Porsche wet sump, Corvette dry sump
01-22-2005, 06:28 PM
#16
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the new Z06 will be an awesome machine for the money. I may have to give one a try, next time around, but that will have to wait a couple of years. What do you think the price of a Z06 would be if GM used Brembo GT3 size steel brakes vs. what they are using, and would the GT3's be any better ?
01-22-2005, 08:01 PM
#17
Rennlist Member
I have to say the few 'Vettes I have driven have been pretty junky. It seemed the entire hood structure was living a life of it's own up front jiggeling around. The controls were heavy and clumsy. The brakes spongy. But I think the last one I drove was in 1984.
The point is they are at least trying. To be honest, In my opinion, save the CGT, I havn't seen much inspired engineering coming out of Porsche. Most of it seems to be "save money" engineering.
The gearbox used to be a nice bit with interchangable ratios, rebuildable internals, now we have in the 997 a Japanese built throw away gearbox built like a Timex watch .
The engine which used to have replacecable Nikasil cylinders and robust dry sump construction has been reduced to a single cast lump with a wet sump I would expect from Nissan or Toyota, not Porsche.
The suspension is nothing to write home about, Mac Pherson struts were introduced on the 911 at it's birth and have been abandoned by some other manufacturers, save Honda who, to lower cost, just went from a nice Short-Long-Arm front to a Mac Pherson front on the Civic and has been roundly criticized for it. Imagine that, Honda adopts the same front suspension as a Porsche and is criticized?
The multilink rear suspension intorduced on the 993 is a nice piece IMHO, but it's a copy of the multilink rear suspension pioneered by Mercedes in the 80's.
Wheels today are heavy cast alloy units, this from Porsche who introduced the light forged alloy wheel in the 1967 911S.
Porsche does seem to do nice ABS, stability control and electronic systems engineering if you like that kind of stuff on the car.
As far as a comparo on the GT3 and Z06 brakes goes.
I am not sure, but since Cadillac is using Brembo as a supplier for their brakes for high peformance cars, it would not suprise me that Brembo may be supplying the brakes for the Z06.
The Z06 brakes are 6 piston front, 4 piston rear with individual pads at each piston all around (20 pads total), which seems pretty cool. The front caliper also looks like a better design to me than the GT3 with through bolts to stiffen it. The disc diameter on the Z06 is 355 mm front and 340 mm rear.
The GT3 standard brakes have calipers from Brembo for sure, 6 piston front, 4 piston rear with a single pad on each side of the caliper front and rear (8 pads total). The discs are 350 mm all around.
Look like pretty comparable systems to me with perhaps the nod going to Chevy for their caliper/pad design IMHO.
The point is they are at least trying. To be honest, In my opinion, save the CGT, I havn't seen much inspired engineering coming out of Porsche. Most of it seems to be "save money" engineering.
The gearbox used to be a nice bit with interchangable ratios, rebuildable internals, now we have in the 997 a Japanese built throw away gearbox built like a Timex watch .
The engine which used to have replacecable Nikasil cylinders and robust dry sump construction has been reduced to a single cast lump with a wet sump I would expect from Nissan or Toyota, not Porsche.
The suspension is nothing to write home about, Mac Pherson struts were introduced on the 911 at it's birth and have been abandoned by some other manufacturers, save Honda who, to lower cost, just went from a nice Short-Long-Arm front to a Mac Pherson front on the Civic and has been roundly criticized for it. Imagine that, Honda adopts the same front suspension as a Porsche and is criticized?
The multilink rear suspension intorduced on the 993 is a nice piece IMHO, but it's a copy of the multilink rear suspension pioneered by Mercedes in the 80's.
Wheels today are heavy cast alloy units, this from Porsche who introduced the light forged alloy wheel in the 1967 911S.
Porsche does seem to do nice ABS, stability control and electronic systems engineering if you like that kind of stuff on the car.
As far as a comparo on the GT3 and Z06 brakes goes.
