cost for parts, engine re-build for changing my 968...
06-01-2010, 08:38 PM
#47
Race Director
968 Turbo S pistons ?? a mint (woefully $$$$) ????
it seems from what i'm learning... (137 seconds before Krazy Karl's motor started losing power) and i barely know what i'm talking about, that there comes that moment when the engine should be pulled and the crank turned and bearings replaced, do a valve job and maybe some other stuff. but i'm wondering...
can partial rebuilds bear any fruit ?
what i'm saying is; if 2/3 of the wear is on the rings, why not just turn the crank install the new size bearings, oil pump, do a valve job, and new cams, belts, rollers etc right there, and put a set of oem sized rings right back in there ? or rings just slightly over ?
or if you go this far, you're stupid not to send the block out to be done too ?
it seems from what i'm learning... (137 seconds before Krazy Karl's motor started losing power) and i barely know what i'm talking about, that there comes that moment when the engine should be pulled and the crank turned and bearings replaced, do a valve job and maybe some other stuff. but i'm wondering...
can partial rebuilds bear any fruit ?
what i'm saying is; if 2/3 of the wear is on the rings, why not just turn the crank install the new size bearings, oil pump, do a valve job, and new cams, belts, rollers etc right there, and put a set of oem sized rings right back in there ? or rings just slightly over ?
or if you go this far, you're stupid not to send the block out to be done too ?
I thought you were still in love with Tony G?
06-02-2010, 09:03 AM
#48
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
06-02-2010, 09:05 AM
#49
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
weird.. one of my posts are missing?
Rod lengths are the same, just make sure the crank end of the aftermarket rod clears the block. .. Pin heights are changed.. Not good for a turbo motor.. Leaves less meat, for the top ring land, and less design room for the top part of the piston, but not crippling in this case. The Piston is also larger for the 3.0. You will need to modify the 16V exhaust to to mate up to the turbo. The Stock intake takes up too much space where the turbo will go, so you will have to make/buy one.
Putting it all together. (bottom end only) Well, I'll just say that I have someone else I trust to do that. - I need someone else to bitch at for something!
Rod lengths are the same, just make sure the crank end of the aftermarket rod clears the block. .. Pin heights are changed.. Not good for a turbo motor.. Leaves less meat, for the top ring land, and less design room for the top part of the piston, but not crippling in this case. The Piston is also larger for the 3.0. You will need to modify the 16V exhaust to to mate up to the turbo. The Stock intake takes up too much space where the turbo will go, so you will have to make/buy one.
Putting it all together. (bottom end only) Well, I'll just say that I have someone else I trust to do that. - I need someone else to bitch at for something!
06-02-2010, 09:21 AM
#50
Three Wheelin'
wow. thanks both of you.
are there any successful 3.0s turbos that have been built from variocam blocks without doing much more than changing to the stout rods,
and new rod bearings on the existing crank ??...
or are we talking about turning the cranks, tearing everything down, installing 951 pistons, and everything else, just to get started ?
are there any successful 3.0s turbos that have been built from variocam blocks without doing much more than changing to the stout rods,
and new rod bearings on the existing crank ??...
or are we talking about turning the cranks, tearing everything down, installing 951 pistons, and everything else, just to get started ?
06-02-2010, 09:53 AM
#51
Drifting
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
968 pistons and 2.7 head yield a pretty reasonable 9.3:1 unless you where very short on octane i would prefer to leave the piston bowl alone as it already has minimum crown thickness..
so another thread has just featured 968 turbo engine that couldn't be done .... with out any help from the experienced experts with a thick head gasket and gt3582 yeh a failure only 500whp and apparently the engine failed at just 32psi of boost ... perhaps the the bucher oo the duke will drop here ...
so another thread has just featured 968 turbo engine that couldn't be done .... with out any help from the experienced experts with a thick head gasket and gt3582 yeh a failure only 500whp and apparently the engine failed at just 32psi of boost ... perhaps the the bucher oo the duke will drop here ...
06-02-2010, 01:22 PM
#52
On the Radar
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
from the OP...
wow. thanks both of you.
are there any successful 3.0s turbos that have been built from variocam blocks without doing much more than changing to the stout rods,
and new rod bearings on the existing crank ??...
or are we talking about turning the cranks, tearing everything down, installing 951 pistons, and everything else, just to get started ?
are there any successful 3.0s turbos that have been built from variocam blocks without doing much more than changing to the stout rods,
and new rod bearings on the existing crank ??...
or are we talking about turning the cranks, tearing everything down, installing 951 pistons, and everything else, just to get started ?
