robmypro

Got it. Thanks!

robmypro

Update: Call scheduled tomorrow with PCNA to finalize dates, etc. I will update this thread after I speak with them.

XPRESSO

Sent my info today. Thanks Rob.

robmypro

Update: Dates won't be known until sometime next week, due to some people being at Le Mans right now.

mqandil

I think triggering these codes vary from one car to another. Mine triggered occasional Check Engine error that was not stored in PCM & cleared itself after an engine restart for almost 5K to 6K before it finally Happened. At around 18.5K miles the light stayed on permanently & error was store in PCM and Porsche ordered the inspection and the inspection revealed sever damage. I suspect if they ordered the inspection around 12K miles they would have observed light to medium wear. In my opinion triggering the Check engine error vary from one car to another and I believe it gets triggered after the damage is already pretty sever with perhaps occasional random check engine light showing up every once in a while but it goes away on its own. I have taken the car to Porsche service after every time light came on, and was told nothing was wrong, but they have replaced my coils & plugs on couple of occasions on PCNA recommendations. Just sharing my own experience.
The new G engine I got seems to run fine & very smooth, but it oil pressure is running higher than before and it feels it is putting out slightly less power than the E engine. It could be all in my head since I have not tracked the car since I the recent transplant, but this is how it feels on the street. Hope this helps. Mark

bucklesandrings

Perhaps the engine needs a few more miles to loosen up?

I cannot believe that Porsche has not gotten to the bottom of the cause of these failures. This DLC coating seems in common use as an anti friction layer (I read about it in use on motorbikes). I am hoping that Porsche will be up front as to what exactly the issue is here. Then the question becomes whether the only fix is doing away with hydraulic lash adjusters as per the series 2. That is the crux of it.....

Sloopy

I tend to think any coating will only extend the problem. Only way to avoid it is to ALWAYS have a sufficient oil seperation.

Jamie@dundonmotorsports

Porsche has identified the source of the issue, it's why the 991.2 GT3 has a solid lash adjuster design... Keeps a constant separation between the cam lobe and the finger follower to allow an oil film to form, same thing we're doing for the 991.1 with our solid lash adjuster upgrades.

Manifold

Cost?

bronson7

Curious on your testing, results and time frame for production.

Just in time

I just stumbled into this. Not complex. Interesting insights....particularly on oil changes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_tappet

Jamie@dundonmotorsports

Don't want to derail Rob's thread, but parts are in production (finally) we made a few changes so that we can install parts and "stock" cams and not have to tune the car at all... Will also offer "tuner" cams that may require an ECU tune. Latest update from the manufacturer is middle to end of July for delivery, then we install and test.

Lodi

Jamie, hope you are doing well! Just curious. I think I read somewhere that Porsche may be using a softer valve spring in later 9A1s. Do you know if this is the case? Would it make a difference? Do you have any thoughts on why the finger follower is occurring on a broad range of cars based on mileage/use? Some with the issue have been low miles no track, some have been high miles and/or heavily tracked, and some high mile track monsters have had no issue (OrthoJoe). Are there variables other than miles/type of use?

Jamie@dundonmotorsports

Things are good, hope you're well also! I believe in the G engines they went with a slightly softer valve spring, but this is only controlling the valve's motion and "flutter" meaning that you need a spring of sufficient spring rate to keep the valve from bouncing off of the seat. Now I can't explain how/why one engine survives and another fails, but I can say that the current design has flaws and those flaws are the major driver of the failures. If those flaws are fixed (maintaining adequate space between the cam and finger follower for an oil film to form) ala a solid lash adjuster, then we believe the issue is no longer one to wonder about.

Since we're talking about lack of oil related wear, there are lots of things that could cause the issue, lots of starts and stops with cold oil, beating on the car when the oil is cold, tracking the car at high temps causing low oil viscosity, etc etc. These are all off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more. But the bottom line is, fix the issue at the source (keep oil between the cam lobe and finger follower) and all the other possible use correlations are no longer concerns.

vantage

What is the reason Porsche just didn't go with solid lash adjusters in the first place back in 2013? Is it more expensive or is there some other drawback?