I am not sure, but since Cadillac is using Brembo as a supplier for their brakes for high peformance cars, it would not suprise me that Brembo may be supplying the brakes for the Z06.
The Z06 brakes are 6 piston front, 4 piston rear with individual pads at each piston all around (20 pads total), which seems pretty cool. The front caliper also looks like a better design to me than the GT3 with through bolts to stiffen it. The disc diameter on the Z06 is 355 mm front and 340 mm rear.
The GT3 standard brakes have calipers from Brembo for sure, 6 piston front, 4 piston rear with a single pad on each side of the caliper front and rear (8 pads total). The discs are 350 mm all around.
Look like pretty comparable systems to me with perhaps the nod going to Chevy for their caliper/pad design IMHO.
01-23-2005, 12:40 AM
#18
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think GM has paid some dues on the track with their ALMS and LeMans efforts. It is likely that some of that experience is filtering down to the production level. No doubt, the new Z06 is a serious race breed machine with some trick componentry. I think GM is stepping up with this car. Like it or hate it, a race ready version would be a very fast car. Probably too fast for the GT3 Cups with 100 less hp, but about right for the Viper Comp. coupe. Interesting to see if GM decides to do a race version for Grand-Am or Speed WC.
01-23-2005, 07:53 AM
#19
Instructor
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IS the oil stored in the sump in the 996 - or is there a 'separate' oil tank inside the engine case? I don't think its as simple as:
Oil tank outside engine = dry sump
Oil tank in engine = wet sump
If the crank is sloshing about in oil, and the oil pump feed can be disrupted by cornering g forces, then I agree its wet. If there is a 'separate' oil tank integrated inside the engine case, which is fed its supply by scavenge pumps, and then lubricates the engine with a separate supply pump, I think PAG may be justified in calling it an integral dry sump lubrication system.
Anyone got any really clear schematics?
Oil tank outside engine = dry sump
Oil tank in engine = wet sump
If the crank is sloshing about in oil, and the oil pump feed can be disrupted by cornering g forces, then I agree its wet. If there is a 'separate' oil tank integrated inside the engine case, which is fed its supply by scavenge pumps, and then lubricates the engine with a separate supply pump, I think PAG may be justified in calling it an integral dry sump lubrication system.
Anyone got any really clear schematics?
01-23-2005, 12:08 PM
#20
Addict
Lead Rennlist
Technical Advisor
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Lead Rennlist
Technical Advisor
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Me thinks you guys might need to get yourselves some technical data on 911s.
The 996 is fitted with an oil pan complete with drain plug on the underside of the crankcase.
Wet sump. There is no separate oil tank used in the 996 engine. Where would it fit a 10.5 litre tank inside the engine?
The oil pump is an integrated unit. It is not like the 964 and 993 tandem pump.
Oil retained inside the engine = wet sump.
Ciao,
Adrian
The 996 is fitted with an oil pan complete with drain plug on the underside of the crankcase.
Wet sump. There is no separate oil tank used in the 996 engine. Where would it fit a 10.5 litre tank inside the engine?
The oil pump is an integrated unit. It is not like the 964 and 993 tandem pump.
Oil retained inside the engine = wet sump.
Ciao,
Adrian
01-23-2005, 12:38 PM
#21
Addict
Lead Rennlist
Technical Advisor
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Lead Rennlist
Technical Advisor
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Just to follow up. If anyone wants a layman's explanation of the oil lubrication system of the 986/996 engines (they are of the same design) Karl Ludvigsen has done a very good one.
He finishes his explanation off (whilst being polite about what Porsche call their system) that under high lateral "G" forces the oil pressure can drop to as low as 30psi making the engine unsuitable for racing. Hence the GT-3 etc all were fitted with dry sumped engines.
He also uses words like oil sloshing around the crankshaft.
Ciao,
Adrian.
He finishes his explanation off (whilst being polite about what Porsche call their system) that under high lateral "G" forces the oil pressure can drop to as low as 30psi making the engine unsuitable for racing. Hence the GT-3 etc all were fitted with dry sumped engines.
