964 C2 3.8 Build Thread - Page 4 - Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums

Notices
964 Forum
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

964 C2 3.8 Build Thread

Reply

Old 03-15-2017, 09:12 PM
  #46  
Bill Verburg
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Bill Verburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,547
Default

Originally Posted by ezinternet View Post
Hi Bill -

- At the time I was collecting bits and pieces for this C4 project, and I had thought that the RS DME would be a shortcut to a faster tune. After the dyno work I think the mapping was customized anyway from that base.

- The data is flywheel. The car was over there, and the engine over here.
That makes sense, for 964 OBD1 55 pin systems a new chip is generally burned and used to replace the stock one, doesn't matter whether it was an RS DME or std the difference is in the chip which is replaced anyway.

The dyno shows pretty much what we've seen on typical 3.8 rebuilds, the most noticeable thing over stock is the increased torque across the board, makes for a much more pleasant driving experience.
Bill Verburg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 01:18 AM
  #47  
ezinternet
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
ezinternet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 236
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg View Post
... what we've seen on typical 3.8 rebuilds, the most noticeable thing over stock is the increased torque across the board, makes for a much more pleasant driving experience.
^^ Yes, I quite agree.
ezinternet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 07:23 PM
  #48  
Bill Verburg
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Bill Verburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,547
Default

Originally Posted by eddieb4 View Post
I've got it wrong ... I'll get down to the shop and be more thorough.
what Juha was asking about was the cylinder base

There are 2 sizes of base spiggot
stock is 107mm
slip fit 102mm bore cylinders use this same size hole.

The more robust 102mm bore cylinders used in RSR have 109mm spiggots.

The bigger bores provide a more stable distortion free platform also are a great place to store empty soda bottles


This is a 109mm RSR cylinder note the large groove in the spiggot, there is a matching groove in the block for a more robust gasket than that used on a stock 3.6



Other differences are the coated piston skirts and tapered wrist pin, neither are used in a 3.6 or the 107mm base p/c sets I've seen.



Bill Verburg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 10:11 PM
  #49  
eddieb4
Addict
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
eddieb4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 981
Default

Bill ... thanks for the information!
eddieb4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 10:17 PM
  #50  
eddieb4
Addict
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
eddieb4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 981
Default

Making headway ... Tim Olsen is making sure sunroof delete and paint are done right. Have to decide color by next week. Hardest part of process for me. Wish I knew the actual code of the gray 911 that I saw last summer in Geneva. That car had a gun metal exterior with a linen interior and I believe it was an 87 or 88.
Attached Images   
eddieb4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 11:08 AM
  #51  
[email protected]
Basic Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
Alec@Fabspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Fort Washington, Pa
Posts: 4,413
Default

Originally Posted by ezinternet View Post
Hi Ed

I had a similar bit of work done by George at Eurosport Racing in 2010 (time flies!) on my '91 964.

3.8 Mahle p/c, ARP bolts, ported head, 993 RS valves, Ti retainers, custom cam ... trans rebuild w a few new synchros, LWFW, RS clutch, JRZ ... I'm sure I'm forgetting some things.

I put on the Fabspeed exhaust w/heat. Great sound, and a modest drone that went away with time. I don't get enough heat from those small sized heat exchangers to drive in the winter in Chicago.

I also sourced a 964 Euro RS ECU. I recall George did some extra dyno work and replacing the pressure regulator to maximize that benefit.

The car is at Autobahn in Joliet if you'd like to see it or give it a listen/drive when next you're down there.

Can't say enough good things about George and his team, as I'm sure you know. You're in good hands.

Dyno results attached ... YhpMV ... I'm sure you'll love it

Best,
Ez
Now that is a fun dynograph, one of these days we'll have to throw our 3.8L RSR Clone on the dyno and get some up to date numbers on that engine. One of my favorite cars to drive at the shop, although I think our 87' 930 Slant takes the cake at the end of the day haha.
__________________
Alec Acuff
Porsche Performance Specialist
[email protected]
267-742-3047

Fabspeed Motorsport USA
155 Commerce Drive Fort Washington, PA 19034
www.Fabspeed.com

Ultimate quality T304L Stainless Steel Exhaust Systems, Carbon Fiber Air Intakes and ECU Tuning for Exotic Cars
Alec@Fabspeed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 03:52 PM
  #52  
onevoice
User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: N. Ala
Posts: 126
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg View Post

This is a 109mm RSR cylinder note the large groove in the spiggot, there is a matching groove in the block for a more robust gasket than that used on a stock 3.6
Interesting, does this mean the larger spigot that requires the crankcase be bored out, has a groove that negates some of the increased size? And also requires a weakening groove in the crankcase?

I wonder how much of the "increased strength" of a bore in cylinder, is actually verified by testing vs hypothetical. Also, the clamping loads are between the top of the cylinder and the base that mounts to the outside surface of the crankcase aren't they? Does the spigot carry a clamping load? Is the spigot in a bore in cylinder a tighter fit in the crankcase?
onevoice is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 07:27 PM
  #53  
Bill Verburg
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Bill Verburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,547
Default

Originally Posted by onevoice View Post
Interesting, does this mean the larger spigot that requires the crankcase be bored out, has a groove that negates some of the increased size? And also requires a weakening groove in the crankcase?

