Consolidated 991RS thread
01-21-2015, 12:31 PM
#3586
Nordschleife Master
9A1 is not old IMO...
But they could change a few things and call it a new gen of engines. I can definitely agree 9A1 is not the best internal coding. Every project needs a hero with a face/flesh and blood. German names sell... Dr. Preuninger engine series perhaps...?
But they could change a few things and call it a new gen of engines. I can definitely agree 9A1 is not the best internal coding. Every project needs a hero with a face/flesh and blood. German names sell... Dr. Preuninger engine series perhaps...?
01-21-2015, 12:34 PM
#3587
01-21-2015, 12:36 PM
#3589
Preuninger is a marketer.
01-21-2015, 12:47 PM
#3590
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 12,651
Received 4,033 Likes
on
2,297 Posts
01-21-2015, 01:08 PM
#3591
Rennlist Member
I'm still amazed people are bringing up the concept that Porsche is going with a new engine in the RS because of the GT3 engine issue last year on two cars. Just think about the timeline between that date and the first RS cars spotted last fall. What does that leave, maybe 4 months of development, testing and production? If the new RS is getting a new motor, it was planned years ago and has absolutely nothing to do with the motor in the GT3.
01-21-2015, 01:20 PM
#3592
Drifting
And the dealers aren't any better...
While all of the above is eminently plausible, and may perhaps end up true, but perception is so much more important than reality when it comes to $150,000+ sports cars. In a decade the 991 GT3 will be remembered as the one that (1) caught on fire and (2) did NOT have a race engine. That will hinder reputation and market value.
The assumption you are making is that Porsche is making changes due to a lack of reliability, or that keeping the platform would indicate it is reliable. I suspect that both are false.
Previous Mezger GT engine reliability was largely defined by the little stuff. Cam adjusters, freeze plugs, coolant hose welding, etc, but of course the little stuff was big enough to blow engines and crash cars at the track. Most issues were addressed when each new evolution of the engine came out (ie the 4.0 got updated cam adjusters, etc). But this did nothing to improve the old ones- they were just as reliable (or not) as they always had been.
If the 9A1 isn't retained that doesn't indicate it couldn't be "fixed" for the next generation as the old engines always were. I'd say it's more likely to do with product life cycles- the 9A1 has simply been around a long time. You're designing a new race engine platform that might be around for ten years and used in thousands of cars. Why use 6 year old designs and parts that are about to go out of production when you can use brand new parts that are presumably lighter and better? Bonus: you can now say that the engines in your race cars are "the same" as in the regular 911s again.
Keep the Mezger going in motorsports, test some concepts and designs you want to use in the new engine on the 9A1 GT3, then concentrate on the future and put all your development wood behind the new platform arrow. Makes sense, and it doesn't mean they didn't deliver the best motor they could at the time for the 991 GT3. Again, given the choice between 9A1 GT3 and Mezger, both stock, I'd choose the 9A1. The 9A1 needed to end somewhere, might as well be with the GT3. Simple engineering and product management, doesn't indicate a rotten apple to me at all.
Previous Mezger GT engine reliability was largely defined by the little stuff. Cam adjusters, freeze plugs, coolant hose welding, etc, but of course the little stuff was big enough to blow engines and crash cars at the track. Most issues were addressed when each new evolution of the engine came out (ie the 4.0 got updated cam adjusters, etc). But this did nothing to improve the old ones- they were just as reliable (or not) as they always had been.
If the 9A1 isn't retained that doesn't indicate it couldn't be "fixed" for the next generation as the old engines always were. I'd say it's more likely to do with product life cycles- the 9A1 has simply been around a long time. You're designing a new race engine platform that might be around for ten years and used in thousands of cars. Why use 6 year old designs and parts that are about to go out of production when you can use brand new parts that are presumably lighter and better? Bonus: you can now say that the engines in your race cars are "the same" as in the regular 911s again.
Keep the Mezger going in motorsports, test some concepts and designs you want to use in the new engine on the 9A1 GT3, then concentrate on the future and put all your development wood behind the new platform arrow. Makes sense, and it doesn't mean they didn't deliver the best motor they could at the time for the 991 GT3. Again, given the choice between 9A1 GT3 and Mezger, both stock, I'd choose the 9A1. The 9A1 needed to end somewhere, might as well be with the GT3. Simple engineering and product management, doesn't indicate a rotten apple to me at all.
