New GT3 engine article?
01-30-2017, 07:00 PM
#16
Rennlist Member
This is nothing new regarding their race engines. I think the reference was that the engine, as a whole, is the preview as to what is going in the next GT3.
In theory, it would be a way to reliably extract more HP at higher RPM's though....
In theory, it would be a way to reliably extract more HP at higher RPM's though....
01-30-2017, 07:22 PM
#17
I'd bet my house there's not enough space in there to remove cam covers and adjust valves
. Heck, it'd be a challenge to even get past removing the bolts. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely Porsche would make such a move on a modern car IMO. We'll find out soon enough. Anyway, assuming no solid lifters, I'm not sure we can assume since the race engines went the distance, the lubrication issues on the GT3 engines is cured, since those obviously don't need hydraulic lifters (rebuilt every 100 hours at best). And as these last few threads discuss, it seems to be a major consideration. I also thought the main reason the new engines didn't last like the Mezgers were the extra rpm, but some folks argued they still fail even when not revved past 8,500. That being the case, why not go back to the Mezger design? Interesting to find out exactly what's new on the upcoming .2 engines.
. Heck, it'd be a challenge to even get past removing the bolts. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely Porsche would make such a move on a modern car IMO. We'll find out soon enough. Anyway, assuming no solid lifters, I'm not sure we can assume since the race engines went the distance, the lubrication issues on the GT3 engines is cured, since those obviously don't need hydraulic lifters (rebuilt every 100 hours at best). And as these last few threads discuss, it seems to be a major consideration. I also thought the main reason the new engines didn't last like the Mezgers were the extra rpm, but some folks argued they still fail even when not revved past 8,500. That being the case, why not go back to the Mezger design? Interesting to find out exactly what's new on the upcoming .2 engines.
01-30-2017, 07:29 PM
#18
Rennlist Member
I'd bet my house there's not enough space in there to remove cam covers and adjust valves. Heck, it'd be a challenge to even get past removing the bolts. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely Porsche would make such a move on a modern car IMO. We'll find out soon enough. Anyway, I'm not sure we can assume since the race engines went the distance, the lubrication issues on the GT3 engines is cured. For starters, it's almost certain the race engines do NOT have hydraulic lifters. Why would they, if they need to be rebuilt every 100 hours at best? And as these last few threads discuss, it seems to be a major consideration. I also thought the main reason the new engines didn't last like the Mezgers were the extra rpm, but some folks argued they still fail even when not revved past 8,500. That being the case, why not go back to the Mezger design? Interesting to find out exactly what's new on the upcoming .2 engines.
. Heck, it'd be a challenge to even get past removing the bolts. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely Porsche would make such a move on a modern car IMO. We'll find out soon enough. Anyway, I'm not sure we can assume since the race engines went the distance, the lubrication issues on the GT3 engines is cured. For starters, it's almost certain the race engines do NOT have hydraulic lifters. Why would they, if they need to be rebuilt every 100 hours at best? And as these last few threads discuss, it seems to be a major consideration. I also thought the main reason the new engines didn't last like the Mezgers were the extra rpm, but some folks argued they still fail even when not revved past 8,500. That being the case, why not go back to the Mezger design? Interesting to find out exactly what's new on the upcoming .2 engines.Also, Mezgers require more frequent rebuilds in race apps, almost twice as often (50 hrs of racing if I remember). So the operating cost is much higher to run a Mezger.
01-30-2017, 08:08 PM
#19
Three Wheelin'
Maybe wishful thinking on my part but I get the sense they do understand what it is going on and what we expect. The fact that emphasis is being given to reliability issues in connection with the "next" engine is indicative that they are fully aware. A good lawyer will tell their client not to admit guilt if they don't have to.
01-30-2017, 08:28 PM
#20
Nordschleife Master
Maybe wishful thinking on my part but I get the sense they do understand what it is going on and what we expect. The fact that emphasis is being given to reliability issues in connection with the "next" engine is indicative that they are fully aware. A good lawyer will tell their client not to admit guilt if they don't have to.
01-31-2017, 06:00 AM
#21
Rennlist Member
Maybe wishful thinking on my part but I get the sense they do understand what it is going on and what we expect. The fact that emphasis is being given to reliability issues in connection with the "next" engine is indicative that they are fully aware. A good lawyer will tell their client not to admit guilt if they don't have to.
Lets face it, the nose bleed has been long, red and free flowing with regards to the MA175.
