When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Jake, I think very differently too and thank you for posting
Got a few questions for you which I hope you feel you can answer without giving away your trade secrets.
Why have you not boat tailed (think that is the correct term for radiusing the piston side of the main case crank bearing webs) the main case?
The coating you use on the main case is it for thermal reasons, a corrosion inhibitor or just decorative or another reason?
What are your thoughts on using titanium fixings on the lower stressed casing bolts other than the head bolts?
Got plenty of other questions but I'll keep them for later as I'm enjoying your build too much to interrupt it more.
This is not a race engine. It will see some track time, but not a lot. If the engine were seeing more track time I would have considered boat tailing, but in this case I'll keep the added case strength. The same goes for the crankshaft.
The coating is aesthetically pleasing, and it seals the case from corrosion. It has proven to help cases run a tad cooler, too. This is commonly used on radial aircraft engines, I have been using it for 20 years in clear, silver and black.
No titanium for me unless it's a race engine that has a life span measured in hours. Titanium is great, but not for all engines and applications. I have Pankl Ti rods for the engine, but did not use them for these very reasons.
No titanium for me unless it's a race engine that has a life span measured in hours. Titanium is great, but not for all engines and applications. I have Pankl Ti rods for the engine, but did not use them for these very reasons.
Ok, so I have a follow up question. Why only use titanium on low hour service interval race engines? Titanium like steel has an endurance limit so I am not seeing why most consider titanium rods to be a low hour service item. I'll grant you that it has greater notch sensitivity then steel, requiring greater surface preparation, and is 6-10 times the cost but I have yet to see another reason to discount its use in street engines.
The endurance limit of Ti6Al4V Grade 5 can be close to that of 4340 given proper surface treatment so I am curious to any engineering reasons you may have.
The Pankl rods have proven to go 100k+ miles in street GT3s with a higher redline then this engine and 200+ hours in GT3 Cup use, albeit with much lighter pistons then 106.7mm JEs. Lets be honest though, a spiritedly driven 4.1L air cooled motor isn't going to last 100k miles no matter what you put in it and the budget went by the wayside long ago so why not go Ti?
Ok, so I have a follow up question. Why only use titanium on low hour service interval race engines? Titanium like steel has an endurance limit so I am not seeing why most consider titanium rods to be a low hour service item. I'll grant you that it has greater notch sensitivity then steel, requiring greater surface preparation, and is 6-10 times the cost but I have yet to see another reason to discount its use in street engines.
The endurance limit of Ti6Al4V Grade 5 can be close to that of 4340 given proper surface treatment so I am curious to any engineering reasons you may have.
The Pankl rods have proven to go 100k+ miles in street GT3s with a higher redline then this engine and 200+ hours in GT3 Cup use, albeit with much lighter pistons then 106.7mm JEs. Lets be honest though, a spiritedly driven 4.1L air cooled motor isn't going to last 100k miles no matter what you put in it and the budget went by the wayside long ago so why not go Ti?
Every engine built assumes the character of the person who designed, and built it. I personally chose these rods, because I developed them. The FFA rods are made by LN, and I favor components that I developed inside my engines. No matter what the material is.
The major reason I didn't use them in this engine is due to the clearance to the 996TT oil pump, which is right with the steel rods, requiring slight clearancing. The Ti rods have a bigger, big end and required a lot more in this application from a clearance stand point with the 996TT pump.
I am building a full fledged 4.1 race engine this winter which will get the Ti rods, and the Auto Verde oil pump. That engine will also use DLC titanium valves.
It's all in the combination. Do this design, development, and practical application work everyday, and after a while you learn to follow your own instincts.
I've had to finish a 993 engine, so I broke away from this one while we finished the head work. Just yesterday I was able to measure, and set deck height/ CR and make some progress.
We'll finish the heads and get them out to coating next week.
Deck height measurement will equal 11.1 CR
Chambers showing unshrouding for the 106mm bore and 993 spec oversized valves
CNC Intake port in raw form, flowbench work is 95% complete.
Jake, I'm enjoying your build, thanks for taking time to post it all
I've discussed the claimed benefits of cyrogenic treatments with a few different F1 engine designers, engineers and material specialists.
None of them see it adds anything above what can be done when using known material specifications and choosing the correct heat treatment and stress relieving processes when originally making the part.
Can you enlighten me why you think it is worth doing as I've noticed you've used it on a few parts for this engine build
Jake, I'm enjoying your build, thanks for taking time to post it all
I've discussed the claimed benefits of cyrogenic treatments with a few different F1 engine designers, engineers and material specialists.
None of them see it adds anything above what can be done when using known material specifications and choosing the correct heat treatment and stress relieving processes when originally making the part.
Can you enlighten me why you think it is worth doing as I've noticed you've used it on a few parts for this engine build
First off, I'm one that experiences things for myself. I don't ask many people questions, and I have learned to believe nothing of what I hear, and only 1/2 of what I see.
That said, I began using cryogenics in the last 1990s. I had been paid to carry out some testing as a 3rd party, and cryogenics were employed as a variable on some of the components within the engine. To say that I noted a difference with the components treated to cryo vs those that were not, would be an understatement.