He also uses words like oil sloshing around the crankshaft.
Ciao,
Adrian.
01-23-2005, 02:41 PM
#22
Rennlist Member
A dry sump engine adds "scavenge pumps" to collect the oil from the engine to a separate oil tank outside the engine where it can be de-foamed and be relatively immune from acceleration forces as the car travels.
If you look at the 996 engine you find it has 3 oil pumps, 2 scavenge pumps and one pressure pump.
The two scavenge pumps are on each side of the engine located at the level of and driven by the exhaust cams. These pump oil from the bottom of the camshaft housings to the sump located under the engine. They are necessary because oil would not naturally drain from this area since it is essentially at the same level as the engine sump. I think the presence of these pumps are why Porsche calls it an "integrated dry sump". Oil is scavenged and pumped to a separate area. However, this area is a sump at the bottom of the engine where it remains to be pumped by the pressure pump.
The third pump is the actual pressure pump which pumps the oil to lubricate the engine, which draws oil from the sump at the bottom- the same as "wet sump" engines do.
This to me is really a wet sump design since the oil is still free to slosh around in the engine.
The GT/Turbo series engine is similar in design to the 996 however there is an additional scavenge pump in the crankcase to drain it and there is an outside oil container to supply the pressure pump, so this is a true dry sump design.
BTW A Problem that Porsche has had with the 996 design is that since the cylinder heads are identical, the scavenge pumps are not both on the same end of the engine. The left one is in front and the right one is at the rear. So, during cornering and trail braking in left hand turns, all the oil gets trapped in the front of the right cam box and engines have been starved for oil.
The solution Porsche executed fot the "Carrera Powerkit" option was an additional oil pump mounted in the front with a line going to the original oil pump at the rear. So there are two pumps on the right in engines with this option.
If you look at the 996 engine you find it has 3 oil pumps, 2 scavenge pumps and one pressure pump.
The two scavenge pumps are on each side of the engine located at the level of and driven by the exhaust cams. These pump oil from the bottom of the camshaft housings to the sump located under the engine. They are necessary because oil would not naturally drain from this area since it is essentially at the same level as the engine sump. I think the presence of these pumps are why Porsche calls it an "integrated dry sump". Oil is scavenged and pumped to a separate area. However, this area is a sump at the bottom of the engine where it remains to be pumped by the pressure pump.
The third pump is the actual pressure pump which pumps the oil to lubricate the engine, which draws oil from the sump at the bottom- the same as "wet sump" engines do.
This to me is really a wet sump design since the oil is still free to slosh around in the engine.
The GT/Turbo series engine is similar in design to the 996 however there is an additional scavenge pump in the crankcase to drain it and there is an outside oil container to supply the pressure pump, so this is a true dry sump design.
BTW A Problem that Porsche has had with the 996 design is that since the cylinder heads are identical, the scavenge pumps are not both on the same end of the engine. The left one is in front and the right one is at the rear. So, during cornering and trail braking in left hand turns, all the oil gets trapped in the front of the right cam box and engines have been starved for oil.
The solution Porsche executed fot the "Carrera Powerkit" option was an additional oil pump mounted in the front with a line going to the original oil pump at the rear. So there are two pumps on the right in engines with this option.
Last edited by Cupcar; 01-23-2005 at 02:56 PM.
01-23-2005, 03:17 PM
#23
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Indycam
Aloha
wet vs dry
The # 1 advantage of the dry sump, imho, is that your oil pickup can be placed deep in the tank so pickup is 100% unless upside down . Its more complex / costly . If porsche has gone to a wet sump , what problem has it caused ? Does the pickup on the 997 suck air sometimes ?
They made roller bearing cranks before , would you be upset cause thats gone ?
They made flat air cooled 630 bhp na 12 cyl for the 917 , its way more than my little 3.6 , should I be bummed out that all I got was this little motor ? They made a 12-cyl fitted with twin turbochargers and it normally produced 1100 bhp with 1.3 bar boost and up to 1500 bhp with 2.0 boost . I no want !