They have been making reliability improvements since the E engine. First with newly coated DLC followers, new rings (less smoke on start up) and re calibrated valve springs on the F engines then with upgraded heads improving lubrication with up-rated oil pump, re calibrated ECU, and filter on the RS and GT3 (G) engines. For the last of the RS and the 911R run they introduced further design ratification to the heads and introduced DLC coated cam lobes.
The race engines run a lower limiter than the 991.1 GT3. They appear tuned for toque not outright power (cam profiles, ECU etc). They have fairly rigid service intervals (although this has been improved on the latest generation). I think its way to early to assume they are reliable. After all you could take a showroom new 991.1 GT3RS out to Daytona 24 hrs and I wouldnt expect it to throw a cylinder miss fire code at the end. With the series of production amendments to the MA175/6 we likely already have an engine good for 100 track hours at full chat. Some owners such as Peter (Trakcar) are already getting up there and they arent exactly hanging around on the track.
Ive said it before and will do so again, any marketing rehtoric we are fed at the 991.2 GT3 lancuh in a few weeks time needs to back up by a technical sales document (as was available for 991.2 Gt3 and prior generations of GT3/RS but strangely dissapeared by the time the 991.1 GT3RS was launched) that clearly outlines what changes have been made. Only then can we read teh document and discount all the "its 80% new" rehortic relating to the running production changes for this engine already mentioned and accounted for above.
Im on the list and would dearly like to believe they have made fundamental and guaranteed changes to the new 991.2 GT3 that removes any future possibility of premature valvetrain wear, but short of backing down the rev limit (which they will do0 and throwing some AP marketing fairy dust over the presentation, I really honestly believe that what we get is what we already got, perhaps with a couple of mild revisions, yet unknown in terms of their ability to remedy. The 991.2 GT3 was signed off 6 months ago, the drive train and core hardware likely 12 months ago, the last revisions to the MA175/6 engines happened with the "G2" variant engines fitted to the 911R around 7-8 months ago. If they had cards to play they already played then on the 911R G2 engine. All IMO and happy to be made a liar.
I have no cleaning lady since she was hung drawn and quartered after the last engine debacle back in 2014 which I was actively involved with from the perspective of representing the interests of those awaiting compensation and assurance. For me the 991.2 GT3 looks like this (and we will know soon enough):
- 4.0L 8600 rpm 343lbft 495PS
- MT/PDK options. Im assuming MT option will be cheaper with LWFC option for MT box bring cost to similar as PDK option. Overall 7-8% price increase like for like spec to 991.1 GT3
- Improved front and rear downforce (25mm higher rear spoiler, more front splitter/bumper surface area)
- Mechanical LSD on MT option
- Improved EPAS steering feel
- Calibrations to RWS
- Calibration changes to PDK maps
- Similar weight for PDK and 40lb deduction for Mt with LWFC
- Updated PCM 4.0
- Same wheel and tyre dimensions as outgoing 991.1 GT3
- Ring time 7.20 (PDK)
- 0-100 kmph in 3.3s (0.1s improvement for PDK only).
There. I said it. Slay me with the sword in a few weeks time ;-)
Last edited by Macca; 02-01-2017 at 01:56 AM.
01-31-2017, 09:37 AM
#23
Nordschleife Master
- 4.0L 8600 rpm 443lbft 495PS
- MT/PDK options. Im assuming MT option will be cheaper with LWFC option for MT box bring cost to similar as PDK option. Overall 7-8% price increase like for like spec to 991.1 GT3
- Improved front and rear downforce (25mm higher rear spoiler, more front splitter/bumper surface area)
- Mechanical LSD on MT option
- Improved EPAS steering feel
- Calibrations to RWS
- Calibration changes to PDK maps
- Similar weight for PDK and 40lb deduction for Mt with LWFC
- Updated PCM 4.0
- Same wheel and tyre dimensions as outgoing 991.1 GT3
- Ring time 7.20 (PDK)
- 0-100 kmph in 3.3s (0.1s improvement for PDK only).
There. I said it. Slay me with the sword in a few weeks time ;-)
01-31-2017, 10:26 AM
#24
Rennlist Member
Macca,
Agree with your prediction (w/ lower torque number). The changes have been tested and specifications for subcontractored parts signed and parts ordered. Time has been too short and money to dear to have any other answer. They will no doubt spin the announcement to make it a grand improvement. Otherwise, no reason to stand in line waiting to buy one.
Agree with your prediction (w/ lower torque number). The changes have been tested and specifications for subcontractored parts signed and parts ordered. Time has been too short and money to dear to have any other answer. They will no doubt spin the announcement to make it a grand improvement. Otherwise, no reason to stand in line waiting to buy one.