01-21-2015, 01:22 PM
#3593
Three Wheelin'
We do know that the RS will have "new internal features". What that means is anybody's guess. First the 9A1 is not old in the context of Porsche using the basic flat six from the 1960s through the last Mezger GT3, albeit with substantial modifications. My father's 73 T had the guts of the 73 RS and RSR if not their performance. The message was not so much about reliability but about robustness of design. Reliability can suffer from a number causes that are not directly related to the basic design of the engine. However, for example, the "integral dry sump" oiling system of the M96/97 series was never going to be an adequate design for motorsport even though it may be perfectly acceptable for street use in terms of both reliability and robustness of design. If the current GT3 engine were in the current GTS I would not be making the argument that a new and more robust design in the RS makes the engine an irrelevant dead end. Precisely because the engine is in the GT3, a Porsche Motorsports effort, does a revised design in the RS have such a negative impact.
01-21-2015, 01:24 PM
#3594
"You can't afford to keep an engine for 10 years anymore" according to Hatz. And given the pace of change we're seeing with emissions, efficiency, weight reduction, hybrid, power increases, etc, I'd say he's probably right. The 9A1 is six years old. That's the same age that the M96 and M97 were dumped at, and if anything it seems the pace of change has increased. Remember that assuming a motorsports engine has a nine year lifespan it would be 15 years old by the time it's retired.
In stock form for mixed street/ track use I'd take the stock 9A1 for weight first and reliability (my guestimate of) second.
Weight is obvious, responsible for significantly improved handling (or it would be if they didn't add much of it back with PDK).
Reliability is less obvious, but here I see the components shared with the other 9A1s as a major advantage. If you look at the issues previous GT engines have had, they were largely with components that were not shared, either with the Cup cars or with other street cars. Cam adjusters, flywheel, oil pump, freeze plugs, etc- all exclusive to the street cars. And the street cars were made in painfully low volumes, likely making a full scale test program difficult to support and issues in the field harder to find. Time has revealed a number of issues with a number of engine parts, and the engines really need to be upgraded to correct these to be as reliable as I'd like.
The 9A1 GT3, on the other hand, has fewer bespoke components. We know they again had issues with some of these (con rod bolts?), so it unfortunately already fits the pattern of having issues with GT specific bits. Many of the parts, however, are shared with cars that have been in production for five years already. Thus not only was there extensive testing, there were 100,000 field trials of these parts in similar usage. I have a lot of faith that they found most issues with these bits and corrected them. In essence the Mezger was a low volume, boutique engine, while the 9A1 is closer to a mass produced product. And when you build a lot of something you tend to get very good at it.
Why I'd choose the Mezger if modified:
1. You can correct some of the issues mentioned above.
2. The ECU is cracked, the 9A1 is not, so basically you can't properly modify the 9A1 (yet).
3. It's modular- you can bolt in bigger pistons and cylinders, a different crank, etc, to increase displacement. Not easy in the 9A1.
4. The tolerances are looser and there is more margin built into the engine. It's know good for huge power levels, and it doesn't require the same precision to work well. The 9A1 has a reputation of needing high tolerances that are dead right to work as designed...
5. Come rebuild time, the Mezger can be easily refreshed, even to the point of replacing cylinders.
6. It's know durable in the most extreme applications with the motorsports parts (which you can't actually buy to put in the street cars, but there are ways around this).
Weight is obvious, responsible for significantly improved handling (or it would be if they didn't add much of it back with PDK).
Reliability is less obvious, but here I see the components shared with the other 9A1s as a major advantage. If you look at the issues previous GT engines have had, they were largely with components that were not shared, either with the Cup cars or with other street cars. Cam adjusters, flywheel, oil pump, freeze plugs, etc- all exclusive to the street cars. And the street cars were made in painfully low volumes, likely making a full scale test program difficult to support and issues in the field harder to find. Time has revealed a number of issues with a number of engine parts, and the engines really need to be upgraded to correct these to be as reliable as I'd like.