Are my D90s forged , would it make much of a diff to me one way or the other ?
Are Mac Pherson struts bad no matter how well designed ?
Are the struts on my 964 "bad" ? Is the front end on my car junk ?
Leaf springs have been ditched by most , does that mean any car with leaf springs is junk ?
I don't need to be a boy racer , I dont need to prove my manliness .
I'm not running down GM or the Corvette , I just don't think GM has much or anything to teach Porsche .
wet vs dry
The # 1 advantage of the dry sump, imho, is that your oil pickup can be placed deep in the tank so pickup is 100% unless upside down . Its more complex / costly . If porsche has gone to a wet sump , what problem has it caused ? Does the pickup on the 997 suck air sometimes ?
They made roller bearing cranks before , would you be upset cause thats gone ?
They made flat air cooled 630 bhp na 12 cyl for the 917 , its way more than my little 3.6 , should I be bummed out that all I got was this little motor ? They made a 12-cyl fitted with twin turbochargers and it normally produced 1100 bhp with 1.3 bar boost and up to 1500 bhp with 2.0 boost . I no want !
Are my D90s forged , would it make much of a diff to me one way or the other ?
Are Mac Pherson struts bad no matter how well designed ?
Are the struts on my 964 "bad" ? Is the front end on my car junk ?
Leaf springs have been ditched by most , does that mean any car with leaf springs is junk ?
I don't need to be a boy racer , I dont need to prove my manliness .
I'm not running down GM or the Corvette , I just don't think GM has much or anything to teach Porsche .
As for the roller bearing crank, one of the first Porsche cars I ever rode in was a Carrera 4 cam that one of my dad's employees came over to the house in 1958 to give me a ride in. I will never forget it, the revving to keep it above 3000 under load so it didn't flatten a needle bearing. The moan as it hit 7000 rpm, all pretty heady stuff in 1958. I couldn't drive it but I have not looked back, Porsches were for me. Do I need needle bearings? No, but a company that would do something so far out is something I miss. That's what sports cars are about IMHO.
I loved watching the Can Am Porsches at Riverside. The cars were immaculate from Penske. I never expected and engine so huge in a steet car, but I loved the fact that we got half a 5.4-12, along with the Nikasil cylinders in the Carrera RS 2.7. I loved the fact that Porsche took the brakes off a 917 and put them on the Carrera RS 3.0. I loved it that the turbocharging solutions evolved to the Turbo Carrera 3.0. I miss a company that races at this level. That's what sports cars are about IMHO.
I'm not sure but the D90 may or may not be forged depending on if I am thinking of the correct wheel. Hey if you want the wheels to weigh around 7 to 10 pounds more each, I'm for the cost saving. But I like forging, That's what sports cars are about IMHO.
The Mac Pherson strut is a nice space saving design, it is not optimal for camber curves, track control or for component ridgidity, but hey it is cheaper and space efficient. No other sports car on the planet is using the design I can think of not Nissan, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Corvette, etc who all use a Short Long Arm design along with every racing car on the planet. I would like to see the optimum design and not a compromise. That's what sports cars are about IMHO.
I can't even consider a car with leaf springs, they are for Conestoga wagons. (Edit: Here I was thinking solid axel with leaf springs, fiberglas leaf springs are used on the Corvette and I think they are innovative. That's what sports cars are about IMHO.)
I don't need to be a boy racer, I am way too old for that and the girls stopped looking at me years ago. I do appreciate good design and the feel of a great car and would preferr to see it in Porsche to a greater extent.
Also, don't forget that GM was behind the Chaparral and they taught racers a few things that have never been forgotten. The Germans don't have a lock on creativity in design.
That's what sports cars are about IMHO.
Last edited by Cupcar; 01-23-2005 at 04:24 PM.
01-23-2005, 06:38 PM
#24
Rennlist Member
It sure seems you feel Porsche can do no wrong. This seemingly blind faith is the only issue I can't understand. This is fortunate for them and I hope there are a lot out there like you, their future depends on it.