01-31-2017, 10:42 AM
#25
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by Macca
Fair statement but they are hardly going to indicate the status quo are they?
Lets face it, the nose bleed has been long, red and free flowing with regards to the MA175.
They have been making reliability improvements since the E engine. First with newly coated DLC followers, new rings (less smoke on start up) and re calibrated valve springs on the F engines then with upgraded heads improving lubrication with up-rated oil pump, re calibrated ECU, and filter on the RS and GT3 (G) engines. For the last of the RS and the 911R run they introduced further design ratification to the heads and introduced DLC coated cam lobes.
The race engines run a lower limiter than the 991.1 GT3. They appear tuned for toque not outright power (cam profiles, ECU etc). They have fairly rigid service intervals (although this has been improved on the latest generation). I think its way to early to assume they are reliable. After all you could take a showroom new 991.1 GT3RS out to Daytona 24 hrs and I wouldnt expect it to throw a cylinder miss fire code at the end. With the series of production amendments to the MA175/6 we likely already have an engine good for 100 track hours at full chat. Some owners such as Peter (Trakcar) are already getting up there and they arent exactly hanging around on the track.
Ive said it before and will do so again, any marketing rehtoric we are fed at the 991.2 GT3 lancuh in a few weeks time needs to back up by a technical sales document (as was available for 991.2 Gt3 and prior generations of GT3/RS but strangely dissapeared by the time the 991.1 GT3RS was launched) that clearly outlines what changes have been made. Only then can we read teh document and discount all the "its 80% new" rehortic relating to the running production changes for this engine already mentioned and accounted for above.
Im on the list and would dearly like to believe they have made fundamental and guaranteed changes to the new 991.2 GT3 that removes any future possibility of premature valvetrain wear, but short of backing down the rev limit (which they will do0 and throwing some AP marketing fairy dust over the presentation, I really honestly believe that what we get is what we already got, perhaps with a couple of mild revisions, yet unknown in terms of their ability to remedy. The 991.2 GT3 was signed off 6 months ago, the drive train and core hardware likely 12 months ago, the last revisions to the MA175/6 engines happened with the "G2" variant engines fitted to the 911R around 7-8 months ago. If they had cards to play they already played then on the 911R G2 engine. All IMO and happy to be made a liar.
I have no cleaning lady since she was hung drawn and quartered after the last engine debacle back in 2014 which I was actively involved with from the perspective of representing the interests of those awaiting compensation and assurance. For me the 991.2 GT3 looks like this (and we will know soon enough):
There. I said it. Slay me with the sword in a few weeks time ;-)
Lets face it, the nose bleed has been long, red and free flowing with regards to the MA175.
They have been making reliability improvements since the E engine. First with newly coated DLC followers, new rings (less smoke on start up) and re calibrated valve springs on the F engines then with upgraded heads improving lubrication with up-rated oil pump, re calibrated ECU, and filter on the RS and GT3 (G) engines. For the last of the RS and the 911R run they introduced further design ratification to the heads and introduced DLC coated cam lobes.
The race engines run a lower limiter than the 991.1 GT3. They appear tuned for toque not outright power (cam profiles, ECU etc). They have fairly rigid service intervals (although this has been improved on the latest generation). I think its way to early to assume they are reliable. After all you could take a showroom new 991.1 GT3RS out to Daytona 24 hrs and I wouldnt expect it to throw a cylinder miss fire code at the end. With the series of production amendments to the MA175/6 we likely already have an engine good for 100 track hours at full chat. Some owners such as Peter (Trakcar) are already getting up there and they arent exactly hanging around on the track.
Ive said it before and will do so again, any marketing rehtoric we are fed at the 991.2 GT3 lancuh in a few weeks time needs to back up by a technical sales document (as was available for 991.2 Gt3 and prior generations of GT3/RS but strangely dissapeared by the time the 991.1 GT3RS was launched) that clearly outlines what changes have been made. Only then can we read teh document and discount all the "its 80% new" rehortic relating to the running production changes for this engine already mentioned and accounted for above.
Im on the list and would dearly like to believe they have made fundamental and guaranteed changes to the new 991.2 GT3 that removes any future possibility of premature valvetrain wear, but short of backing down the rev limit (which they will do0 and throwing some AP marketing fairy dust over the presentation, I really honestly believe that what we get is what we already got, perhaps with a couple of mild revisions, yet unknown in terms of their ability to remedy. The 991.2 GT3 was signed off 6 months ago, the drive train and core hardware likely 12 months ago, the last revisions to the MA175/6 engines happened with the "G2" variant engines fitted to the 911R around 7-8 months ago. If they had cards to play they already played then on the 911R G2 engine. All IMO and happy to be made a liar.
