Just in time

All this discussion is pretty interesting. As one with skin in the game I wonder why PAG would not come up with a similar solution and retrofit the GT3/RS cars. It has to be cheaper than rebuilding/replacing engines I assume. What is it I am not seeing? Could it be VW is telling PAG not to incurr such current expense and deal with the issues afterwards? Would such a solution be in fact more expensive? Or PAG believes they have a better solution? Ideas?

neanicu

I personally don't want to speculate more on a solution. It's above my pay grade. And besides,my theory of failure is speculation too. I just hope Dundon/Porsche or any other engineer from the aftermarket will come up with a viable " permanent " solution so that GT3 owners can enjoy their cars for many many years worry free.

Macca

I agree with the above. I've stated many times in my posts that the Porsche Motorsports guys were still making revisions to valve-train lubrication as late as Nov 2015 on the DFI race engine that debuted at Daytona. I've never claimed that the G engines in either the RS or GT3 are the last word in reliability and have always stated the jury is out at this point in time, however there are undoubtedly revisions in these engines that PAG believed aided longevity. After all they've had plenty of time and 6000 units of GT3 & RS to figure this out. Perhaps they have finally come to a similar conclusion to Dunson Motorsports in terms of a permanent "fix" or perhaps not. only time will tell. Im sure the 991.2 Gt3 will incorporate the revisions they have learnt form their DFI Motorsport program and I have no doubt in time they may produce a retrofit kit for earlier E/F/G & RS engines that suffer from these malady's.

One thing Im very conscious of having discussed general historic motorsports history personally and face to face with folks like Bob Garrettson, David Glenn & Klaus Bischoff is that the famed Stuttgart engineering effort has repeatedly in history benefited from US (and less so European) engineering improvements provided in large part by well funded and large US based race teams. The 917, 935, 956 & 962 race cars were all presented to the teams back in the day from the factory and required extensive "rework" whether that be mechanical (956/862 oiling issues, 917 aero, 935 aero and gearbox etc).

Therefore my faith is somewhat reinforced by Jamie & Bobs efforts with suppliers and contract engineers that they may well provide an adequate engineering solution long before we hear from Porsche...I wish them god speed in their endeavors and a successful outcome!

Just in time

I don't know that anyone can come with a "permanent" solution as like any other man made object these engines will sooner or later wear out. I would agree though that any solution that extends the usable life on these engines is a good one and a welcome development.

Alan C.

The 997.2 GT3 may have an issue as well with oiling on start-up. I was seeing 50 ppm copper on a 14000 mile engine at oil changes. The car sat for long periods between starts. I checked with Steve Weinert and he suggested it might be the crank thrust bearing. Two friends had similar issues with high copper and infrequent starting.

Steve had one customer tear an engine down at another shop thinking he had bad rod/main bearings. It turned out to be the crank thrust bearing. The 997.2 GT3 apparently puts a heavy load on the bearing when the clutch is engaged. So let the car sit for a few weeks and the bearing doesn't have enough oil to combat the initial cranking load/friction.

It will be interesting to see how the 991.1 GT3 plays out. Nice to see people like Charles working on solutions.

fbirch

If there is a dry start element to these failures, would 991 GT3 owners be better off starting the car once every X days - to maintain an oil film on the valve train components? Has the data shown any correlation between worn fingers and cars that sit unused for long periods?

The dilemma with any aftermarket solution is that these cars are all still in warranty. Any modifications to the oiling system are likely to void the warranty, exposing the owner to expensive repairs that would otherwise be covered by Porsche.

neanicu

As I've said before,my theory is speculation at this point. Although starting the car and bringing it to operating temperature every few days is good practice not just for the engine,but for seals and rubber parts.

Just in time

[QUOTE=neanicu;13471432]As I've said before,my theory is speculation at this point. Although starting the car and bringing it to operating temperature every few days is good practice not just for the engine,but for seals and rubber part

This looks like good advice.

.

m42racer

As I see it, the dilemma is not doing something before the warranty expires. Porsche have shown their hand. So if between now and when the warranty expires continual damage occurs, then it may be down to the owner to have a compete rebuild on his dime. This is really about risk management.

fbirch

If you are past or very near the end of your warranty period, then there is less of a dilemma. But if you have 2-3 years of remaining warranty, I think it's a much tougher choice. Change the oiling system now and Porsche will have a strong case to deny warranty claims they would otherwise be obligated to cover. And I'm not even suggesting anything underhanded on their part. I wouldn't expect any manufacturer to stand behind a product in which key subsystems have been modified from stock, even if the customer is convinced the modifications were for the better.

Alan C.

There was a similar situation when the 996 was introduced. They had an oil pick up problem which could be greatly reduced by adding another pickup in the head. My dealer told me if I modified the head, even though it was an improvement in oiling, Porsche might void my warranty. I was,advised to leave it alone and make the modification after the warranty expired.

Just in time

^^^. The M96 and 97 motors also had oiling issues. PAG did not really stand behind their product. The failure rates of the M96 motors was staggering, sometimes exceeding 10%. At the end of the day PAG was forced into a settlement by a class action lawsuit. I hope they learned something in the process.

Jamie@dundonmotorsports

Our analysis and consultation with some of the original engineers who designed the valve train for Porsche point to this being an issue while the engine is operating normally, not isolated to dry start, cold revving etc. of course these things may contribute but are not the source.


Anytime you have metallic wear happening in an engine the damage isn't isolated to the area you can see wearing. The metal debris that is being pumped through the engine will create accelerated wear in all bearing surfaces and in the cylinder/ring contact. This is why I was so disappointed in Porsche when they started doing head swaps for this issue, instead of engine replacements.

We can't predict how Porsche will react to this design change fix of the finger follower/cam wear issue. The fix is intended for those that plan to keep their cars for the long haul and with 2014 cars coming out of warranty in 2018 we'll have plenty of time to test and prove the fixes merit.

We will be documenting the fix in my own car (2014 E engine) taking finger followers out and measuring pad thickness over the coming months after its all installed.

It's important to me as a fellow owner to eat what I cook so to speak.

Parts are finishing up design, as soon as we have prototype parts in hand we'll show what's going on and what we did to resolve it. Until then has to remain a bit cloak and dagger to protect our effort thus far

bronson7

All very interesting thoughts. Can the oil that's being put into the new engines at the factory be a concern or is there better oils to help with the issue?

PTGFAR

I was wondering if they could build a roller bearing into the part. They would likely have to deal with space and weight issues to do it. They would probably have to change the camshaft profile to compensate for any new design change also.