Note that I edited my comment on leaf springs before your post, anticipating your sure response to it- you are no dummy.
On forging, I don't feel a car needs forged wheels to be a sports car, essentially any wheel will do. It's just that Porsche introduced the concept and now do not use it, using a cheaper heavier solution. That's the point, not what wheel makes the sports car. The hollow spoke, forged rim half, electron beam welded wheels Porsche produced for the Turbo in the late 90's were pretty cool- those are gone too.
The 996 gearbox has no listed internal parts available in the parts book. No gears, bearings, shafts, etc. just a few parts for the differential. The plan is replace not rebuild as I see it, whether this is still true for the 997 I can's say.
Right on with the CGT- finally some common ground!!
Right on with the needle bearing- more common ground!!!
The Chaparral E2 has a dry sump 427 Chevy, The E2 was a race car of the highest caliber for the period, introducing adjustable aerodynamics etc. in the context that I feel a sports car is a road version of a racing car, I guess it's a sports car for racing sport?
The 550 has a dry sump, all the 4-cam cars do from 550 to 904. Not many cars in the 50's had aluminum wheels, even F1 cars, so that would be a little much to expect.
Note that I edited my comment on leaf springs before your post, anticipating your sure response to it- you are no dummy.
On forging, I don't feel a car needs forged wheels to be a sports car, essentially any wheel will do. It's just that Porsche introduced the concept and now do not use it, using a cheaper heavier solution. That's the point, not what wheel makes the sports car. The hollow spoke, forged rim half, electron beam welded wheels Porsche produced for the Turbo in the late 90's were pretty cool- those are gone too.
The 996 gearbox has no listed internal parts available in the parts book. No gears, bearings, shafts, etc. just a few parts for the differential. The plan is replace not rebuild as I see it, whether this is still true for the 997 I can's say.
Right on with the CGT- finally some common ground!!
Right on with the needle bearing- more common ground!!!
The Chaparral E2 has a dry sump 427 Chevy, The E2 was a race car of the highest caliber for the period, introducing adjustable aerodynamics etc. in the context that I feel a sports car is a road version of a racing car, I guess it's a sports car for racing sport?
The 550 has a dry sump, all the 4-cam cars do from 550 to 904. Not many cars in the 50's had aluminum wheels, even F1 cars, so that would be a little much to expect.
01-23-2005, 07:16 PM
#25
Rennlist Member
Also. I love modern automatic gearboxes such as the BMW SMG, Ferrari F1, Audi DSG etc. Hopefully some day in a Porsche.
BTW, if you want a good look at Porsche engineering's past methods read The Unfair Advantage by Mark Donohue with Paul Van Valkenburgh, Chapter 25 on the 917 development and Chapter 26 on Carrera RSR development.
BTW, if you want a good look at Porsche engineering's past methods read The Unfair Advantage by Mark Donohue with Paul Van Valkenburgh, Chapter 25 on the 917 development and Chapter 26 on Carrera RSR development.
01-23-2005, 07:27 PM
#26
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 4th Ring of Hades, aka Houston, TX
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Man, we just went round and round with this on the 944 board. Gotta agree with Cupcar and Carreracup on this. The C6 with the Z51 package (standard Vette) is probably more track-ready than the new 997. Indy, you wanna compare top to top, no prob. Just offer up 10% of the C-GT's sticker price to a Z06 (I saw it listed at 3000+#) for some Mallett mods, and the uber car will be sent home packing. By the way, the number one benefit of ceramic brakes is a reduction of unsprung weight.
I'm all about waving the flag for whatever it is you're loyal to, but to sit by and bash Corvettes based on a 3rd or 4th gen car you last drove is a bit silly. When Dave Hill took over as the Chief Engineer of the Vette, the C5 was the first new car under his reign. The goal for THAT car was to improve body fit and finish; and with the hydro-formed frame, the mag crossmembers, and advances in composites, they achieved that. C5's are VERY tight, even used ones (I've driven 2 coupes, 1 roadster). The goal for the C6 was to improve the interior fit and finish in hopes to increase global sales. Skip at Paragon said his dad just bought a C6; liked the interior a lot. Not Porsche quality, but he was impressed.
