951and944S

Your post prior to this one is a fair answer, thanks.

No offense to Chris and Ivan but that demo they put on at Barbers and Road Atlanta didn't help matters much.....

I figured that the "Porsche factory tub/chassis = mandatory" was coming but I never expected the scale of the rules changes that were adopted to be honest.

To be honest, I'm sitting perfect with where my GT3 car will be when finished, with a 2.5 liter 8v engine, after having traded off a 968 engine destined to be a 3.0 16v turbo powerplant for my car with my daughter's orthodontist in exchange for braces.....

Really, I should be happy my daughter had an overbite.....or else I'd be headed to GT2 too...

This just sort of reeks of the incremental "restrictions" on turbocharged cars that Porsche left sports car racing for themselves.

In response to the reason for this particular reply, I just remembered Scott correcting himself on the issue of bhp or rwhp, sorry but my time is limited.....

By the way, technically, one of the quotes you used to iterate your point was -

"Assume a 400RWHP 3.4L 911", which means, to take for granted without proof; to pretend to have or be

T

Chris Prack

Oh great!! Now it's our fault!!

A.Wayne

Scott corrected himself on misquoting me not on his original statement of 400 whp.......

Chris : LOL, yeah we made scott do it .......

evil 944t

post #87

"First, it is actual and factual that there are 400+ RWHP 911's in GT3 - That is a FACT, not an assumption or speculation. Think about how "I" would know this? ;-) - Another FACT, is that the 911 is hardly at the limit of development, please, I can't believe these words were actually written, and you should be embarrassed to such nonsense."

951and944S

I guess it's natural for turbo guys to involuntarily just quote rwhp instead of crankshaft.

Most of the power pulls are made on rear wheel dynos since most of the mods are bolt on and the flat six guys might more readily quote crank hp because serious power gains are only attainable by having the engine removed....

I'll keep tabs on this thread, from a "reader" perspective....

I'm already talking too much.....

Sebring.....February....I'll hollah...!

T

951and944S

Ha ha....!

You just lurking in there eh....?

I like your attitude about the whole issue though, I must say -

"Oh well, I guess we'll have two cars in GT2......!"



T

951and944S

Dave, do you believe that a 3.4 liter NA flat six is at the "limit of development"...?

I'd have thought that against your religion....!?!?!

T

evil 944t

That was Scott's quote. The only thing that is at the "limit of developement" is this thread, lol...

m42racer

Amen!!!

It's time to go rac'in Gentlemen.

Put your money (and your dyno sheets) where your mouth is. Enough of this.

Let the dust settle and hand out the Champange.

333pg333

Looks like you were going to get bitten either way. lol

[
To be honest, I'm sitting perfect with where my GT3 car will be when finished, with a 2.5 liter 8v engine, after having traded off a 968 engine destined to be a 3.0 16v turbo powerplant for my car with my daughter's orthodontist in exchange for braces.....

Really, I should be happy my daughter had an overbite.....or else I'd be headed to GT2 too...

Under Pressure Performance

OK, let's get this straight once and for all...

In regard to this thread, it has ALWAYS been my position that there are 3.4L 911'a making 400+ RWHP. Never have I detracted from that claim, with the exception of later conceding to you so you could claim victory, and we could move on. That said, I don't believe I ever flip flopped on the power being BHP instead of RWHP as you imply below...

A.Wayne wrote...
"Scott original claim was 400 whp , he never retracted , but started to use BHP instead of WHP , hence the muddyness. this is what we are now working with."

So, I ask of you yet again A.Wayne - Please stop your inaccurate references, implications, and word spinning. From what I can recall, the only time I mis-referenced RWHP was in response to one of your posts where I reference a number that I though you quoted s RWHP, but later found that you posted that number in BHP (to be honest, I swear I saw that you wrote 475 RWHP, not BHP, but hey, I have been up late lately, so who knows what I really saw?)

Either way, that had NOTHING to do with my original claim of 400 RWHP - So let's get this straight once and for all... Outside of the one mis-reference (which I acknowledged and subsequently apologized for) I never started using BHP instead of RWHP as you imply, so again, please stop putting spin on the facts. If, however, I did mistakingly reference my claims as 400 BHP instead of RWHP then it was definitely an oversight and if someone points an example out to me, I will go back and edit my post to correct it.

