4.1 Flat 6 Innovations 964 Build Up Pictorial
#61
#62
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Very nice shop, following this thread/build is really interesting, thanks for taking the time to post it.
Only speaking for myself, but wish I enjoyed my daily work as much as it seems you do.
Only speaking for myself, but wish I enjoyed my daily work as much as it seems you do.
#64
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It's still in assembly. The manufacturer of the valve train parts took forever with the custom valves and we just received them last week. I have the engine assembled to the cylinders now and will finish it over the next 8-10 weeks, now that we can finish the heads.
I'll update the thread with more pics when the time comes.
I'll update the thread with more pics when the time comes.
#65
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It's still in assembly. The manufacturer of the valve train parts took forever with the custom valves and we just received them last week. I have the engine assembled to the cylinders now and will finish it over the next 8-10 weeks, now that we can finish the heads.
I'll update the thread with more pics when the time comes.
I'll update the thread with more pics when the time comes.
I love big engines. I have a car with a tiptronic (not everyone wants a track car) & have been exploring engine options. A big engine only turning to 6500 with a lot of mid range torque is far more enjoyable to drive on the street than an engine that has to rev up consistently.
Can't wait to see the rest of the build.
I'm sure the dyno will tell the full story.
Give or take , what sort of expense will this engine incur?
#66
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Great thread. I really like the finish you have achieved with the crank case.
I love big engines. I have a car with a tiptronic (not everyone wants a track car) & have been exploring engine options. A big engine only turning to 6500 with a lot of mid range torque is far more enjoyable to drive on the street than an engine that has to rev up consistently.
Can't wait to see the rest of the build.
I'm sure the dyno will tell the full story.
Give or take , what sort of expense will this engine incur?
I love big engines. I have a car with a tiptronic (not everyone wants a track car) & have been exploring engine options. A big engine only turning to 6500 with a lot of mid range torque is far more enjoyable to drive on the street than an engine that has to rev up consistently.
Can't wait to see the rest of the build.
I'm sure the dyno will tell the full story.
Give or take , what sort of expense will this engine incur?
The investment in this particular engine is a little less than normal for the 4.1, as I did not utilize my billet crank. At the same time, it uses a brand new set of 50mm PMO carbs, which were not cheap.
All in all this one will tip the scales at around 37,500 of investment. Typically when I build an engine like this one personally, I propose the project in writing at 40k, and usually come in a little under that if they have a solid core engine to build from.
#68
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
#69
Three Wheelin'
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hi Jake ,
Nice build, I have been following your work for many years on your web site and the Spyder forum , my aim was to build an R60,
Good luck with this project ,
, I will be curious to see the exhaust too, it seams to me that a lot of people are losing it all there ...
Nice build, I have been following your work for many years on your web site and the Spyder forum , my aim was to build an R60,
Good luck with this project ,
, I will be curious to see the exhaust too, it seams to me that a lot of people are losing it all there ...
#70
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I will be curious to see the exhaust too, it seams to me that a lot of people are losing it all there ...
When building and developing the perfect exhaust system, there's only one way to do it... Build the car around the exhaust! Packaging constraints with exhaust are the single biggest listing factor to what can be done with any exhaust system, in any car. These are compromises that we have to work around, and try to create an arrangement with the least amount of compromises possible. To do this, there are times when its impossible to end up with equal length primaries, and secondaries, and trying to get the lengths to match up equates to more bend radius, which is just as bad as an unequal length system.
Commercially available exhaust systems capitalize on the "fashion" part of the industry wen it comes to exhaust. Lots of money is wasted every year by people who consider looks and sound to be performance enhancements, when the opposite is generally the case. I have bolted on a 3500.00 system that cost the engine 27HP over a stock system, and I refused to let the car leave my facility with it fitted. The exhaust system manufacturer blamed the tune, and engine, even when I sent them data logs that showed 28 channels of data. Of course.
While I am sharing the vast majority of the things that go into building this performance power plant, exhaust is one area where you might be left with a big question mark. Sorry.
Fashion makes too big of an impact in the Porsche world these days, and its getting worse. There will be those who disagree with my statements, and thats fine. I'll take an effective arrangement thats clean, and does its job, any day over some system that "plays the part" aesthetically, but under performs in practical application. First and foremost, its an engine, and the damn thing has to run.