Chevy has allocated engineering resources to racing since the C5R came out, and they've been teaching a LOT of companies lessons at Le Mans. Were it not for the privateer teams, were would the mighty GT3 be?? Watching coverage of the Detroit Auto Show today, I saw some images of the new C6R. Oh wait, how would THAT car compare to the C-GT on track?? It wouldn't. Why? Because the C-GT would be on the sidelines holding the Vette's lunchbag. Porsche doesn't need to write new racing heritage, I guess. Chevy is already clearing out space next to their other Le Mans trophies.
So, to come out and say that Chevy, GM, and Dave Hill's team isn't feeding Porsche some of it's own medicine just looks like blind denial. The 3-5% step down in performance from the Z06 to the new 997 Turbo is more than offset by the 50+% lower sticker. Funniest thing about this is that Chevy has remained true to the engineering that drove the Vette to where it is today; the pushrod small block and a composite body. Porsche bailed on the lightweight, giant-killer philosophy almost 10 years ago when the last 964 was made (bucking for brownie points on this board
).
I'm all about waving the flag for whatever it is you're loyal to, but to sit by and bash Corvettes based on a 3rd or 4th gen car you last drove is a bit silly. When Dave Hill took over as the Chief Engineer of the Vette, the C5 was the first new car under his reign. The goal for THAT car was to improve body fit and finish; and with the hydro-formed frame, the mag crossmembers, and advances in composites, they achieved that. C5's are VERY tight, even used ones (I've driven 2 coupes, 1 roadster). The goal for the C6 was to improve the interior fit and finish in hopes to increase global sales. Skip at Paragon said his dad just bought a C6; liked the interior a lot. Not Porsche quality, but he was impressed.
Chevy has allocated engineering resources to racing since the C5R came out, and they've been teaching a LOT of companies lessons at Le Mans. Were it not for the privateer teams, were would the mighty GT3 be?? Watching coverage of the Detroit Auto Show today, I saw some images of the new C6R. Oh wait, how would THAT car compare to the C-GT on track?? It wouldn't. Why? Because the C-GT would be on the sidelines holding the Vette's lunchbag. Porsche doesn't need to write new racing heritage, I guess. Chevy is already clearing out space next to their other Le Mans trophies.
So, to come out and say that Chevy, GM, and Dave Hill's team isn't feeding Porsche some of it's own medicine just looks like blind denial. The 3-5% step down in performance from the Z06 to the new 997 Turbo is more than offset by the 50+% lower sticker. Funniest thing about this is that Chevy has remained true to the engineering that drove the Vette to where it is today; the pushrod small block and a composite body. Porsche bailed on the lightweight, giant-killer philosophy almost 10 years ago when the last 964 was made (bucking for brownie points on this board
).
01-23-2005, 08:25 PM
#27
Rennlist Member
BTW it isn't about Porsche not building cars the way they should, it's about not building them the way they did .
I don't know who developed the aluminum wheel. Ferrari used them in F1 as alloy rims with steel spokes by Borrani in the 50's. I think the D Jag used an aluminum rim with a steel center but not sure. Maybe it was Cooper or Lotus in F1, late 50's early 60's with an all alloy wheel. Porsche used alloy rims with a steel center first on the 906 in 1966. I'd like to know who did the first all alloy wheel.
BTW the Chaparral 2E had a 327 not 427 engine, I typoed.
Funny story on the 2E. I was at Riverside for the CanAm in 1966. Those days the cars and drivers were very accessable. The event was more like today's SCCA National racing rather than the pro racing today.
Anyway Dan Gurney was pushing his car from the garage with his crew to the pit lane to start the race. My buddy and I started pushing the car along with the crew. Nobody said a word, the gate opened and we pushed the car into the pits. Gurney looked over knowing what we did and didn't say a word. We watched the races from the pit. The Chaparral 2E that Phil Hill was driving retired right in front of me as I watched from the pit wall. So, if you see any pictures of that with an ugly, pimple faced kid watching from behind the wall, that's me.