The 9A1 GT3, on the other hand, has fewer bespoke components. We know they again had issues with some of these (con rod bolts?), so it unfortunately already fits the pattern of having issues with GT specific bits. Many of the parts, however, are shared with cars that have been in production for five years already. Thus not only was there extensive testing, there were 100,000 field trials of these parts in similar usage. I have a lot of faith that they found most issues with these bits and corrected them. In essence the Mezger was a low volume, boutique engine, while the 9A1 is closer to a mass produced product. And when you build a lot of something you tend to get very good at it.
Why I'd choose the Mezger if modified:
1. You can correct some of the issues mentioned above.
2. The ECU is cracked, the 9A1 is not, so basically you can't properly modify the 9A1 (yet).
3. It's modular- you can bolt in bigger pistons and cylinders, a different crank, etc, to increase displacement. Not easy in the 9A1.
4. The tolerances are looser and there is more margin built into the engine. It's know good for huge power levels, and it doesn't require the same precision to work well. The 9A1 has a reputation of needing high tolerances that are dead right to work as designed...
5. Come rebuild time, the Mezger can be easily refreshed, even to the point of replacing cylinders.
6. It's know durable in the most extreme applications with the motorsports parts (which you can't actually buy to put in the street cars, but there are ways around this).
01-21-2015, 01:48 PM
#3595
"You can't afford to keep an engine for 10 years anymore" according to Hatz. And given the pace of change we're seeing with emissions, efficiency, weight reduction, hybrid, power increases, etc, I'd say he's probably right. The 9A1 is six years old. That's the same age that the M96 and M97 were dumped at, and if anything it seems the pace of change has increased. Remember that assuming a motorsports engine has a nine year lifespan it would be 15 years old by the time it's retired.
In stock form for mixed street/ track use I'd take the stock 9A1 for weight first and reliability (my guestimate of) second.
Weight is obvious, responsible for significantly improved handling (or it would be if they didn't add much of it back with PDK).
Reliability is less obvious, but here I see the components shared with the other 9A1s as a major advantage. If you look at the issues previous GT engines have had, they were largely with components that were not shared, either with the Cup cars or with other street cars. Cam adjusters, flywheel, oil pump, freeze plugs, etc- all exclusive to the street cars. And the street cars were made in painfully low volumes, likely making a full scale test program difficult to support and issues in the field harder to find. Time has revealed a number of issues with a number of engine parts, and the engines really need to be upgraded to correct these to be as reliable as I'd like.
The 9A1 GT3, on the other hand, has fewer bespoke components. We know they again had issues with some of these (con rod bolts?), so it unfortunately already fits the pattern of having issues with GT specific bits. Many of the parts, however, are shared with cars that have been in production for five years already. Thus not only was there extensive testing, there were 100,000 field trials of these parts in similar usage. I have a lot of faith that they found most issues with these bits and corrected them. In essence the Mezger was a low volume, boutique engine, while the 9A1 is closer to a mass produced product. And when you build a lot of something you tend to get very good at it.
Why I'd choose the Mezger if modified:
1. You can correct some of the issues mentioned above.
2. The ECU is cracked, the 9A1 is not, so basically you can't properly modify the 9A1 (yet).
3. It's modular- you can bolt in bigger pistons and cylinders, a different crank, etc, to increase displacement. Not easy in the 9A1.
4. The tolerances are looser and there is more margin built into the engine. It's know good for huge power levels, and it doesn't require the same precision to work well. The 9A1 has a reputation of needing high tolerances that are dead right to work as designed...
5. Come rebuild time, the Mezger can be easily refreshed, even to the point of replacing cylinders.
6. It's know durable in the most extreme applications with the motorsports parts (which you can't actually buy to put in the street cars, but there are ways around this).
In stock form for mixed street/ track use I'd take the stock 9A1 for weight first and reliability (my guestimate of) second.
Weight is obvious, responsible for significantly improved handling (or it would be if they didn't add much of it back with PDK).
Reliability is less obvious, but here I see the components shared with the other 9A1s as a major advantage. If you look at the issues previous GT engines have had, they were largely with components that were not shared, either with the Cup cars or with other street cars. Cam adjusters, flywheel, oil pump, freeze plugs, etc- all exclusive to the street cars. And the street cars were made in painfully low volumes, likely making a full scale test program difficult to support and issues in the field harder to find. Time has revealed a number of issues with a number of engine parts, and the engines really need to be upgraded to correct these to be as reliable as I'd like.
The 9A1 GT3, on the other hand, has fewer bespoke components. We know they again had issues with some of these (con rod bolts?), so it unfortunately already fits the pattern of having issues with GT specific bits. Many of the parts, however, are shared with cars that have been in production for five years already. Thus not only was there extensive testing, there were 100,000 field trials of these parts in similar usage. I have a lot of faith that they found most issues with these bits and corrected them. In essence the Mezger was a low volume, boutique engine, while the 9A1 is closer to a mass produced product. And when you build a lot of something you tend to get very good at it.
Why I'd choose the Mezger if modified:
1. You can correct some of the issues mentioned above.
2. The ECU is cracked, the 9A1 is not, so basically you can't properly modify the 9A1 (yet).
3. It's modular- you can bolt in bigger pistons and cylinders, a different crank, etc, to increase displacement. Not easy in the 9A1.
4. The tolerances are looser and there is more margin built into the engine. It's know good for huge power levels, and it doesn't require the same precision to work well. The 9A1 has a reputation of needing high tolerances that are dead right to work as designed...
5. Come rebuild time, the Mezger can be easily refreshed, even to the point of replacing cylinders.
6. It's know durable in the most extreme applications with the motorsports parts (which you can't actually buy to put in the street cars, but there are ways around this).
01-21-2015, 01:49 PM
#3596
Nordschleife Master
All this talk about impact on future value. How many people on here bought their GT3 with the intention of appreciating over time? So what is the worst case scenario here? You get an extended warranty or CPO your car and keep it for a decade. Even if the value becomes zero, over that long a period of time and enjoyment? I personally think the impact here is been dramatically overblown. This car has been so much praised in the automotive press that the likelihood of it all of a sudden becoming a dog because the RS has a newer engine is essentially zero in my mind.
01-21-2015, 02:07 PM
#3597
All this talk about impact on future value. How many people on here bought their GT3 with the intention of appreciating over time? So what is the worst case scenario here? You get an extended warranty or CPO your car and keep it for a decade. Even if the value becomes zero, over that long a period of time and enjoyment? I personally think the impact here is been dramatically overblown. This car has been so much praised in the automotive press that the likelihood of it all of a sudden becoming a dog because the RS has a newer engine is essentially zero in my mind.
This new engine thing is still speculative, correct?
I agree, new engine or not, the current GT3 is such an achievement.
That said, I highly doubt the RS engine will be "new".
01-21-2015, 02:14 PM
#3598
Three Wheelin'
All this talk about impact on future value. How many people on here bought their GT3 with the intention of appreciating over time? So what is the worst case scenario here? You get an extended warranty or CPO your car and keep it for a decade. Even if the value becomes zero, over that long a period of time and enjoyment? I personally think the impact here is been dramatically overblown. This car has been so much praised in the automotive press that the likelihood of it all of a sudden becoming a dog because the RS has a newer engine is essentially zero in my mind.
I'm still amazed people are bringing up the concept that Porsche is going with a new engine in the RS because of the GT3 engine issue last year on two cars. Just think about the timeline between that date and the first RS cars spotted last fall. What does that leave, maybe 4 months of development, testing and production? If the new RS is getting a new motor, it was planned years ago and has absolutely nothing to do with the motor in the GT3.
1. A new gen of engine for 991.2 to replace 9A1 family. IMO that was always in the card and was in development for years given the coming stricter emission requirements and the need to use turbos/hybrids. And there was also probably parallel development of a motorsports version of it for the new GT3 R
2. The decision to use this new gen as the basis for the 991.1 GT3 RS instead of a version of the 9A1 in the GT3. If (and a big if) this is indeed the case, 3 possibilities when the decision was made and what the motivation was for the decision:
a. It was always in the card to use the new gen engine and was probably in development in sync with Motorsports.
b. The RS program was delayed by the GT3 fires and stop sale, pushing it past the 991.1 lifecycle, so Porsche opted/forced to go with .2 engine architecture (the delay is the cause and the new engine the effect).
c. The problems with the engine in the GT3 is the reason Porsche decided not to use it in the RS hence causing the delay in the RS. (the new engine is the cause and the delay is the effect).
Of course all speculation. I doubt we will will ever know a definitive answer.
01-21-2015, 02:15 PM
#3599
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 12,651
Received 4,033 Likes
on
2,297 Posts
^ Let's also keep in mind that the RS is much more expensive, beyond what many would spend on a DD or track car even if they have the means. If the RS doesn't offer a much better experience than the GT3, regardless of components, existence of the RS will tend to keep the value of the GT3 up. I can't see people ponying up another ~$50K mainly to get the 'new' RS engine when the engine in the GT3 is already getting rave reviews (the few engine fires will be forgetten; if anything they give me added confidence that Porsche scrutinized the hell out of this engine).
Ultimately, I think the depreciation of the GT3 will depend on supply and demand. Demand will be influenced future cars that rival it and their prices (eg, 991.2 GT3), and currently the GT3 has no strong competitor at its price point, as demonstrated by numerous reviews and comparos. And we already know that supply of the 991.1 GT3 is quite limited, with allocations all gone at this point.
And as noted, if you love the car and plan to keep for a long time, depreciation tends not to matter much. I'm not in favor of throwing money away, but if someone can't afford the depreciation, maybe a good idea to question whether they can afford the car.
Ultimately, I think the depreciation of the GT3 will depend on supply and demand. Demand will be influenced future cars that rival it and their prices (eg, 991.2 GT3), and currently the GT3 has no strong competitor at its price point, as demonstrated by numerous reviews and comparos. And we already know that supply of the 991.1 GT3 is quite limited, with allocations all gone at this point.
And as noted, if you love the car and plan to keep for a long time, depreciation tends not to matter much. I'm not in favor of throwing money away, but if someone can't afford the depreciation, maybe a good idea to question whether they can afford the car.
01-21-2015, 02:24 PM
#3600
Rennlist Member
I agree. By most accounts 991.1 GT3 is epic. So, as long the engine proves to be reliable in the long run, it won't stop me from wanting one, RS engine or not.
I wonder about timing and motivation too. My take, there are 2 separate issues here -
1. A new gen of engine for 991.2 to replace 9A1 family. IMO that was always in the card and was in development for years given the coming stricter emission requirements and the need to use turbos/hybrids. And there was also probably parallel development of a motorsports version of it for the new GT3 R
2. The decision to use this new gen as the basis for the 991.1 GT3 RS instead of a version of the 9A1 in the GT3. If (and a big if) this is indeed the case, 3 possibilities when the decision was made and what the motivation was for the decision:
a. It was always in the card to use the new gen engine and was probably in development in sync with Motorsports.
b. The RS program was delayed by the GT3 fires and stop sale, pushing it past the 991.1 lifecycle, so Porsche opted to as well go with .2 engine architecture (the delay is the cause and the new engine the effect).
c. The problems with the engine in the GT3 is the reason Porsche decided not to use it in the RS hence causing the delay in the RS. (the new engine is the cause and the delay is the effect).
I doubt we will will ever know a definitive answer.
I wonder about timing and motivation too. My take, there are 2 separate issues here -
1. A new gen of engine for 991.2 to replace 9A1 family. IMO that was always in the card and was in development for years given the coming stricter emission requirements and the need to use turbos/hybrids. And there was also probably parallel development of a motorsports version of it for the new GT3 R
2. The decision to use this new gen as the basis for the 991.1 GT3 RS instead of a version of the 9A1 in the GT3. If (and a big if) this is indeed the case, 3 possibilities when the decision was made and what the motivation was for the decision:
a. It was always in the card to use the new gen engine and was probably in development in sync with Motorsports.
b. The RS program was delayed by the GT3 fires and stop sale, pushing it past the 991.1 lifecycle, so Porsche opted to as well go with .2 engine architecture (the delay is the cause and the new engine the effect).
c. The problems with the engine in the GT3 is the reason Porsche decided not to use it in the RS hence causing the delay in the RS. (the new engine is the cause and the delay is the effect).
I doubt we will will ever know a definitive answer.