One more time for the record:
There ARE 400+ RWHP 3.4L 911's - RWHP (rear wheel horsepower)

It is beginning to appear that A. Wayne is only here to push buttons. Frankly, I question if any of the rule changes affect him in any real way? More to the point, I am wondering if he races? If so, what? Where? Judging by his responses throughout this thread, I would doubt he owns a 944T, but should I just automatically assume he owns a 911? Or further assume that he owns a 3.4L? Or, is even involved in PCA racing? He has not indicated one way or the other. Perhaps he is just a passionate fan of racing in general? He does seem to enjoy F1, and he certainly seems fond of engine statistics/numbers. If he is just a fan, and does not race himself, but instead enjoys participating in racing discussions, then that is cool with me too.

Perhaps I, and maybe others, have made some assumptions about A.Wayne along the way?

Moving on....

A. Wayne wrote: "3.8 L RSR engines make 400-425 BHP , that is what i have seen from experience"

This is true, 3.8L RSR engines do make 400-425 BHP, it could also be said that they make 400-450 BHP, or 400-485 BHP. If, in your experience, you have seen no more than 425BHP from a 3.8L RSR, then that would also explain your position on the maximum attainable power output of the 3.4L.

Actually, the current 3.8L RSR (997) makes 485 BHP RESTRICTED! And from what I have seen in MY experience a 2004 3.6L RSR (996) puts down 505 AT THE WHEELS UNRESTRICTED (when the restrictors are removed) - Keep in mind, the factory claims 455 BHP restricted, so that gives you a vague idea what the restrictors actually do on those very impressive N/A engines.

Since it is unlikely you would believe this, I will preempt your response with the following... Straight from the Porsche motorsports section of the website under race cars...

(997 RSR 3.8L)
flat six-cylinder boxer engine, water-cooled
3,795 cc, stroke 76.4 mm, bore 102.7 mm Ø
max. torque: 435 Nm at 7,250 rpm
max. power: 358 kW (485 bhp) at 8,400 rpm with 2 x 30.3 mm restrictors
max. rpm: 9,000 rpm
four-valve cylinder heads

Here is a link...
http://www.porsche.com/usa/eventsand...ogyandconcept/

Here are the 996 3.6L RSR specs also taken directly from the Porsche website...

flat six-cylinder boxer engine, water-cooled
3.598 cc, stroke 76.4 mm, bore 99.99 mm dia.
max. torque: 410 Nm at 7.200 rpm
max. power: 335 kW (455 BHP) at 8.500 rpm with 2 x 30.8 mm dia. restrictors in FIA version
(2 x 29.2 mm dia. in ACO version; power rating for ACO version upon request)
max. rpm: 8.700 rpm

And, of course, the link...
http://www.porsche.com/usa/eventsand...ogyandconcept/

How about we get back to the rules and how they affect the 944/T's? Those of you that are reading this thread that do, in fact, race a 944/T, how about adding your thoughts regarding which class will be better suited for you next year. It would be interesting to hear of real world examples of those that will need additional weight to stay in class, and those that will instead to move up a class and perhaps drop weight. How about the guys/girls that feel forced into engine rebuilds, or those that were considering going from 8V to 16V before the change, and perhaps are rethinking it? Surely there are lots of scenarios, and I would love for this thread to morph toward the direction of how you, the 944 racer, intend to cope with the rule changes.

As always, thanks for reading...

Under Pressure Performance

+1 on moving on.....

My deepest apologies to everyone for getting caught up in any tangents. While there has been several off topic tangents, mixed within the static is some constructive material. If nothing else, there has been a demonstration of how passionately upset others had been about the 944T's in GT3 - Which brings us back to where this thread began.

To reiterate the last paragraph of my last post...

How about we get back to the rules and how they affect the 944/T's? Those of you that are reading this thread that do, in fact, own and race (or plan to race) a 944/T - How about adding your thoughts regarding which class will be better suited for you next year.

Let's discuss real world examples
Those that will need additional weight to stay in class
Those that will instead to move up a class and perhaps drop weight
Do you feel forced into an engine rebuild/displacement change?
Were considering going from 8V to 16V before the change?
Are you rethinking it?

Surely there are lots of other scenarios, and I would love for this thread to morph toward the direction of how those of us affected, the 944 racer, intend to cope with the rule changes.

Jeff Lamb

Scott, I agree you made it clear that you are aware of 3.4 liter 911 engines producing 400 rwhp that have been running in the old GT3 class. I also agree that I didn't see where you had ever retracted those words.