I wonder how much of the "increased strength" of a bore in cylinder, is actually verified by testing vs hypothetical. Also, the clamping loads are between the top of the cylinder and the base that mounts to the outside surface of the crankcase aren't they? Does the spigot carry a clamping load? Is the spigot in a bore in cylinder a tighter fit in the crankcase?
You seem to be operating w/ what is apparently called 'alternative facts' these days.
The 102mm x 109mm bore cylinders are more stable than the 102mm x 107mm versions

the profile groove in the case does not weaken the case in any way either.

the 107mm base cylinders use a 102 x 2mm o-ring
the 109mm base cylinders use a 110.72 x 3.53mm o-ring

the larger gasket better seals the cc, thesis is desirable due to the larger volumes of air moved around by the 102mm pistons compared to 100mm stock pistons. A further addition is to use a cc vacuum vent valve that lowers cc operating pressure. This additionally involves using modified crankshaft seals and was standard on the later GT3 models.
Bill Verburg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 12:57 AM
  #54  
onevoice
User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: N. Ala
Posts: 126
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg View Post
The 102mm x 109mm bore cylinders are more stable than the 102mm x 107mm versions
The part of the cylinder that is loaded, i.e. the part outside the case, is not any smaller in the slip fit versions. So how much more "stable" is the bore in version, and what exactly is the measurement of "stable". I want real facts, not opinions, I want a quantifiable number. It's not a hard question. Without a number, it is impossible to determine if one version is "better", especially when trying to determine if it is worth the cost. Are the companies selling slip fit cylinders peddling 100% junk, or are they selling an alternative that is 1% weaker. Is it weaker in a portion of the cylinder where the loads are lowest? Does it matter?
onevoice is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 09:36 AM
  #55  
Bill Verburg
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Bill Verburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,547
Default

Originally Posted by onevoice View Post
The part of the cylinder that is loaded, i.e. the part outside the case, is not any smaller in the slip fit versions. So how much more "stable" is the bore in version, and what exactly is the measurement of "stable". I want real facts, not opinions, I want a quantifiable number. It's not a hard question. Without a number, it is impossible to determine if one version is "better", especially when trying to determine if it is worth the cost. Are the companies selling slip fit cylinders peddling 100% junk, or are they selling an alternative that is 1% weaker. Is it weaker in a portion of the cylinder where the loads are lowest? Does it matter?
For street use it won't matter, for racing it does, for typical modern DE use it does.

All mechanical components distort when in use the degree varies the metrics are proprietary and will not be published any where. Take a lesson from the factory builds and 20yrs of experience w/ subsequent rebuilds.

tenths of mm matter as do tenths of g.
Bill Verburg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 09:56 AM
  #56  
onevoice
User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: N. Ala
Posts: 126
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg View Post
For street use it won't matter, for racing it does, for typical modern DE use it does.

All mechanical components distort when in use the degree varies the metrics are proprietary and will not be published any where. Take a lesson from the factory builds and 20yrs of experience w/ subsequent rebuilds.

tenths of mm matter as do tenths of g.
Sorry if I sounded like a smart ***, but I am used to a racing and engineering world where the plural of anecdote isn't data. Even the hot rod world has reams of dyno data on every combo immaginary. In porscheland, everyone relies on what the mothership did 25+ years ago when they were almost broke.

Someday I'm going to be in the market for a new P&C set, and I would love to see real data from one of the manufacturers of big bore cylinders. A real instability would show itself on the dyno, or with miles. As it is, we have notable engine builders comment about failures with no info as to the usage, certainly not any controlled usage. Was it overheated, extremely high rpm, etc, we don't know.
onevoice is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 05:56 PM
  #57  
Juha G
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Juha G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,506
Default

Originally Posted by onevoice View Post
Sorry if I sounded like a smart ***, but I am used to a racing and engineering world where the plural of anecdote isn't data. Even the hot rod world has reams of dyno data on every combo immaginary. In porscheland, everyone relies on what the mothership did 25+ years ago when they were almost broke.

Someday I'm going to be in the market for a new P&C set, and I would love to see real data from one of the manufacturers of big bore cylinders. A real instability would show itself on the dyno, or with miles. As it is, we have notable engine builders comment about failures with no info as to the usage, certainly not any controlled usage. Was it overheated, extremely high rpm, etc, we don't know.
Just look at the present day engines; they self destruct before they reach 100k miles (if they dont' catch fire before that).

The bolded part represents everything that Porsche has always been to me. Take any stock air cooled Porsche that is taken care off, fill up the tank and hit the autobahn until you run out of gas. No matter wether it is a 265hp Carrera or a 430hp GT2, it will do anything you ask from it and then some.

Porsche doesn't make engines like that anymore...they do make profit. I suppose it's difficult (if not impossible) to do both.

As for the slip-in vs. bore in; for me the difference in cost was just too insignificant in a 25k eur rebuild to even consider the slip in version. In for a penny, in for a pound...
Juha G is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2017, 06:27 PM
  #58  
eddieb4
Addict
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
eddieb4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 981
Default

Bare metal in progress ... single stage fashion gray (H61) going on the underside.
Rendition of car with HRE wheels.
Sunroof delete completed with Fenn Lane panel and Upol filler as recommended by Chris. Body shop couldn't believe how solid Upol was when dried. They had not used that product before.
I got lucky with a rust free car from California. Had two spots on the lower windshield under the gasket in the usual spots.
Attached Images       
eddieb4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 12:30 AM
  #59  
HiWind
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
HiWind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 4,216
Default

beautiful progress.. thanks for the updates!
HiWind is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 03:59 PM
  #60  
Sire
User
 
Sire's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Netherlands/ The Hague
Posts: 276
Default

nice to see how this car is getting better and better
Sire is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 964 C2 3.8 Build Thread


Contact Us Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: