that meets the heads. An "open deck" has free standing cylinders. ie, they're only attached to the block at the base of the cylinder.

Useing strilings web sit for photos

1st block photo, Open deck. See how the cylinders are not connected to the rim of the block at the top?

3rd block photo. See how with the deck plate welded in, the cylinders are dirictly connected to the edge of the block? This gives them more strength.

http://www.928sg.com/block.htm

SHRKBIT

For people that haven't read the article, Peter Falk, Racing Director was quoted in 1984:

That's about as specific as it gets. I suspect that they knew the engine well enough to make that judgement at that time.

2V4V

Heinrich,

Hopefully you and I can agree to disagree on the DNA origins of the 911.

I will wholeheartedly agree with you that the 911 has, to it's credit, an impressive string of racing success - proving that with enough time, effort, ingenuity, and big bags of cash, you can work around major inherent design flaws like rear engine placement. As long as there is a 'volume car' to pay for the R&D - 914,924,944,Boxster,Cayenne. Sure, those cars helped carry the 928 at times too.

If rear-engines, air cooling, non-pendant pedals (floor sprouts), torsion bar suspension, and the rest of the 911s anachronisms had any engineering value, you'd see them on every Hyundai by now. Or, at least on newly designed Porsches.

Don't get me wrong, there was a time in the late 60's/early 70s where the 911 was certainly a giant-killer car compared to other offerings out there. Light weight and (for the time) decent HP made it the car to have, or to beat.

There's nothing wrong with loving your car(s) in spite (or because) of their flaws. God knows, the 928 has it's fair share of design silliness - or stuff that's just outdated. I love it anyway, and I'll admit to it's flaws.

One of my buddies has an offer out on '98 Twin Turbo Carrera S (?). I'm betting I can con him into a drive if he brings it home. I'd also bet I'll have to loan him my 928 in return.

All that REALLY matters is that you enjoy what you drive, whatever car that is. The rest is just minutae to banter about over drinks...

Greg

Rich9928p

If Porsche had to discontinue the 911 (due to safety and smog issues) you can bet there would have been racing versions of the 928 ... or another line of water cooled Porsches suitable for racing would have been developed.

If you look back to the very first day's of Porsche's involvement in racing, particular focus was paid to "power to weight ratio" and weight was always kept to a minmum. In 1922 father Ferdinand developed the little "Sascha" and kicked the *** of much larger, more powerful and heavier race cars.

... the 928 wasn't defined to be a race car. It has more room, creature comforts, and didn't have a dry sump oil system. So why are we surprised that Porsche never used it as a race car? It has nice performance attributes (suspension/brakes), and if gutted, stroked, tuned it can do "OK" on the track, but it never was a top contender. The money and time wasn't put into it by the factory or tuners.

If you look to "today's" 911, they've pretty much become what the 928 was in terms of size, weight and creature comforts. It just so happens that technology has helped keep up the HP produced by a small enough displacement engine to fit in the rear of a car. When Porsche needs more HP, they move the engine up front.

Ron_H

Where did anyone get the idea that the 911 engine had "underhead cams" and "pushrods"???
Sorry, but I must agree with Heinrich. The 911 and the 356 both were built that way for extremely good reasons. The first 356 was a mid-engine. The engine was placed behind the rear axle for two reasons: to place the weight over the driving wheels, and to allow space for other passengers in a marketable GT car. Anyone who regards the VW as an inferior auto ought to reconsider that opinion. And anyone who considers the concept of the 911 to be inferior has not been keeping up with world opinion; it just took a little development to evolve to such a fine GT car, that with no more than a 3.6L engine could smoke most other cars over a long course. Try the Ruf. Want to challenge that with your 928? I don't think so. What difference does the fulcrum point of the pedals make? Sorry, but I side with Heinrich, though I love my 928 and think of it as one of the finest GT cars around. No one who knows the history of the GT automobile will consider the development of the 911 laughable. It has proven itself in thounsands of races. It became water cooled because of Switzerland's noise requirements. Give me a 993 anyday, thank you.
I have never recalled any underhead cams on any 911 engine I have assembled.

More thoughts about the VW Bug everyone seems to detest. (Correct)Form follows function, as we all must admit. The VW boxer motor was designed that way because it would have a lower center of gravity, as was the BMW motorcycle engine. The car didn't need to impress any neighbors or society at large, so why have a large overhang at either end which would be house nothing and raise the center of gravity while adding mass at the ends. The engine was not large because, unlike we in the U.S., fuel was not plentiful and was expensive and large displacement engines were taxed higher. Thus, the stimulus for higher efficiency and less wastefulness. Simple concepts at which everyone in pretentious places laughed. They aren't laughing anymore as that car outsold every other car until it's demise. Fortunately for the world, Porsche applied some of those principles using his independent mind to his own sports/GT car. The horiontatally opposed engine of small displacement and high efficiency, the boxer motor concept, was carried through to the 917 which we all know was ultimately banned because of its invincibility. No need for a large displacement V-8 there; what else could beat it? If they did, Porsche had a flat 16 which they never needed. And the GT-1 was another case of the same approach: a 3.2L flat 6 that trounced all competitors on and off the track. Where was the need to use a huge V8? And the overall shape which evolved logically from its fuctional requirements had no need to outdo the neighbors with fins or useless extensions meant to carry two years of luggage around. And that little efficient car won index of performance at LeMans despite its small displacement. One thing it wasn't was "trendy". Unfortunately, Porsche has not seen fit to continue that design objective in the latest market driven models. The dash of the 911 is, in my opinion, an example of "trendiness" run rampant. The functions necessary for the driver of the 911 to operate a 911 at speed were readily at hand and eye; the other ones weren't so readily available and so what?
Simplicity without overload. Now it is trendiness driving the market in Porsche's attemtpt to increase their profits. Well, as the world's fuel supply dwindles, perhaps the return to reason and rational design will occur. And machines fit for their intended purpose will re-appear following the Baroque stage in which we find ourselves presently.