12-08-2010, 01:20 PM
#54
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 28,705
Received 212 Likes
on
153 Posts
turbocharger vs supercharger estimating the hidden costs/break even point....
how far off might i be on a cost-comparison if i sourced a good number of used turbo parts....
for a true low-boost turbo vs supercharger shootout on paper ?
can you all help me adjust the numbers ?
i was posting on the "crack house" thread about the fake e-ram supercharger....
https://rennlist.com/forums/924-931-...ercharger.html
somehow, we failed to convinced the op that NONE of these scam/FAKE products
will ever increase horsepower under any circumstances...
i came up with some estimates.... first, that superchargers work well in:
1. economies with strong currencies (cheap fossil fuels).
2. drag racing/racing where burning 12 gallons of fuel in 4 seconds/minutes is politically/economically feasible.....
3. commercial automotive applications running 5~8 pounds of boost. (see # 1).
there was a comment made in THAT thread (see link above) about superconductors (far and away, the highlight of the thread)..... emphasizing that it would require "superconductor" levels of battery and wiring efficiency on the order of multiple X times current practical limits to be able to store the massive, electrical power required to make a high-efficiency, centrifugal supercharger that works on demand, running an electric motor — workable.
if it was "workable," we'd have seen electric "NOS" a long time ago....
my conclusion is simply, that you have to go big....
(and not-only, because we lack the cheap superconductors/super-batteries required to make an "on demand" product work).
superchargers require a delicate balance and are the sum total of several compromises. they can be made to work reasonably well making say, 6~12 pounds of boost, in small to medium displacement engines missing a few cylinders — but even here, it is extremely difficult to hide their glaring flaws in a daily driven car.
in recent years, automobile manufacturers have surely produced some very nice tangible, junior supercars, ranging from the small Lotus' to the Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru WRX and similar competitor's cars, to the Nissan 350 ZXs and Corvettes of the world — and they all deliver reasonably well in the "bang for the buck" context.... but you have to ask yourself one question: how many superchargers do you see running in these same, recent, production cars.
they all run high output n/a engines and turbochargers....
the cars running intercooled turbos are many X times more efficient, and are especially attractive in banana republics where 5, or 6 dollar-per-gallon gasoline may soon become a reality—
of course, turbos require greater up-front costs.... but, if you run a supercharger, the hidden costs keep adding up, and before long, there's a break-even point. and it's likely to happn sooner than you think — maybe, 18~35 k miles down the road — and by the time you get there, you'll have laid out as much $$$$ as just going "turbo...."
here are some estimates i was able to come up with:
low boost turbocharger parts & install (w/out engine blueprinting): $11,500 (this number can vary by $1000s X)
low boost supercharger kit & install........................................... $5,500
difference.............................................................. ..............$6,000
difference in gallons of premium pump gas.......................... 1,900 gallons
turbocharged 968 vs supercharged 968:
fuel mileage with turbocharger: 25 MPG (highway).
fuel mileage with supercharger: 16 MPG (highway).
difference (estimate)................9 MPG
X 1900 Gallons = 17,100 Miles / the break even point ($$$$).
.
for a true low-boost turbo vs supercharger shootout on paper ?
can you all help me adjust the numbers ?
i was posting on the "crack house" thread about the fake e-ram supercharger....
https://rennlist.com/forums/924-931-...ercharger.html
somehow, we failed to convinced the op that NONE of these scam/FAKE products
will ever increase horsepower under any circumstances...
i came up with some estimates.... first, that superchargers work well in:
1. economies with strong currencies (cheap fossil fuels).
2. drag racing/racing where burning 12 gallons of fuel in 4 seconds/minutes is politically/economically feasible.....
3. commercial automotive applications running 5~8 pounds of boost. (see # 1).
there was a comment made in THAT thread (see link above) about superconductors (far and away, the highlight of the thread)..... emphasizing that it would require "superconductor" levels of battery and wiring efficiency on the order of multiple X times current practical limits to be able to store the massive, electrical power required to make a high-efficiency, centrifugal supercharger that works on demand, running an electric motor — workable.
if it was "workable," we'd have seen electric "NOS" a long time ago....
my conclusion is simply, that you have to go big....
