cant stop myself have to chip in here, my turbo was a low boost high compression running 9psi spiking to 10psi. The car was a blast to drive. The headgasket went and as Arash correctly point out it was 18 years old anyway!! I did find some cylinder scoring after pulling it down, but as I stated in my posts it was still pulling 190psi in all cylinders....that scoring could have been there for a long time.

In hindsight if I would have resticted the engine to 7psi and I think it would have been a happy conversion, I chose to push it knowing it may break it, so please understand that a low boost conversion is quite valid and exciting and low cost (if you do all the work yourself)

I have now gone the "expensive route" with a full rebuild and chasing much more horepower, you pay to play....

regards
mike

 

"I have now gone the "expensive route" with a full rebuild and chasing much more horepower, you pay to play...."

Really? Damn, I wish someone had told me about that

 

haha Patrick you just like paying...maybe one day you can come out to play

 

Same bottom end as a 951....you must be thinking of a 968 bottom end!

For street driving teh 8v is the way to go unless you wnat ot spend a lot of $ to build a 16v the right way.

 

I think he was talking about the rods.

 

Swap in the engine from the donor car, then slowly build the 3.0 16v whenever you get some extra cash.

 

Is the bottom end of the 16V different from the 8V? Or are you referring to the compression ratio?

Sprint.

 

The bottom end and the compression ratio is different.

 

The block and the crank is the same? Is it just a job of using new pistons or are the bearings and other important stuff different?

Thanks!

Sprint.

 

The S2 block and crank is similar to the 951 block and crank in construction. However the 951 rods and pistons are forged, while the S2 rods and pistons are cast.

 

.........

 

8v is what the factory did!

 

Well as you know they also did a 16v racecar. I agree with the sentiments that 99 times out of a 100 the 8v will do most of what we need at an affordable cost. The 16v seems to explode exponentially costwise.

 

Based on how Porsche used 16v engines in the race cars, I've always felt the choice to make the 968 turbo RS with an 8v engine was purely to save money on r&d. IMHO.

 

I think theres an article that says they used 8V cause it fit better with the HP/TQ limits that they had to deal with.