GTS crank in 5l engine..?
06-29-2010, 01:21 PM
#31
Rennlist Member
they were 400rwhp when they first were installed, no mods. 420 with big valves and the bigger cams. and then no gains for ported TB, heads, intake, and then HUGE jumps for both mark and Joe to 480-500rwhp with the CF intake. both then later on rebuilds, went to 520rwhp with their new engines. dont know about tuning. both are still running the stock ECU with no changes except removal of the rev limiter. (im not sure about that part though)
mk
mk
06-29-2010, 06:15 PM
#32
but..... anderson engine take 7100rpm and your... i dont know i think 6600??
the question is more or less how many hp have at 6600rpm anderson engine and what differences have the engines, because if only is the intake and the rpm limit... is interesant compare the two 6.5 litres engine hp graphics.
the question is more or less how many hp have at 6600rpm anderson engine and what differences have the engines, because if only is the intake and the rpm limit... is interesant compare the two 6.5 litres engine hp graphics.
06-29-2010, 07:00 PM
#33
Former Sponsor
we do have a lot of real data points now as far as hp to mod info.
anderson and fans were identical, even when mark did the porting, extrude honing, and drysumping vs fans (more like mine) near stock set up. 420rwhp with a 6.5 liter, better than GT cams and 968 valves. (1mm greater lift than the 85 or GT cams)
I bolted a known quantiy bottom end , 6.5 liter on the top end that was at the top of the heap, as far as GT peformance. 335rwhp at its best. it only went up less than 50hp for a stroker mod. sure, there is some gains for tuning there, but just bolting stuff on ,thats what happened. I dont think it would be a stretch for a 400rwhp estimation for some good tuning. But, i dont think that pulling out 1 liter of displacement could yeild the same power. dennis did 375rwp, but did it at in the RPM danger zone, so thats all about cams and tuning. what did it make at 6000rpm, not that spectacular.
I think we all know that going into the 6500rpm + range for our motors, is a no-no, until someone really solves the oiling issues at the high rpm levels (like 7000rpm, plus)
anderson and fans were identical, even when mark did the porting, extrude honing, and drysumping vs fans (more like mine) near stock set up. 420rwhp with a 6.5 liter, better than GT cams and 968 valves. (1mm greater lift than the 85 or GT cams)
I bolted a known quantiy bottom end , 6.5 liter on the top end that was at the top of the heap, as far as GT peformance. 335rwhp at its best. it only went up less than 50hp for a stroker mod. sure, there is some gains for tuning there, but just bolting stuff on ,thats what happened. I dont think it would be a stretch for a 400rwhp estimation for some good tuning. But, i dont think that pulling out 1 liter of displacement could yeild the same power. dennis did 375rwp, but did it at in the RPM danger zone, so thats all about cams and tuning. what did it make at 6000rpm, not that spectacular.
I think we all know that going into the 6500rpm + range for our motors, is a no-no, until someone really solves the oiling issues at the high rpm levels (like 7000rpm, plus)
After months of continuous dyno work on several stroker engines...here's what I know:
Anybody (naturally aspirated) with stock exhaust manifolds that claims to have over 375rwhp (regardless of displacement) is......mistaken.
06-29-2010, 07:10 PM
#34
Former Sponsor
The stock ignition maps will "detonate" the head gaskets on both of these cars without octane higher than 91....so increasing the total amount of timing is not an option, without very good fuel.
We have been trying to get satisfactory results with Sharktuning, before we "tuned" these two cars. The introduction of the "Sharkplotter" finally improved the tune-ability of the Sharktuner to the point where we are now ready to tune these engines.
Mark and I were talking about when we could tune his engine, today. Tenatively have scheduled it for a couple of weeks.
06-29-2010, 07:19 PM
#35
Nordschleife Master
Out of curiosity, was he on his knees? ;-)
06-29-2010, 09:12 PM
#36
Former Sponsor
still need to negotiate some dyno time for the very brown 1980 hoping for more than 200 Hp
11-13-2014, 10:40 AM
#38
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mostly in my workshop located in Sweden.
Posts: 2,232
Received 464 Likes
on
249 Posts
You can check these measurement estimates on your block. The bay breathing windows on the three middle webs of the GTS block appear to have a total of 2488mm^2 of area -- I used an estimated diameter of 40mm on the middle one and 28mm on the two outers.
I estimated the area of the triangular opening found on many (most? all besides gts? Ask Erkka) at 2033mm^2
Therefore you would have approximately a 28% increase in flow capabilities.
Is it worth it to retain this and try to save the block? I would say yes. Porsche would not have put these windows in without testing for a real benefit as it involves a significant change in the block and extra machining operations. OEM durability testing typically involves cycling an engine between peak torque and peak hp for hundreds of hours.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
I estimated the area of the triangular opening found on many (most? all besides gts? Ask Erkka) at 2033mm^2
Therefore you would have approximately a 28% increase in flow capabilities.
Is it worth it to retain this and try to save the block? I would say yes. Porsche would not have put these windows in without testing for a real benefit as it involves a significant change in the block and extra machining operations. OEM durability testing typically involves cycling an engine between peak torque and peak hp for hundreds of hours.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
about.
Åke
Last edited by Strosek Ultra; 03-02-2015 at 12:50 PM.