(and not-only, because we lack the cheap superconductors/super-batteries required to make an "on demand" product work).
superchargers require a delicate balance and are the sum total of several compromises. they can be made to work reasonably well making say, 6~12 pounds of boost, in small to medium displacement engines missing a few cylinders — but even here, it is extremely difficult to hide their glaring flaws in a daily driven car.
in recent years, automobile manufacturers have surely produced some very nice tangible, junior supercars, ranging from the small Lotus' to the Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru WRX and similar competitor's cars, to the Nissan 350 ZXs and Corvettes of the world — and they all deliver reasonably well in the "bang for the buck" context.... but you have to ask yourself one question: how many superchargers do you see running in these same, recent, production cars.
they all run high output n/a engines and turbochargers....
the cars running intercooled turbos are many X times more efficient, and are especially attractive in banana republics where 5, or 6 dollar-per-gallon gasoline may soon become a reality—
of course, turbos require greater up-front costs.... but, if you run a supercharger, the hidden costs keep adding up, and before long, there's a break-even point. and it's likely to happn sooner than you think — maybe, 18~35 k miles down the road — and by the time you get there, you'll have laid out as much $$$$ as just going "turbo...."
here are some estimates i was able to come up with:
low boost turbocharger parts & install (w/out engine blueprinting): $11,500 (this number can vary by $1000s X)
low boost supercharger kit & install........................................... $5,500
difference.............................................................. ..............$6,000
difference in gallons of premium pump gas.......................... 1,900 gallons
turbocharged 968 vs supercharged 968:
fuel mileage with turbocharger: 25 MPG (highway).
fuel mileage with supercharger: 16 MPG (highway).
difference (estimate)................9 MPG
X 1900 Gallons = 17,100 Miles / the break even point ($$$$).
.
Last edited by odurandina; 12-08-2010 at 05:05 PM.
12-08-2010, 04:22 PM
#56
how far off might i be on a cost-comparison if i sourced a good number of used turbo parts....
for a true low-boost turbo vs supercharger shootout on paper ?
can you all help me adjust the numbers ?
i was posting on the "crack house" thread about the fake e-ram supercharger....
https://rennlist.com/forums/924-931-...ercharger.html
somehow, we failed to convinced the op that NONE of these scam/FAKE products
will ever increase horsepower under any circumstances...
i came up with some estimates.... first, that superchargers work well in:
1. economies with strong currencies (cheap fossil fuels).
2. drag racing/racing where burning 12 gallons of fuel in 4 seconds/minutes is politically/economically feasible.....
3. commercial automotive applications running 5~8 pounds of boost. (see # 1).
there was a comment made in THAT thread (see link above) about superconductors (far and away, the highlight of the thread)..... emphasizing that it would require "superconductor" levels of battery and wiring efficiency on the order of multiple X times current practical limits to be able to store the massive, electrical power required to make a high-efficiency, centrifugal supercharger that works on demand, running an electric motor — workable.
if it was "workable," we'd have seen electric "NOS" a long time ago....
my conclusion is simply, that you have to go big....
(and not-only, because we lack the cheap superconductors/super-batteries required to make an "on demand" product work).
superchargers require a delicate balance and are the sum total of several compromises. they can be made to work reasonably well making say, 6~12 pounds of boost, in small to medium displacement engines missing a few cylinders — but even here, it is extremely difficult to hide their glaring flaws in a daily driven car.
in recent years, automobile manufacturers have surely produced some very nice tangible, junior supercars, ranging from the small Lotus' to the Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru WRX and similar competitor's cars, to the Nissan 350 ZXs and Corvettes of the world — and they all deliver reasonably well in the "bang for the buck" context.... but you have to ask yourself one question: how many superchargers do you see running in these same, recent, production cars.
they all run high output n/a engines and turbochargers....
the cars running intercooled turbos are many X times more efficient, and are especially attractive in banana republics where 5, or 6 dollar-per-gallon gasoline may soon become a reality—
of course, turbos require greater up-front costs.... but, if you run a supercharger, the hidden costs keep adding up, and before long, there's a break-even point. and it's likely to happn sooner than you think — maybe, 18~35 k miles down the road — and by the time you get there, you'll have laid out as much $$$$ as just going "turbo...."
here are some estimates i was able to come up with:
low boost turbocharger parts & install (w/out engine blueprinting): $11,500 (this number can vary by $1000s X)
low boost supercharger kit & install........................................... $5,500
difference.............................................................. ..............$6,000
difference in gallons of premium pump gas.......................... 1,900 gallons
turbocharged 968 vs supercharged 968:
fuel mileage with turbocharger: 25 MPG (highway).
fuel mileage with supercharger: 16 MPG (highway).
difference (estimate)................9 MPG
X 1900 Gallons = 17,100 Miles / the break even point ($$$$).