I have no cleaning lady since she was hung drawn and quartered after the last engine debacle back in 2014 which I was actively involved with from the perspective of representing the interests of those awaiting compensation and assurance. For me the 991.2 GT3 looks like this (and we will know soon enough):
- 4.0L 8600 rpm 443lbft 495PS
- MT/PDK options. Im assuming MT option will be cheaper with LWFC option for MT box bring cost to similar as PDK option. Overall 7-8% price increase like for like spec to 991.1 GT3
- Improved front and rear downforce (25mm higher rear spoiler, more front splitter/bumper surface area)
- Mechanical LSD on MT option
- Improved EPAS steering feel
- Calibrations to RWS
- Calibration changes to PDK maps
- Similar weight for PDK and 40lb deduction for Mt with LWFC
- Updated PCM 4.0
- Same wheel and tyre dimensions as outgoing 991.1 GT3
- Ring time 7.20 (PDK)
- 0-100 kmph in 3.3s (0.1s improvement for PDK only).
There. I said it. Slay me with the sword in a few weeks time ;-)
01-31-2017, 12:19 PM
#26
Nordschleife Master
Fair statement but they are hardly going to indicate the status quo are they?
Lets face it, the nose bleed has been long, red and free flowing with regards to the MA175.
They have been making reliability improvements since the E engine. First with newly coated DLC followers, new rings (less smoke on start up) and re calibrated valve springs on the F engines then with upgraded heads improving lubrication with up-rated oil pump, re calibrated ECU, and filter on the RS and GT3 (G) engines. For the last of the RS and the 911R run they introduced further design ratification to the heads and introduced DLC coated cam lobes.
The race engines run a lower limiter than the 991.1 GT3. They appear tuned for toque not outright power (cam profiles, ECU etc). They have fairly rigid service intervals (although this has been improved on the latest generation). I think its way to early to assume they are reliable. After all you could take a showroom new 991.1 GT3RS out to Daytona 24 hrs and I wouldnt expect it to throw a cylinder miss fire code at the end. With the series of production amendments to the MA175/6 we likely already have an engine good for 100 track hours at full chat. Some owners such as Peter (Trakcar) are already getting up there and they arent exactly hanging around on the track.
Ive said it before and will do so again, any marketing rehtoric we are fed at the 991.2 GT3 lancuh in a few weeks time needs to back up by a technical sales document (as was available for 991.2 Gt3 and prior generations of GT3/RS but strangely dissapeared by the time the 991.1 GT3RS was launched) that clearly outlines what changes have been made. Only then can we read teh document and discount all the "its 80% new" rehortic relating to the running production changes for this engine already mentioned and accounted for above.
Im on the list and would dearly like to believe they have made fundamental and guaranteed changes to the new 991.2 GT3 that removes any future possibility of premature valvetrain wear, but short of backing down the rev limit (which they will do0 and throwing some AP marketing fairy dust over the presentation, I really honestly believe that what we get is what we already got, perhaps with a couple of mild revisions, yet unknown in terms of their ability to remedy. The 991.2 GT3 was signed off 6 months ago, the drive train and core hardware likely 12 months ago, the last revisions to the MA175/6 engines happened with the "G2" variant engines fitted to the 911R around 7-8 months ago. If they had cards to play they already played then on the 911R G2 engine. All IMO and happy to be made a liar.
I have no cleaning lady since she was hung drawn and quartered after the last engine debacle back in 2014 which I was actively involved with from the perspective of representing the interests of those awaiting compensation and assurance. For me the 991.2 GT3 looks like this (and we will know soon enough):
There. I said it. Slay me with the sword in a few weeks time ;-)
Lets face it, the nose bleed has been long, red and free flowing with regards to the MA175.
They have been making reliability improvements since the E engine. First with newly coated DLC followers, new rings (less smoke on start up) and re calibrated valve springs on the F engines then with upgraded heads improving lubrication with up-rated oil pump, re calibrated ECU, and filter on the RS and GT3 (G) engines. For the last of the RS and the 911R run they introduced further design ratification to the heads and introduced DLC coated cam lobes.
