3.0 Liter turbo conversions-Experienced builders please reply
11-07-2006, 04:32 AM
#91
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Olli
You could use stock 968 pistons wich are forged but here is another issu with the squish are. 968 pistons are designed to work with 16 valve head. Allthough, there are plenty of motors running 16 valve pistons on 8 valve head! If you bolt 8 valve head to stock s2 block then you will have com ratio in 9:1 range. Just modify the buring chamber a little bit (100mm bore to 104 and you have comp ratio 8,5:1)
markus
You could use stock 968 pistons wich are forged but here is another issu with the squish are. 968 pistons are designed to work with 16 valve head. Allthough, there are plenty of motors running 16 valve pistons on 8 valve head! If you bolt 8 valve head to stock s2 block then you will have com ratio in 9:1 range. Just modify the buring chamber a little bit (100mm bore to 104 and you have comp ratio 8,5:1)
markus
11-07-2006, 08:21 AM
#92
Rennlist Member
Bottom line...is it just too stupidly expensive for those but the very rich to consider doing a turbo 3.? liter 16v engine??? If so, you then look at 8v with increased capacity, but how much bang for your buck are you getting here? Does a 2.7 or 3.0 maybe only get you a 10-15% increase in torque? I know there are too many variables to be considered here, but is there a sort of ball park figure v's power increase available. This is for a track focused but still street car. Maybe as Chris said way back in '02, until you can afford everything involved, just put a few extras on like bigger turbo etc and play with what you've got.
As usual, just someone considering options here.
As usual, just someone considering options here.
11-07-2006, 09:26 AM
#93
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
Originally Posted by 333pg333
Bottom line...is it just too stupidly expensive for those but the very rich to consider doing a turbo 3.? liter 16v engine???
Originally Posted by 333pg333
If so, you then look at 8v with increased capacity, but how much bang for your buck are you getting here? Does a 2.7 or 3.0 maybe only get you a 10-15% increase in torque?
Going from a 2.7 to a 3.0 is the cost of a crank and a little clearance work (on an MID set up – since we custom order the pistons you can get any combination you want for the same $ - for the non MID build there are many issues)There is no easy answer – if you do your own engine installation – then just dropping in used engines and burning them up is very cost effective. If you are paying a shop to do the engine R&R (figure about $2k for just that privilege) then getting the engine done right makes sense.
Originally Posted by 333pg333
Maybe as Chris said way back in '02, until you can afford everything involved, just put a few extras on like bigger turbo etc and play with what you've got.
Back to the Question -
There are only two reasons for building a 16v turbo – first is the need to get max power from a set displacement such as the 2.6 liter limit for GT3 class club racing.
The second reason is the need for something different / better. We all get that bug to some degree, that’s why we play with 951s – there is a great reward for playing engineer and redesign the power plant.
Keep in mind that we are mostly doing engine build ups as hobby projects (I don’t think there are any professional 944 race vehicles any more!) so the nature of the project is what ‘turns us on’. The engineering of a 16v set up has a lot going for it and it makes it obvious that the owner is very interested in engineering / technology and maxing out the potential. The 16v set up has many, many technological benefits going for it – combustion chamber design, light weight valve train, air flow ability and some nice looks. Sure, tuned right it will make more HP than an 8v of similar displacement but it will also give the discerning owner a lot of joy just to open the hood and look at it.
Bang for the buck? A couple of quick external mods (turbo, wastegate & MAF) to a 2.5 liter is the way to go. Pride of owning something unique, sharp looking and very powerful – the 16v has a lot going for it there.
The only universal truth – there is no such thing as a cheap 16v project! It demands to be done right or not at all.
11-07-2006, 10:16 AM
#94
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
333pg333: Listen to what Chris just posted, for he is 100% right. If I am not mistaken, I thought your RWHP goals were 450 max, but your application called for something with fast spool up? If those are still your goals, you can still achieve this with doing up a 2.5. I have had a 2.5L, a 3.0L 8V, and am now working with Chris on my 3.1L 16V. And I can agree with his two comments below.
"Change “Rich” to “obsessed” and you may be right!" - Once you start a project of this level, you can easily become obsessive and get in over your head. I see this often with younger kids who are all gung-ho about massive BHP.
" The only universal truth – there is no such thing as a cheap 16v project! It demands to be done right or not at all." - Now that is nothing but the truth. Now, if you just want to go with the minimal build for a 16V, you can do that. But, if you get in that "obsessive" mode, you can easily start and keep adding more and more mods to a 16V project. Unfortunately for me, my web site keeps growing because I keep adding more mods to it!! So be careful, it is addicting and there is no way a 16V project is cheap, whether you do the work yourself or have it done.