#71
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
1: I shoot for average HP and a flat torque curve. Anyone can make a ridiculous peak power number, but the engine is often worthless at many rev ranges.
2: Unfortunately the vast majority of folks don't understand how to read, or interpret a dyno graph. That's one reason why I never post them to forums.
3: there are times when its impossible to end up with equal length primaries, and secondaries, and trying to get the lengths to match up equates to more bend radius, which is just as bad as an unequal length system
I feel the above statements neither do you nor the Rennlist community too much credit. If you do not want to share dyno sheets that's entirely up to you of course, the fact that we wouldn't know how to read them is utter BS....if you think otherwise please with sugar on top enlighten us;-)
As far as anyone being able to produce a ridiculous peak power, please enlighten me who they are? I know of only a handful of tuners who've seriously broken the 100HP/liter barrier with our N/A two valve aircooled engines....rest assured the packages to produce such goods weren't casually thrown together on a sunday afternoon. -if you know how to do that, you can certainly build a flat torque curve engine with less HP-
Your third statement contradicts your first I'm afraid, equal length primaries produce a peak in torque over a very limited rev range in the order of 200rpm. Where this peak occurs depends on length....which might very well be outside the effective rev range if not designed properly.
Unequal length headers (all things else being equal) have this torque peak occur at different rpm's for each individual cylinder, leading to additional torque being spread 'everywhere' rather than a localised spike.
#73
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I feel the above statements neither do you nor the Rennlist community too much credit.
If you do not want to share dyno sheets that's entirely up to you of course, the fact that we wouldn't know how to read them is utter BS....if you think otherwise please with sugar on top enlighten us;-)
This is because everyone is too concerned with a big peak number, and thats mostly driven by marketing and basing so much stock in that one peak value that might only cover 500 RPM of the engine's rev range, but might not be used more than 3-5% of the time in real time driving. This renders this value basically worthless to most people reading this thread, or buying an engine. The problem is that they don't know that, and the people that they want to brag to don't either. I don't sell dyno graphs, I sell engines that have gained a reputation of delivering usable power at all rev ranges, while maintaining manners that allow them to be driven everyday, anywhere. This has been earned, and it can't be bought.
When I do provide my customers with dyno plots I have to annotate them with ranges and descriptions to help therm understand what they are seeing on the graph, and how that will play out when they drive the car. Its tough enough making this happen on a 1:1 basis with the owner, and its impossible in a forum. Most people don't even know that HP is a derivative of torque, and that without torque, HP would not be possible. Others don't know that Tq and HP always cross at 5,252 RPM. Thank goodness for google, but too bad that people can't think for themselves these days without it.
As far as anyone being able to produce a ridiculous peak power, please enlighten me who they are?
I know of only a handful of tuners who've seriously broken the 100HP/liter barrier with our N/A two valve aircooled engines....
rest assured the packages to produce such goods weren't casually thrown together on a sunday afternoon. -if you know how to do that, you can certainly build a flat torque curve engine with less HP-
Your third statement contradicts your first I'm afraid, equal length primaries produce a peak in torque over a very limited rev range in the order of 200rpm.
Where this peak occurs depends on length....which might very well be outside the effective rev range if not designed properly.
Unequal length headers (all things else being equal) have this torque peak occur at different rpm's for each individual cylinder, leading to additional torque being spread 'everywhere' rather than a localised spike.
But first all of this has to be packaged in the car, and in a rear engine application thats a challenge at times. This 4.1 goes into a 904 GTS, so I'll have plenty of room to do what I want, which will more than likely be a Tri-Y arrangement. Why? Because I don't care about peak numbers, and I'll trade them to keep the smile on the driver's face. Its also different, and will confuse people, making them ask "why?". I love hearing that word.. "Why."
Why I like the art of engine building, is because no one is ever wrong. Everything will work, but we have to work all of our lives to perfect our own style of engine creation. We never perfect it, and failure becomes a norm thats expected more than success.
#75
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Flat6 Innovations
Why I like the art of engine building, is because no one is ever wrong. Everything will work, but we have to work all of our lives to perfect our own style of engine creation. We never perfect it, and failure becomes a norm thats expected more than success.
When I rebuild, God willing, it's getting done by Flat6 Innovations.
Enjoy your Sunday's all/