The race engines run a lower limiter than the 991.1 GT3. They appear tuned for toque not outright power (cam profiles, ECU etc). They have fairly rigid service intervals (although this has been improved on the latest generation). I think its way to early to assume they are reliable. After all you could take a showroom new 991.1 GT3RS out to Daytona 24 hrs and I wouldnt expect it to throw a cylinder miss fire code at the end. With the series of production amendments to the MA175/6 we likely already have an engine good for 100 track hours at full chat. Some owners such as Peter (Trakcar) are already getting up there and they arent exactly hanging around on the track.
Ive said it before and will do so again, any marketing rehtoric we are fed at the 991.2 GT3 lancuh in a few weeks time needs to back up by a technical sales document (as was available for 991.2 Gt3 and prior generations of GT3/RS but strangely dissapeared by the time the 991.1 GT3RS was launched) that clearly outlines what changes have been made. Only then can we read teh document and discount all the "its 80% new" rehortic relating to the running production changes for this engine already mentioned and accounted for above.
Im on the list and would dearly like to believe they have made fundamental and guaranteed changes to the new 991.2 GT3 that removes any future possibility of premature valvetrain wear, but short of backing down the rev limit (which they will do0 and throwing some AP marketing fairy dust over the presentation, I really honestly believe that what we get is what we already got, perhaps with a couple of mild revisions, yet unknown in terms of their ability to remedy. The 991.2 GT3 was signed off 6 months ago, the drive train and core hardware likely 12 months ago, the last revisions to the MA175/6 engines happened with the "G2" variant engines fitted to the 911R around 7-8 months ago. If they had cards to play they already played then on the 911R G2 engine. All IMO and happy to be made a liar.
I have no cleaning lady since she was hung drawn and quartered after the last engine debacle back in 2014 which I was actively involved with from the perspective of representing the interests of those awaiting compensation and assurance. For me the 991.2 GT3 looks like this (and we will know soon enough):
- 4.0L 8600 rpm 443lbft 495PS
- MT/PDK options. Im assuming MT option will be cheaper with LWFC option for MT box bring cost to similar as PDK option. Overall 7-8% price increase like for like spec to 991.1 GT3
- Improved front and rear downforce (25mm higher rear spoiler, more front splitter/bumper surface area)
- Mechanical LSD on MT option
- Improved EPAS steering feel
- Calibrations to RWS
- Calibration changes to PDK maps
- Similar weight for PDK and 40lb deduction for Mt with LWFC
- Updated PCM 4.0
- Same wheel and tyre dimensions as outgoing 991.1 GT3
- Ring time 7.20 (PDK)
- 0-100 kmph in 3.3s (0.1s improvement for PDK only).
There. I said it. Slay me with the sword in a few weeks time ;-)
It is not a solid lifter engine. Its hydraulic.
Porsche is always improving. Do you think the 992 engines won't be touted as improved over the 991.1 and 991.2?
Even the Metzger had its issues with cyclinder scoring and oil starvation at times as I understand I believe there were some issues with vario cams on the 997.2 GT3s also.
Its an engine. There is always going to be something especially those subjected to sustained hard use.
01-31-2017, 08:36 PM
#27
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by Macca;13923772
The 991.2. For me the 991.2 GT3 looks like this (and we will know soon enough):
[LIST
The 991.2. For me the 991.2 GT3 looks like this (and we will know soon enough):
[LIST
[*]4.0L 8600 rpm 443lbft 495PS[*]MT/PDK options. Im assuming MT option will be cheaper with LWFC option for MT box bring cost to similar as PDK option. Overall 7-8% price increase like for like spec to 991.1 GT3[*]Improved front and rear downforce (25mm higher rear spoiler, more front splitter/bumper surface area)[*]Mechanical LSD on MT option [*]Improved EPAS steering feel[*]Calibrations to RWS[*]Calibration changes to PDK maps [*]Similar weight for PDK and 40lb deduction for Mt with LWFC[*]Updated PCM 4.0[*]Same wheel and tyre dimensions as outgoing 991.1 GT3[*]Ring time 7.20 (PDK)[*]0-100 kmph in 3.3s (0.1s improvement for PDK only).[/LIST]
There. I said it. Slay me with the sword in a few weeks time ;-)
There. I said it. Slay me with the sword in a few weeks time ;-)
I don't know if they can tune a 3.8 to produce 490-5 hp w/o blowing a hole in budget but that would be a good target. I would also expect some weight reduction of the car as a whole. Given that demand is nearly insatiable and the ridiculous premiums being paid I would expect 9-10% price increase.
01-31-2017, 10:38 PM
#28
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The MT 991.2 GT3 cars will come with no wing.
02-01-2017, 12:04 AM
#29
Nordschleife Master