I don't know who developed the aluminum wheel. Ferrari used them in F1 as alloy rims with steel spokes by Borrani in the 50's. I think the D Jag used an aluminum rim with a steel center but not sure. Maybe it was Cooper or Lotus in F1, late 50's early 60's with an all alloy wheel. Porsche used alloy rims with a steel center first on the 906 in 1966. I'd like to know who did the first all alloy wheel.
BTW the Chaparral 2E had a 327 not 427 engine, I typoed.
Funny story on the 2E. I was at Riverside for the CanAm in 1966. Those days the cars and drivers were very accessable. The event was more like today's SCCA National racing rather than the pro racing today.
Anyway Dan Gurney was pushing his car from the garage with his crew to the pit lane to start the race. My buddy and I started pushing the car along with the crew. Nobody said a word, the gate opened and we pushed the car into the pits. Gurney looked over knowing what we did and didn't say a word. We watched the races from the pit. The Chaparral 2E that Phil Hill was driving retired right in front of me as I watched from the pit wall. So, if you see any pictures of that with an ugly, pimple faced kid watching from behind the wall, that's me.
01-23-2005, 08:32 PM
#28
Rennlist Member
As far as I know, all the 550's had the 4 cam, dry-sump, twin plug, Ernst Fuhrman designed 4 cylinder engine which persisted until the 904. Used in the road going Carrera 356 cars as well
01-23-2005, 09:02 PM
#29
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 4th Ring of Hades, aka Houston, TX
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Indy, you said the Z06 was 3100 POUNDS (#, get it?). It's not. It's closer to 3000# than you think. Chuck Mallett is a tuner that for $40K plus a Z06 could give me a drivable car that would send the C-GT packing. The C6R is the real deal, though.
But, you're right. You didn't bash the Vette. What I said is that Chevy is going to feed Porsche a LARGE dose of it's own medicine. So, to the extent that Chevy has continued to improve the breed (especially with a track-dedicated model AND a factory-built racer), Chevy IS teaching Porsche something. Don't forget your roots. You can twist and turn this any way you want.
And no, you're wrong. A C6R actually IS the equivalent of the still-born Porsche LMP/ C-GT. A Z06 versus the new 997 Turbo (really, the GT3- they're both track cars). The C6 Z51 versus the 997S. All anybody's really saying here is that the Corvette design team really began to produce some HIGH quality sportscars. You refuse to acknowledge that. Rather own a 914 over a C-GT? ****, I'm here blowing the horn for the Z06, but I'd still rather own a C-GT instead. You MUST be the one guy who would. The original thread talked about the dry-sump Z06 and the KILLER bargain it will surely be. How we got here; I have no idea...
Cupcar, I absolutely LOVE that story man. I really think someone (I hope ME someday soon) should do a documentary about Dan Gurney, as well as the Can-Am series. One of the last truly heroic drivers left on earth. Pushed Gurney's Lola to help him make the grid?? AWESOME!
But, you're right. You didn't bash the Vette. What I said is that Chevy is going to feed Porsche a LARGE dose of it's own medicine. So, to the extent that Chevy has continued to improve the breed (especially with a track-dedicated model AND a factory-built racer), Chevy IS teaching Porsche something. Don't forget your roots. You can twist and turn this any way you want.
And no, you're wrong. A C6R actually IS the equivalent of the still-born Porsche LMP/ C-GT. A Z06 versus the new 997 Turbo (really, the GT3- they're both track cars). The C6 Z51 versus the 997S. All anybody's really saying here is that the Corvette design team really began to produce some HIGH quality sportscars. You refuse to acknowledge that. Rather own a 914 over a C-GT? ****, I'm here blowing the horn for the Z06, but I'd still rather own a C-GT instead. You MUST be the one guy who would. The original thread talked about the dry-sump Z06 and the KILLER bargain it will surely be. How we got here; I have no idea...