Anyway, that's just my $ 02 cents. Good luck pal. If you have any questions, you can always PM me. As most people know on here, I have done a few project cars, and worked with a few builders and vendors too. However, this one will be my last 951 project, and will hopefully be the best one we ever build too. So what's next for me? Well, it's in my signature. I "hope" to someday get a Cup Car and fully enjoy a real track car again, like I did when I raced professionally. And then put my 3.1L 16V 951 in a glass box!
"Change “Rich” to “obsessed” and you may be right!" - Once you start a project of this level, you can easily become obsessive and get in over your head. I see this often with younger kids who are all gung-ho about massive BHP.
" The only universal truth – there is no such thing as a cheap 16v project! It demands to be done right or not at all." - Now that is nothing but the truth. Now, if you just want to go with the minimal build for a 16V, you can do that. But, if you get in that "obsessive" mode, you can easily start and keep adding more and more mods to a 16V project. Unfortunately for me, my web site keeps growing because I keep adding more mods to it!! So be careful, it is addicting and there is no way a 16V project is cheap, whether you do the work yourself or have it done.
Anyway, that's just my $ 02 cents. Good luck pal. If you have any questions, you can always PM me. As most people know on here, I have done a few project cars, and worked with a few builders and vendors too. However, this one will be my last 951 project, and will hopefully be the best one we ever build too. So what's next for me? Well, it's in my signature. I "hope" to someday get a Cup Car and fully enjoy a real track car again, like I did when I raced professionally. And then put my 3.1L 16V 951 in a glass box!
Last edited by RolexNJ; 11-07-2006 at 11:04 AM.
11-07-2006, 04:35 PM
#95
Three Wheelin'
Hey Chris, have you by any chance flow benched an S head, or have you mainly dealt with the S2 and 968 heads? Personally, I look at it from the point of view that, after all the money I have and will have spent and all the trouble I will have gone to building a 951, the 16v head would be more worthy of my efforts. I would feel pretty lame spending all of that money and still having a relatively inefficient, expensive, built 8v head that still gets easily outflowed by stock production Honda heads (K20's flow ~280cfm @ 28" H20 stock!). That's not to say you can't make high HP with an 8v head, as some here have more than proven that you can. I must admit, I also want one just for the cool valve cover! j/k
j/k
11-07-2006, 05:03 PM
#96
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
Originally Posted by Porschefile
Hey Chris, have you by any chance flow benched an S head, or have you mainly dealt with the S2 and 968 heads? Personally, I look at it from the point of view that, after all the money I have and will have spent and all the trouble I will have gone to building a 951, the 16v head would be more worthy of my efforts. I would feel pretty lame spending all of that money and still having a relatively inefficient, expensive, built 8v head that still gets easily outflowed by stock production Honda heads (K20's flow ~280cfm @ 28" H20 stock!). That's not to say you can't make high HP with an 8v head, as some here have more than proven that you can. I must admit, I also want one just for the cool valve cover! j/k
j/kidentical
11-07-2006, 10:51 PM
#97
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Chris White
Change “Rich” to “obsessed” and you may be right!
On displacement alone it is a fairly linear equation – add 10% more displacement and get 10% more power (all other parameters begin equal). The cost issue gets a little grey – to go to a 2.7 from a 2.5 costs nothing extra – if you are already planning on going to a MID set up Going from a 2.7 to a 3.0 is the cost of a crank and a little clearance work (on an MID set up – since we custom order the pistons you can get any combination you want for the same $ - for the non MID build there are many issues)
There is no easy answer – if you do your own engine installation – then just dropping in used engines and burning them up is very cost effective. If you are paying a shop to do the engine R&R (figure about $2k for just that privilege) then getting the engine done right makes sense.
Still true.
Back to the Question -
There are only two reasons for building a 16v turbo – first is the need to get max power from a set displacement such as the 2.6 liter limit for GT3 class club racing.
The second reason is the need for something different / better. We all get that bug to some degree, that’s why we play with 951s – there is a great reward for playing engineer and redesign the power plant.
Keep in mind that we are mostly doing engine build ups as hobby projects (I don’t think there are any professional 944 race vehicles any more!) so the nature of the project is what ‘turns us on’. The engineering of a 16v set up has a lot going for it and it makes it obvious that the owner is very interested in engineering / technology and maxing out the potential. The 16v set up has many, many technological benefits going for it – combustion chamber design, light weight valve train, air flow ability and some nice looks. Sure, tuned right it will make more HP than an 8v of similar displacement but it will also give the discerning owner a lot of joy just to open the hood and look at it.
Bang for the buck? A couple of quick external mods (turbo, wastegate & MAF) to a 2.5 liter is the way to go. Pride of owning something unique, sharp looking and very powerful – the 16v has a lot going for it there.
