Duke

It's called engineering as opposed to bolting together an engine with more or less stock parts which is done here. Not saying anything about the necessity or usability of an engine like that, but from an engineering viewpoint those builds are very interesting.

Duke

Numbers for those interested in comparing stuff:
996 Turbo, 9.4:1 compression. 0.8 bar stock boost and usually 1.2 bar with a regular reflash.
997 turbo, 9.8:1 compression. 1.0 bar stock boost and 1.2 bar overboost stock.
Evo X, 9.0:1 CR. Over 1.4 bar stock boost (max in midrange, tapers down).

IMHO it's better to compare a 16v turbo to the engines above than a 3.0l 8v engine..

Thom

An engineering viewpoint has value if it finds its way into a pragmatic, real-life application. This project doesn't apply.

Duke

So every project in the world should suit your "real-life application"?
If someone likes dragracing and builds something suitable for it, that's fine by me but maybe I'm more open minded and tolerant than you are to opinions and believes that differs from my own

Thom

Waste in the name of freedom... lol...

Btw, I enjoy watching tractor pulling.

Duke

Not by cup of tea but if you want to watch it I'm happy for you
Here's another, even more useless engine for your kindergarten collection
May I present the BMW M12/13-1, 1.5l cyl 1000+ hp 5,5 bar turbo... About 300 hp at 8000 rpm and 1000+ hp at 11000. Who the hell designed that crap
http://www.gurneyflap.com/bmwturbof1engine.html

67King

Um, the only kind of "engineering" it is is kitchen sink engineering. As in "throw the kitchen sink at it and hope it holds together." I see very little true engineering in there. I doubt they did a single stress analysis. And they spent a lot of time chasing their tails. For example, the wristpins. Most racing application wristpins I have seen were bored out in the middle to make them lighter, rather than made darn near solid for strength. Have you ever seen a billet block before? What's the point in that, just masturbation? How many runs will they get before the titanium valves and copper-beryllium seats on the exhaust side fail?

I may be wrong. I may be dead wrong. But from what is shown on forums, it looks more like belt, suspenders, bailing wire, and duct tape to hold up a pair of pants. This engineer isn't impressed.

Duke

67King, maybe you're right. Maybe they don't know much about anything and doesn't deserve to be called engineers. But getting those results with that kind of power/displacement ratio, developing their own turbos, blocks, cylinder heads and cams etc, and actually managing to get it to work is a hell of a lot more technically interesting and closer to real engineering in my book than any of the builds seen here. I thought even a pro engineer like yourself should appreciate that.

67King

As I said, I may be wrong. But keep in mind my background is in engines that will be made - literally - by the millions, in a plant putting out an engine every 18 seconds, and for a company that has to make things inexpensively, and have to survive 100,000 mile warranties. What I have always found is that, without fail, it is far, far easier to build a stupid fast engine making stupid power, when neither durability nor cost have to be considered. It is extremely easy. So yeah, I find what GM has done with their LS_ series engines, and the new Ford 5.0L to be significantly more impressive than this build. It is kind of along the lines of how I find the Z06 Corvette, even the ZR1, to be more impressive than that new Hennessey thing making 1200 horsepower. There are FAR more constraints put on the Corvette guys.

I admire what they do. Shoot, I'd love to have the ability to do that. I'm just saying that I don't see what I think of as engineering in what they do.

Duke

You are of course right, nothing can compare to the OEM engineering, but then again they have a liiiiittle more budget
And in the end, that's mostly what's controlling the results.

Thom

Not sure why you sound so defensive and sarcastic.
You actually make my point with the example of this BMW engine, as the progress made by major manufacturers through racing (F1 and endurance racing) often make their way to the mass produced cars = real life applications.
Do you think they blow that much money for fun and/or to satisfy the ego of some obscure programm manager?
67King has given hints on the mass production process, which I grew to like when I worked for a major French car manufacturer. The people who do engine developments by putting scientific/physical datas against each other (which is I think what you refer to as "engineering") are a small part of the whole engineering and contribute no more no less to the whole process than other engineers.

Duke

The reason I sound sarcastic is that I have very little patience when someone disregard results or achievments simply because they don't share the same interest.

If someone, or a company, sets certain goals and then makes it happen - better than anyone else - to me that is an achievment no matter what you, me, or anyone else thinks of the usability of said product. The purpose was to build high powered engines with as high output per liter as possible. And they achieved those goals. I did a simple comparison with engine builds that we do on this forum which are very simple compared. I don't think there's much discussion on that part..

I also have very little understanding for someone that writes their own definition and then says it like it is the only truth.
So just because someone develops something that doesn't end up in a real life application for the average joe, it "doesn't apply" for an interesting engineering project?
To me, great engineering is the best results with a given set of parameters.
In this case; a set of parameters not far from the old F1 turbo engines. I'm sure those engineers couldn't care less of how their engines would impact everyday cars in 10 years. Their goal was to create the "fastest" engine with the set rules. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who is fascinated by those engines.

Thom

Duke, I miserably apologise for being a victim of my working habits and for not being able to restrict my vision to the sheer scientific beauty of this "stunning" project.
I most probably won't ever be a true motor geek, regardess how much effort I put into this.

No offense taken for your personal comments, btw.

333pg333

...er I think this has got off track to a degree or 3. We're not comparing apples to apples here. OEM vs guys building i4 944s vs drag cars vs whatever else...

The OEM application is great but it's never built for high performance unless a Ferramborsche type manufacturer. I think if you took the guy making the drag Evos and asked him to build up a Road Race motor he'd come up with something pretty compelling. I haven't seen anyone doing this stuff on our cars...yet? Kudos where it's due in my books even though I have little interest in 1/4 mile stuff, none in the '3 honks and mash the throttle' stuff that the kids do.

I have to agree that most of the stuff done in here is pretty basic compared to other formats. Not criticising anyone's knowledge or abilities. There just isn't the same wide interest and budgets for 944s.

Chris White

I did say I applaud their work....there is some very nice fabrication being done by those guys and I gave them a little credit for that. I just can’t get too enthusiastic about something that’s designed to last for just seconds.
One of the reasons that I like the 944/968s is that you can get quite good track performance for the dollar. The 944 fills a great niche in track use, its well-balanced for power, handling and braking. If I saw somebody doing a similar build as the ‘super duper’ engine for a 944 I would have a similar reaction – I just don’t see the point. $31,000 for a crankshaft…..$3250 for each rod (and the rods have a life expectancy of 120 hours)…..

Sure, I’ll give them credit for some really nice high end fabrication….for a budget is pretty much unlimited!