3 Liter Turbo Registry
#213
Sweet. I plan on doing a 968, with as much displacement as possible, eventually. Maybe this year, sometime after I recuperate from the 951. The 951 will stay 3.0. After paint/wheels, Ill be done sinking large chunks of cash, into it. Youll definitely have to let us know George.
#214
Still under building process (lack of hobby funds)
Bore: 104.5 (Alusil)
Stroke: 88
Pistons: Mahle/Andial 104.5 turbo pistons
Rods: PO-Metal
Block: S2
Head: Factory new 2.7L with Chevy big block valves
Turbo: Holset
Engine Management: VR
Other: Dbilas cam
Bore: 104.5 (Alusil)
Stroke: 88
Pistons: Mahle/Andial 104.5 turbo pistons
Rods: PO-Metal
Block: S2
Head: Factory new 2.7L with Chevy big block valves
Turbo: Holset
Engine Management: VR
Other: Dbilas cam
#215
Regards.
Raj
#216
In PET the pulley for the 944 S2 (M44/41) is labeled "vibration damper" whereas the one for the 968 (M44/43 M44/44) is labeled "pulley". Parts numbers are different
Might the 968 pulley actually have no impact as a harmonic damper given the presence of the dual mass flywheel ?
Might the 968 pulley actually have no impact as a harmonic damper given the presence of the dual mass flywheel ?
Raj
#218
Almost finished ! Hoping to fire her up in 2 weeks. report to follow.
LR 3.1
Bore: 105 NiCom
Stroke: 88.6
Pistons: JE ceramic coated
Rods: Carrillo
Block: '93 968
Head: 8v LR stg3, solid lifters
Turbo: LR S75
Engine Management: LR chips
Other: LR stg4 MAF & more
(happy now Rob !)
LR 3.1
Bore: 105 NiCom
Stroke: 88.6
Pistons: JE ceramic coated
Rods: Carrillo
Block: '93 968
Head: 8v LR stg3, solid lifters
Turbo: LR S75
Engine Management: LR chips
Other: LR stg4 MAF & more
(happy now Rob !)
#219
#220
Ugh, im so ancy I cant wait for my car to be done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was told yesterday another week minimum. The builder is takin his sweet time to tune, thats ok tho, quality takes time. They want to do the break in themselves too, thats mostly the hold up at this point. I feel like a kid counting the days to xmas. Did I mention Im ancy, and cant wait? LOL
I figured if anyone understood my angst, its you guys. LOL
I figured if anyone understood my angst, its you guys. LOL
#221
I've been trying to keep the list up to date, but if you see any errors, let me know.
In the meantime, I have a question: I have seem the S2/968 crank stroke referred to as 87.8mm, as 88mm and as 88.6. All the Porsche reference materials I've seen, such as the 968 factory manual, list it as an 88mm stroke. So, where are people getting these other specs? Even clarks-garage lists it as 87.8. Anyone know why?
In the meantime, I have a question: I have seem the S2/968 crank stroke referred to as 87.8mm, as 88mm and as 88.6. All the Porsche reference materials I've seen, such as the 968 factory manual, list it as an 88mm stroke. So, where are people getting these other specs? Even clarks-garage lists it as 87.8. Anyone know why?
#222
Yeah I've been wondering about that too Tom. Someone mentioned to me in passing that there was a different crank and I think it was from one of the 968s but I will have to try and dig this up.
This would obviously have a direct effect on the nominated capacity of the car. I know we round it out, but some guys are saying 3L and some 3.1L. Both with 105s? Perhaps different rods?
This would obviously have a direct effect on the nominated capacity of the car. I know we round it out, but some guys are saying 3L and some 3.1L. Both with 105s? Perhaps different rods?
#223
Well, 1mm difference in stoke make about 34cc difference in overall displacement on a 104mm bore, so these reported stroke differences would make even less impact on total cc's. I've been poking around and cannot find anything but 88 in Porsche's literature, but assume there is more to the story since clarks-garage shows 87.8 (and clark is usually a good fact checker) and a number of people have said 88.6 in this thread. If anything, I was just curious if I calculated my compression ratio correctly, since I used 88mm stroke without actually checking.
#224
Perhaps it's just been that people have started rounding up the 87.8 to 88? Not sure on the 88.6 though. Perhaps that's the one I was informed about. Interesting that this hasn't surfaced before though?
#225
have to admit I didn't really check to well with my stroke numbers. Could have swore I found a site with the specs only last week, quoting 88.6, can't find it now. as you say all the books state 88.