.
for a true low-boost turbo vs supercharger shootout on paper ?
can you all help me adjust the numbers ?
i was posting on the "crack house" thread about the fake e-ram supercharger....
https://rennlist.com/forums/924-931-...ercharger.html
somehow, we failed to convinced the op that NONE of these scam/FAKE products
will ever increase horsepower under any circumstances...
i came up with some estimates.... first, that superchargers work well in:
1. economies with strong currencies (cheap fossil fuels).
2. drag racing/racing where burning 12 gallons of fuel in 4 seconds/minutes is politically/economically feasible.....
3. commercial automotive applications running 5~8 pounds of boost. (see # 1).
there was a comment made in THAT thread (see link above) about superconductors (far and away, the highlight of the thread)..... emphasizing that it would require "superconductor" levels of battery and wiring efficiency on the order of multiple X times current practical limits to be able to store the massive, electrical power required to make a high-efficiency, centrifugal supercharger that works on demand, running an electric motor — workable.
if it was "workable," we'd have seen electric "NOS" a long time ago....
my conclusion is simply, that you have to go big....
(and not-only, because we lack the cheap superconductors/super-batteries required to make an "on demand" product work).
superchargers require a delicate balance and are the sum total of several compromises. they can be made to work reasonably well making say, 6~12 pounds of boost, in small to medium displacement engines missing a few cylinders — but even here, it is extremely difficult to hide their glaring flaws in a daily driven car.
in recent years, automobile manufacturers have surely produced some very nice tangible, junior supercars, ranging from the small Lotus' to the Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru WRX and similar competitor's cars, to the Nissan 350 ZXs and Corvettes of the world — and they all deliver reasonably well in the "bang for the buck" context.... but you have to ask yourself one question: how many superchargers do you see running in these same, recent, production cars.
they all run high output n/a engines and turbochargers....
the cars running intercooled turbos are many X times more efficient, and are especially attractive in banana republics where 5, or 6 dollar-per-gallon gasoline may soon become a reality—
of course, turbos require greater up-front costs.... but, if you run a supercharger, the hidden costs keep adding up, and before long, there's a break-even point. and it's likely to happn sooner than you think — maybe, 18~35 k miles down the road — and by the time you get there, you'll have laid out as much $$$$ as just going "turbo...."
here are some estimates i was able to come up with:
low boost turbocharger parts & install (w/out engine blueprinting): $11,500 (this number can vary by $1000s X)
low boost supercharger kit & install........................................... $5,500
difference.............................................................. ..............$6,000
difference in gallons of premium pump gas.......................... 1,900 gallons
turbocharged 968 vs supercharged 968:
fuel mileage with turbocharger: 25 MPG (highway).
fuel mileage with supercharger: 16 MPG (highway).
difference (estimate)................9 MPG
X 1900 Gallons = 17,100 Miles / the break even point ($$$$).
.
The supercharger kits out there for the 968 use a centrifical supercharger. So it doesn't work like a roots one at all. If you drive easy it won't engage the supercharger and you can still pull in decent MPG's. Now when you get on it it takes a while to get into boost. Its quicker than a turbo, but not as quick as a roots type supercharger. Look around at that first. Supercharger may fit into what you need.
Or go all out and get a turbocharged 968. I personally would go with a kit.
12-09-2010, 10:52 PM
#57
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 28,705
Received 212 Likes
on
153 Posts
i may have estimated a bit low on centrifugal superchargers...
i wasn't talking about a roots blower...
sorry if i gave that impression..
you would go with "what" kit ? there are supercharger kits and turbocharger kits.
i wasn't talking about a roots blower...
sorry if i gave that impression..
you would go with "what" kit ? there are supercharger kits and turbocharger kits.
