Jpacione

COG organizers - thank you so much for your initiative in meeting with PCNA and getting facts. For the RS owners, any additional details you can remember around why this should not be an issue? Sounds like the inclusions may be in our followers, but due to lower stresses we are unlikely to see anything manifest. Is that a correct interpretation? Interesting to read that this was a low rpm issue. Thanks again for your efforts, and for your patience with all of the questions from the group at large!

sgroer

yes. Lighter valve springs, less friction. Thats it. As an RS owner in the room, I left feeling that the RS is rock solid!

Jpacione

Thanks for clarifying. I feel better now as well!

MileHigh911

Let's not forget that Porsche missed the probability that metal inclusions (which occur in all castings) would lead to a rapid breakdown of the finger follower with "this" valve design. The DLC coating seemingly wasn't enough when simply placed on the original castings. No one knows if they have inclusions close enough to the surface to eventually have the issue. Porsche has made some assumptions as well to come to their conclusion of the causation. And this to boot with the con-rod issue! It all leads one to believe that they tried a different engine valvetrain design, and it didn't even last the current design run of the chassis/car. Even when they "assume" they know why, they still changed it immediately. And I own one of these cars. Maybe it will become a "unicorn" in 100 years, like when coin collectors look for the mistake coins.

Lodi

Wow, pretty harsh! Dundon simply presented their findings on this issue and shared progress on their proposed solution, which is in no way the wrong approach. After all, Porsche went with solid lifters on the .2, right? They also made no inferences about what Porsche would or wouldn't do to resolve the issue and support GT3 owners. . In fact, when I asked Jamie about my brand new RS at the Smokies he said go drive and enjoy it and worry about the issue if something happens. Guess I'm just another lemming. Many thanks to Dundon getting ahead of this issue and freely sharing their findings.

17bhub

Strong work guys (and Porsche)!

Jpacione

As an owner, more options is better. It's good to know there is support for our cars.

RealityGT

Did Dundon help/assist/contribute to the COG group?

If not this thread should be dedicated to the COG members and those that contributed to the cause.

sgroer

yes. They absolutely helped. On conference calls to help the COG get a better feel for the technical aspects. We were far more educated walking in the room thanks to them.

RealityGT

Ah excellent!

sgroer

how anyone could bash them after their efforts to understand and fix the issue AND their help to the COG is beyond me.

rosenbergendo

Wasn't bashing them in identifying some fault. But the means to build test rigs and truly identify the issue is what takes millions and millions and multiple engineers. Not slamming their help in identifying some causation just the solution seemed (past tense) short sighted due to the lack of truly understanding the factory piece and/or the finances to truly go down all paths of failure.

robmypro

Regarding the RS and R, the revised testing that ultimately reproduced the issue on the .1 GT3 was run on RS and R engines, and they passed with flying colors. We didn't ask, but I assume the .2 GT3 was tested as well.

CDinSing

CDinSing

A new test that reproduces a failure is normally introduced into production as the new standard test. I think that is a safe assumption. The .2 also has the new hardness spec followers, so I would expect it to pass.