The only universal truth – there is no such thing as a cheap 16v project! It demands to be done right or not at all.
On displacement alone it is a fairly linear equation – add 10% more displacement and get 10% more power (all other parameters begin equal). The cost issue gets a little grey – to go to a 2.7 from a 2.5 costs nothing extra – if you are already planning on going to a MID set up
Going from a 2.7 to a 3.0 is the cost of a crank and a little clearance work (on an MID set up – since we custom order the pistons you can get any combination you want for the same $ - for the non MID build there are many issues)There is no easy answer – if you do your own engine installation – then just dropping in used engines and burning them up is very cost effective. If you are paying a shop to do the engine R&R (figure about $2k for just that privilege) then getting the engine done right makes sense.
Still true.
Back to the Question -
There are only two reasons for building a 16v turbo – first is the need to get max power from a set displacement such as the 2.6 liter limit for GT3 class club racing.
The second reason is the need for something different / better. We all get that bug to some degree, that’s why we play with 951s – there is a great reward for playing engineer and redesign the power plant.
Keep in mind that we are mostly doing engine build ups as hobby projects (I don’t think there are any professional 944 race vehicles any more!) so the nature of the project is what ‘turns us on’. The engineering of a 16v set up has a lot going for it and it makes it obvious that the owner is very interested in engineering / technology and maxing out the potential. The 16v set up has many, many technological benefits going for it – combustion chamber design, light weight valve train, air flow ability and some nice looks. Sure, tuned right it will make more HP than an 8v of similar displacement but it will also give the discerning owner a lot of joy just to open the hood and look at it.
Bang for the buck? A couple of quick external mods (turbo, wastegate & MAF) to a 2.5 liter is the way to go. Pride of owning something unique, sharp looking and very powerful – the 16v has a lot going for it there.
The only universal truth – there is no such thing as a cheap 16v project! It demands to be done right or not at all.
Rolex, yes I did have an idea of not going too much over the top for power, but maybe have the possibility of a larger cash injection to do a more complete job. This is yet to be determined. This is why I'm trying to do as much research on all possibilities before committing to the job. Also being down under the tyranny of distance means you want to get it right first time up. Ultimately standalone would be the desired option, but there seem to be many issues tuning these, however there are good versions of these in Australia so local backup and service would be possible. It's not to say that doing a plug 'n' play unit like a Vitesse SIII kit is still not out of the running. It all depends on everything as usual.
02-14-2007, 04:47 PM
#98
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Capitola, CA
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an S2 block with the existing pulleys and tensioner for my 3 liter build. Is there an adjustable cam gear that will fit my 2.7 head and the wider belt of the S2 block? If I do not go adjustable, will a 16 valve pulley fit on the 2.7 head. I do not have a problem modifying the top cover for the wider belt.
Thank You.
Thank You.
02-14-2007, 08:33 PM
#100
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Capitola, CA
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, those are nice parts. I do not believe they have the wider gear for my application. Does anyone know if the 16V pulley will bolt onto my 2.7 head with the proper alignment for the bottom end.
02-15-2007, 05:40 AM
#101
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
valves, valvetrain on 16v variocam
has anyone tested/looked at the head. will it manage the high temps of turbocharging or do you need to change exhaust valves? how is the springs for high boost?
the car will se a lot of WOT for long periods and high temps seems to be a problem huanting me no matter what car I have.
this year I'm just building a 2.5 with new ems, turbo, wg ++ but it would be nice to have a motor project on the side for summer of 2008, plans would be
968 motor with 16v variocam
to fix all issues with pistons and such sleeving will probably be the way to go? I want as high CR as possible, but it's a tradeoff as everything else.
the fact that it's a na head worries me tempwise, so custom exhaust valves and new springs/retainers all round might be the way to go? it is an expensive extra. but cheaper than total rebuild of both block and top.
turbowise a GT35R 0.82 should probably give decent power and spool, but Ive also been looking at new turbonetics GTK, but little data yet.
has anyone tested/looked at the head. will it manage the high temps of turbocharging or do you need to change exhaust valves? how is the springs for high boost?
the car will se a lot of WOT for long periods and high temps seems to be a problem huanting me no matter what car I have.
this year I'm just building a 2.5 with new ems, turbo, wg ++ but it would be nice to have a motor project on the side for summer of 2008, plans would be
968 motor with 16v variocam
to fix all issues with pistons and such sleeving will probably be the way to go? I want as high CR as possible, but it's a tradeoff as everything else.
the fact that it's a na head worries me tempwise, so custom exhaust valves and new springs/retainers all round might be the way to go? it is an expensive extra. but cheaper than total rebuild of both block and top.
turbowise a GT35R 0.82 should probably give decent power and spool, but Ive also been looking at new turbonetics GTK, but little data yet.