Cupcar, I absolutely LOVE that story man. I really think someone (I hope ME someday soon) should do a documentary about Dan Gurney, as well as the Can-Am series. One of the last truly heroic drivers left on earth. Pushed Gurney's Lola to help him make the grid?? AWESOME!
01-24-2005, 04:36 AM
#30
Addict
Lead Rennlist
Technical Advisor
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Lead Rennlist
Technical Advisor
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Porsche has learned quite a lot from GM in the past seeing as they poached a few of their top people along with people from many other companies.
The idea for the 986/996 engine construction came from a Ford V6 engine Porsche developed to Ford specs.
Porsche is a car manufacturer and they import and employ people from all around the world that worked for many different companies before Porsche. These people bring their expertise and knowledge with them.
If you want to see the gap in racing between the Corvette and Porsche go to Le Mans.
The Corvettes battle with Ferrari 550s and 575s whilst Porsche GT-3s bring up the rear.
The battle of Le Mans 2004 was the Corvette Ferrari battle that went right down to the final laps with Corvette winning.
The Sarthe circuit is quite a fair circuit allowing those who miss out in one area to pick up in another. It is a long lap. The Corvettes just blasted past the GT-3s (different class by the way) like they were standing still. The sound of the Corvette was the best of the racing cars present.
I want to go to Le Mans and cheer my team up at the front not the back and this is centre of my disappointment with Porsche today and has been since they abandoned racing in 1998.
The CGT is not brilliant engineering either. In fact it is quite old technology, ala GT-1. In parts the CGT is tacky and the clutch sucks but that is another story.
If you want technology look at the BMW Camshaft less engines, SMGII transmissions, look at the F1 based Ferrari Enzo where modern technology has been incorporated.
Look at the new Ferraris. At least they make them look new and not reconstituted.
Porsche excel in engine design no question.
However there is much more to car than just an engine and for this they are seriously behind.
This new Vette whilst not my cup of tea either, is going to seriously hurt Porsche in the sales department especially if they bring it to Le Mans and it performs like its older sisters have.
GM are putting a bit of an effort into a number of European racing series this year. DAMs of Cadillac fame at Le Mans are heavily involved. This will also help sales and promote the new Vette in Europe.
Ciao,
Adrian
The idea for the 986/996 engine construction came from a Ford V6 engine Porsche developed to Ford specs.
Porsche is a car manufacturer and they import and employ people from all around the world that worked for many different companies before Porsche. These people bring their expertise and knowledge with them.
If you want to see the gap in racing between the Corvette and Porsche go to Le Mans.
The Corvettes battle with Ferrari 550s and 575s whilst Porsche GT-3s bring up the rear.
The battle of Le Mans 2004 was the Corvette Ferrari battle that went right down to the final laps with Corvette winning.
The Sarthe circuit is quite a fair circuit allowing those who miss out in one area to pick up in another. It is a long lap. The Corvettes just blasted past the GT-3s (different class by the way) like they were standing still. The sound of the Corvette was the best of the racing cars present.
I want to go to Le Mans and cheer my team up at the front not the back and this is centre of my disappointment with Porsche today and has been since they abandoned racing in 1998.
The CGT is not brilliant engineering either. In fact it is quite old technology, ala GT-1. In parts the CGT is tacky and the clutch sucks but that is another story.
If you want technology look at the BMW Camshaft less engines, SMGII transmissions, look at the F1 based Ferrari Enzo where modern technology has been incorporated.
Look at the new Ferraris. At least they make them look new and not reconstituted.
Porsche excel in engine design no question.
However there is much more to car than just an engine and for this they are seriously behind.
This new Vette whilst not my cup of tea either, is going to seriously hurt Porsche in the sales department especially if they bring it to Le Mans and it performs like its older sisters have.
GM are putting a bit of an effort into a number of European racing series this year. DAMs of Cadillac fame at Le Mans are heavily involved. This will also help sales and promote the new Vette in Europe.
Ciao,
Adrian