I further inquired about Scott's observation in the real interest of learning more about 911 engines. Because, if a reliable 400 rwhp for road racing is achievable from a PCA legal, 3.4 liter, normally aspirated, 2 valve, air cooled, 911 engine, then I am very inspired to hear this because it gives me some insight into the type of engine I might be able to eventually have built for my 911 race car (that currently runs a mildly tuned, 3.4 liter, 2 valve, air cooled engine).

If Scott is saying that 400 rwhp is really only available from a 3.4 liter, normally aspirated, 4 valve, water cooled, 911 engine, then that is still impressive, but not as impressive as achieving it from the air cooled, 2 valve 911 engine. The new PCA rules assign the water cooled, 4 valve 911 engines an output of 135 HP/liter. If we were to make the further assumption that the PCA rules are based on BHP and not RWHP, then this means that the PCA believes a 3.4 liter, normally aspirated, 4 valve, water cooled, 911 engine should produce 459 BHP in highly developed trim. I don't know what the driveline loss is for 911s but if we think somewhere around 59 BHP is lost in the driveline, then that would give us 400 RWHP at a driveline loss of 12.8%.

Let me again say that I don't know 911s that well (because I have been a 944 turbo guy for many years) and I don't know what types of 3.4 liter 911 engines were running in the old GT3 class this year and in past years. Therefore, this raises the following questions:

How many of the 911s running under the old GT3 rules (max normally aspirated displacement of 3.4 liters) were running 4 valve, water cooled engines? Versus, how many were running the 2 valve, air cooled engines? Does anyone happen to know?

The reason the above questions are interesting is that a light weight (use 2,185 pounds including driver) 911 running a 3.4 liter, 4 valve, water cooled engine gets bumped well into GT2 under the new rules. To stay in GT3, this 911 would have to add weight to get up to 2,530 pounds (including driver) to stay in the new GT3 class. So, the 3.4 liter, water cooled 911s (if there are any?) do have the very same problem that many 944 Turbos are facing with the rules change.

Jeff

Jeff Lamb

If I were going to run a 944 turbo under the new rules, I like light weight cars AND I like running against the most current versions of the 911s, so I would build one where the car weighs right around 2,200 pounds. Add a 185 pound driver and that brings us up to 2,385 pounds including driver. This would allow me to run a 2.8 liter engine with a 2 valve head OR a 2.4 liter engine with a 4 valve head. Under the PCA's assigned numbers for the engines, a highly developed 2 valve engine should produce 560 BHP and a highly developed 4 valve engine should produce just over 550 BHP. Both would be very fun to take the "new opportunity" to race head-to-head against the 911 Cup and RSR cars running in the new GT2 class.

I think most of the 911s running in GT2 cost somewhere between $100k (Cup cars) and $400k (new RSR). Could a competitive GT2 class 944 Turbo be built within that dollar range? I would think so. But, probably not within the short 2 month advance notice window we have been given.

Although, under the old GT3 rules I would be much more confident in my chances of running up front with a 944 turbo. Under the new rules, I think running up front with a 944 turbo still can be done, however, it will be MUCH more difficult. I again reiterate that the rules changes are very significant for a number of car/engine combinations. And, I again say that I wish we all had at least one year of advance notice to adapt to the changes before they take effect.

Jeff

A.Wayne

This is Hilarious,
You are Picking on the little guy now huh !

Scott,

You made the claim of 400 whp 3.4l engine , not I . I'm pushing no buttons , but would like to continue what has turned out to be a very interesting discourse.
Regarding your 400 whp 3.4L aircooled 911 engines , most here feel, that it does not exist and i'm willing to wager , you cannot produce for a dyno pull one that does. What is most interesting, is you are now comparing an 3.8 RSR aircooled engine to a 997 RSR engine ? Do you have any experiences with these cars. Scott, dyno work , etc. there is a huge difference between the motors.

More in line with your 944 T work and with all due respect, do you have any 951 results we can look at against these 400 whp 3.4L aircooled 911 beasties flying around in PCA, say Sebring , Daytona, Road Atlanta etc, i mean anywhere,, anything I mean gives us a race , a name, a lap time , anything to go on to legitimize your position on this. Not trying to turn this into an eye poking contest, but would like to move along on evaluating the legitimacy of what has been said and if so , the problems it promotes with the new rules.

Jeff,

I'm only aware of 1 GT3 type 911, that had a 4 V water cooled engine and i believe he was reclassified as GTP.