Duke

But they can easily be revved to 8000 rpm when "built" so you can have the same powerband as a 3.0 8v even with a big turbo.

odurandina

wouldn't it be great if someone in Germany had just bothered to do what we really wanted and built a 5 cylinder 3.6 litre turbo you can dial from 300~500 +++ hp, so we can just be over it, and finally have an inline engine from Germany having fewer than 6 cylinders that also isn't a big fat pile of nothing and can actually make some big power, not explode, and lend to the opportunity to claim a family swap (for all the purists who would rather be thrown in a bathtub full of battey acid than have an American made automobile part stinking up their cars) ??

hold on. i've got Audi on the line....

your 60 thousand dollar diesel project, and future divorce has now, (for the love of God) been safely put on hold.



i'm also glad we can all laugh at the absurdity of the lack of a single solid aftermarket GO-TO motor in a 4 or 5 cylinder,

compact, package.... and we can still speak freely about this fact without killing each other on an online forum.


5 cylinders and like, a 3.4~3.6 litre, oversquare design with room for stroking and getting really hurt ?

could have been a big part of their SUV development....


if nothing more,

at least the Detroit, Hot Rod, do-it-yourself, V8 context offers virtually endless combos that deliver,

where you don't have to post on a forum that your car just completed an 11 hundred mile trip without having to call AAA (for towing).


i mean no disrespect, and the new diesels are cool,

but sometimes the world of personal automotive projects can leave you penniless, divorced, and barren



ok, back to DEFCON 5.

mikey_audiogeek

Hi Tony,
New engine huh? Does this mean the red car is for sale as a runner?

Thom

Well, may I suggest you try this and sell me for a reasonable amount your top end. If you're kind enough I might dispose you along of your dry sump set up

I am not completely convinced yet that we could get PW/TQ curves with similar shapes as on a 3.0T 8V. If we still get there, we may still see a possible 500 to 1000 RPM offset "to the right" of the meat of the power band.
Apparently we can't go higher than 2.7L in capacity and obviously the 4V head will give its best in upper RPM, while a 951 3.0 8V will display a fistful of superbly usable and easily accessible midrange when running a decently-sized turbo and all the right mods.
Perhaps I just need to get a ride in one of those to be convinced...

All that said I would be quite excited to see such a high strung engine in a racer such as yours. Would make complete sense as a fully-developed 944 racer - 944 handling pushed to new levels thanks to the multi link rear axle and double front wishbones, powered with an engine that could have originally be used in our cars. That would be a pretty pertinent and efficient interpretation of the VAG/Porsche common history as far as Transaxle cars are concerned, so to speak.

95ONE

I asked him, The engine he was talking about is going in another Porsche. He is still installing the current V8 in the car.

TonyG

It wasn't going to be but it can be.

I was going to sell it complete minus engine/clutch/bell housing for $16k, but with the full exhaust/headers/wiring harness, computer, engine mounts. Minus the current seat & belts but with a Sparco seat

or

$25k as it sits now minus current seat and belts with a Sparco seat including the GPS lap timing, Chase cam dual cam system, cool suit cooler.

Note. The trans is a low mile AOR trans.

I need to put together a list of what's on the car. It's VERY long. I'll start another thread for the car.


I also have a slew of other cool turbo parts that I have to put up for sale as well.


TonyG

TonyG

I was... and might still. If I sell the car with the engine, I'll install that destroked LS3. If not, I'll install the built LS6.

TonyG

Duke

A 3.0 8v is probably one of the best combinations for a street car. Not the fastest, but probably one of the nicest and easiest to drive!

The curve of a high boost engine will always look extremely peaky though. Sometimes easy to get fooled by that. Take a look at this dyno chart, at first glance it might look ridiculous but then you actually see that it has between ~520-850 hp for a 3000 powerband. Now THAT would be pretty perfect for a race car
http://i770.photobucket.com/albums/x...2/IMG_5639.jpg

But I don't think I have the energy to do an engine swap now. I will probably setup a new block and reward myself with a new set of 16 cams, build new 4-1 headers, seutp the dry sump and dyno tune on E85. Should make serious power and be pretty reliable too.

333pg333

Back to reality...;-)

Duke

You mean I should aim no higher than mediocre power combined with excellent unreliability

Thom

Well, if my engine bay was fully apart and if I did not have to work against the limitations of an unmodified stock shell, I would certainly allow me some more time to think about it ;-)

95ONE

No way. Are you guys crazy? He'd be the first to prove or disprove the reliability issue. He might not know it, but this project might prove the argument FOR a V8 if things go south within a year. It also might prove the idea of the 3 liter 16valve being worth it to build. It proves nothing if he goes straight to a V8. SO, i really, really, want him to do the 3.0 16v project. And my hopes are for him that it works.

Now, that said, I'm off to go stand next to some Formula One Cars!

Duke

Hehe, thanks Bruce.
But I wouldn't say that my 3.0l 16v turbo was unreliable. As I stated before it was in fact very reliable!
But putting ANY non dry sumped engine in a race car that pulls 1.4G's even on street legal 255/40-17 tires is a ticking bomb. There's plenty of LS-engine failure threads on the net that supports that this might as well happened to a non dry sumped LS-engine. Found some statement from a GM LS-engine engineer that stated that the LS-engines were not designed to handle over 1.3G's with a wet sump.

I just wish more people would have jumped on a proper 16v turbo build instead of an LS-conversion.

Fact is, headgasket issues is not a common issue on 16v turbo's. And besides head gasket failures and oiling issues at high loads I'd say these engines are pretty damn reliable if you maintain them properly.

I'm 99% decided to build a new 3.0l 16v turbo engine. It will be my THIRD 3.0l 16 turbo bottom end
First one was with 951 rods and overboosted to 1.7 bar. That was fixed in the 2nd engine. And then it broke due to oiling issues. That will be fixed on my third engine.. That's how it goes when you don't go ALL IN from the start.

odurandina

damn ! i'd kill for a peek at the receipts !!

the benefits of going straight to v8 has worked well for at least one of the posters after running the right pan...[well-designed pans seem to be working with the cars being tracked on the LS1tech forums] but his new car is going to take him past 170 mph, and well into dry sumping.... guess you're dealing with the same.

+1. way up there on the wow factor. look forward to downloading video of one of these engines pulling past 150 mph! and hope it goes well. just the same, the gentleman in California wasn't buying short blocks, replacing gaskets, or doing much tuning over several seasons... and it would be safe to assume he rolled the savings back into the chasis, suspension fixes, fuel, etc.

Thom

When you bought the engine from Markus you didn't need to work on it before it overboosted though?

Will you be keeping the same pistons specs on this new build? Maybe rise slightly the compression ratio?