Shortly following that I began employing Cryo in my engines, mostly used in the valve train of 4 cylinder Porsches, where track activities were hell on parts. The first changes that we noted were valve springs no longer needed to be changed every season, as they were holding their rates for 4-5 times as long. The same held true for valve adjustments, because the cryo aged, and stress relieved the components just enough that the materials no longer seemed to shift after a few dozen heat cycles. This is especially true with cylinders, and head studs. This is interesting, because everyone, everywhere is told that alloys, like cylinders, are not impacted by cryo enhancement. I'll tell you now that this isn't true, and when doing the development for LN on their Nickies cylinders in 2000, I was able to prove it more than once, and in more than one way. That very first set of Nickies cylinders are found on my personal engine, still alive and well today.
For a real story of my experience with this in regard to 4 cylinder Porsche engines, see this article about my 160,000 mile experience in my 912 with cryo enhanced components. http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/i...leage-teardown
By 2004 I was crying a ton of parts, and had 5 or so years worth of data collected first hand. I would often not tell anyone the work was being done, because some article somewhere, or some expert (without a tool box) had some claim that cryo enhancement didn't work. Today its still that way, because everyone would rather listen to some expert in another field, than the guy wrenching on their engine. This thread is one of the first times I have mentioned cryogenic enhancement in regard to one of my engines in a decade.
Here in the real world, more times than not we are NOT faced with situations where we can make a specific part and do so perfectly. This is why listening to an F1 Engineer about anything in regard to these engines is pretty much going to just confuse you, and set you up for disaster. The perfect engine has been, and never will be developed, because engines are mechanical, and will never be perfect.
In these situations all we can do is manage the variables as best we can, and what makes my engine program different than anything, anywhere, is everything that goes into an engine comes from direct, first person knowledge, and experience.
Talk to 20 different builders, engines, developers and etc and you'll get 30 different answers. The crazy thing is, none of them will be wrong.
Its funny what happens when you think for yourself.
First off, I'm one that experiences things for myself. I don't ask many people questions, and I have learned to believe nothing of what I hear, and only 1/2 of what I see.
That said, I began using cryogenics in the last 1990s. I had been paid to carry out some testing as a 3rd party, and cryogenics were employed as a variable on some of the components within the engine. To say that I noted a difference with the components treated to cryo vs those that were not, would be an understatement.
Shortly following that I began employing Cryo in my engines, mostly used in the valve train of 4 cylinder Porsches, where track activities were hell on parts. The first changes that we noted were valve springs no longer needed to be changed every season, as they were holding their rates for 4-5 times as long. The same held true for valve adjustments, because the cryo aged, and stress relieved the components just enough that the materials no longer seemed to shift after a few dozen heat cycles. This is especially true with cylinders, and head studs. This is interesting, because everyone, everywhere is told that alloys, like cylinders, are not impacted by cryo enhancement. I'll tell you now that this isn't true, and when doing the development for LN on their Nickies cylinders in 2000, I was able to prove it more than once, and in more than one way. That very first set of Nickies cylinders are found on my personal engine, still alive and well today.
For a real story of my experience with this in regard to 4 cylinder Porsche engines, see this article about my 160,000 mile experience in my 912 with cryo enhanced components. http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/i...leage-teardown
By 2004 I was crying a ton of parts, and had 5 or so years worth of data collected first hand. I would often not tell anyone the work was being done, because some article somewhere, or some expert (without a tool box) had some claim that cryo enhancement didn't work. Today its still that way, because everyone would rather listen to some expert in another field, than the guy wrenching on their engine. This thread is one of the first times I have mentioned cryogenic enhancement in regard to one of my engines in a decade.
Here in the real world, more times than not we are NOT faced with situations where we can make a specific part and do so perfectly. This is why listening to an F1 Engineer about anything in regard to these engines is pretty much going to just confuse you, and set you up for disaster. The perfect engine has been, and never will be developed, because engines are mechanical, and will never be perfect.
In these situations all we can do is manage the variables as best we can, and what makes my engine program different than anything, anywhere, is everything that goes into an engine comes from direct, first person knowledge, and experience.
Talk to 20 different builders, engines, developers and etc and you'll get 30 different answers. The crazy thing is, none of them will be wrong.
Its funny what happens when you think for yourself.
Love the thread, like the last couple of super informative response about your experiences. Look forward to more, especially the results.
I can't say I agree with all your choices for this build, but your honesty and explanations for your specific reasons and processes, are very refreshing. Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge and build with us, looks like it's going to be an awesome rig.
I can't say I agree with all your choices for this build, but your honesty and explanations for your specific reasons and processes, are very refreshing. Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge and build with us, looks like it's going to be an awesome rig.
Few applications find a 964 engine being built this way. If this engine was going into any 911 variant, or the car was heavier, or the vehicle had a different character, the whole design would change.
I could be like most all the blingy builders out there that just want some impressive list of items in the engine that really are not needed, or perform less than the components I have used, in the real world. As a component developer I have tried many things that were supposed to be the ultimate, and all they did was waste money.
It looks like you remove the ceramic liner entirely. That must open up quite a bit of volume in the ports? I'm curious about the no-headgasket choice too. Thanks for sharing!
Originally Posted by Flat6 Innovations
CNC Intake port in raw form, flowbench work is 95% complete.
Everyone has an opinion. Even the people without a tool box. Even the ones that don't change their own oil... Even the ones that blow up, everything they touch. Me, I don't listen to any of them, I do it my way and don't care about the other guy. Didn't post this to be an advertisement. Engines like this I build personally, and this amount of detail doesn't pay well enough for employees to do the work. I accept very few builds like this. I posted this to show what a different way of thinking can create. Thats all.
Love it. I find the forum in general very helpful with mechanical work on my 964. This takes it to a new level. Thanks for sharing.
10-20-2015, 07:02 PM
