pete95zhn

Yep, Manley stainless valves, 48mm in & 45 mm out, N/A head though. Dynocharts will be posted when the engine is running.

dand86951

I can't answer for certain as I haven't tried each, but regarding the turbos used I would expect it would be Powerhaus' k29/8 turbo, but again I don't know for sure.

Regarding the torque off boost it is hard to compare as you don't know where the dyno run was started or how it was done on the 8v. The 16v was obviously started way down low in the 1500rpm range probably just to get a transistion curve.

Markus951

I am in the middle of building a 16 valve 3.0 liter turboengine to my 91 944 turbo.. For that purpose I bought whole 968 wreck what had 54 000 km on the odometer. Car is 93 yearmodel produced in august - witch means it has newer model forged con.rods and forged pistons in stock! I will change the con.rods to 86.yearmodel 951 rods - just in case!

AS far as the other mods I will change the valve springs, Ill install thicker cometic headgasket 3.2mm(+2mm) that will bring down the comp.ratio to 9,5:1. As far as exhaust manifold I wil use mix from 951 crossover, and 968 exhaust manifold (witch by the way is really similar to 951 unit just need to change the flange to bolt on crossover pipe). Turbo I will put into the stock 951 location! I will be using GT35R with 0,82 AR..

Bigger project is intake manny, I will use 100mm runners and 50mm full radius trompets on top of them. I will use stock 968 flange and runners but modify them, plenum volume will be optimised for street use and good responce, not for top hp! My calculations show something up to 4.5 liters.

Disain for manny is really simple.. I will use one 4" 3mm 90 degree aluminium bent, 50cm of 4" 3mm Aluminium pipe. 6mm sheet aluminium and 67mm throttle body from BMW. check out the design i am planning to use
http://eku.3lite.ee/album45

I know its not the dream setup but quite unique.. and if I brak it I will go for darton sleeved block with custom oversized pistons, rods etc...

I will keep variocam as it is steetcar and low end torque is vital here! As we know intake cam can be advanced 12 degrees. Thats what I will experiment also! I will retard the cam into the 0 position in the point Ill have max boost.

Max boost I expect to have by 3500-4000 rpm.. I expect to get 500 crank hp/700+ crank torque with 1 bar, low egt - reliable power..

I am not affraid of detonation due to affected quench are caused by thicker gasket, since 968 head uses pentroof design burn chamber and 16 valve etc.

I hope to get everything ready within couple of weeks so will see.. I think my setup will not suffer under the lag of low end torque since im running pretty high comp.ratio and I have variocam + modern powerfull ECU to qo with it.. will see how it works!

markus

Fishey

968 stock pistons for the WIN!

Geneqco

Thanks for the post Markus. Sounds like a great setup, I hope it all goes well for you. Please keep us informed.


I understand that by the fast burn chamber design of the 16v you need less advance and therefore have less opportunity for detonation. Do you have any idea how much less advance you would run?

Another issue that may be worth some discussion is on the pros and cons of the 16v head as in the S2 v the Variocam as in the 968. I understand there are some benefits with the variocam but wonder how significant and how much more difficult/complicated it may be to modify.

StyleLab

Last time I mentioned stock pistons and 86 forged rods I was accused of being a cheap dreaming bastard. Oh well... Also, I don't think any change in timing advance will be worth the reliability tradeoff. You'll just end up blowing out your expensive head-gasket.

Geneqco

Not sure that I quite unserstand that. I thought that by virtue of chamber design the 16v head would require less timing advance than the 8v which would therefore make it less prone to detonation. I'm also not sure how this would lead to blowing your HG.

Please enlighten me.
Thanks

TurboTommy

Markus951,
looks like an exciting project.

I'm just curious, though, how you think you're gonna get 700 lb/ft of torque at 1 bar boost.
The stock 968 3.0L has 225 lb/ft; and now you're just doubling the absolute pressure, and yet with less compression, and probably a little higher than ambient temperature.

333pg333

I think he's putting a 2nd motor in the boot. lol.

Raceboy

He means 700 Nm, NOT lb/ft. We're from Europe you know

Olli Snellman

I thought you Canadians moved to metric system long time ago...

pete95zhn

That's in Nm ( Newton meters ), according to SI: The International System of Units (abbreviated SI from the French Système international d'unités) is the modern form of the metric system. It is the world's most widely used system of units, both in everyday commerce and in science.

The older metric system included several groups of units. The SI was developed in 1960 from the old metre-kilogram-second (mks) system, rather than the centimetre-gram-second (cgs) system, which, in turn, had a few variants.

The SI introduced several newly named units. The SI is not static, but is a living set of standards by which units are created and definitions are modified through international agreement among many nations as the technology of measurement progresses.

The system is used in almost every country in the world, and most countries do not even maintain official definitions of any other units. The main exception is the United States of America, which still uses many old units. In the United States, industrial use of SI has increased, but popular use has remained limited. In the United Kingdom, conversion to metric units is government policy, but the transition is not yet complete. Those countries that still recognise non-SI units (e.g., the U.S. and UK) have redefined their traditional non-SI units in terms of SI units.)

Poundal foot is just something completely different..

333pg333

'Poundal foot' sounds like you might need to get some corrective footwear going on?

Markus951

Getting little offtopic..

Anyay.. 700NM equals to 516.300339 LB-FT.. my 2.5 liter stock engine had 550nm and it was not running right back on that time!.. I see no problem why 16 valve 3.0 liter would not make that kind of torque on crank!'

Markus

special tool

Hey Markus - where have you been?

Keep us posted.