I'm tired of this "designed to be driven hard" nonsense
02-19-2011 | 12:02 AM
#226
Pro
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 564
Likes: 5
From: PA
Quad,
I didn't read all the replies, but my .02...
My interpretation (and experience) of "designed to be driven hard" is that Porsche built a damn good and reliable car (we're talking 993). the maintenance requirements are fairly low relative to cars in its class and I can drive it to it's potential without expecting to experiencing a mechanical failure or excessive wear.
These cars have been documented to go 200-300k miles without major repairs. With proper maintenance, I have been thrilled that I can drive mine as hard as I'm capable for 300 miles 6 weekends a year for several years without failure.
As far as documented proof, I think there are too many variables to prove your theory. How many people have posted about their street only driven cars burning excessive amounts of oil, clogged SAIs and top-end rebuilds? I will offer that in the last 3k miles, more than half on the track, my car has burnt less than one quart of Mobil 15-50 with no over heating during the 4 days of track time when the air temps were around 90 degrees.
In summary, these are good, well engineered and durable cars that few if any other can match.
ETA... I just read through the first couple of pages and this is a **** fest, almost not worthy of a reply...
I didn't read all the replies, but my .02...
My interpretation (and experience) of "designed to be driven hard" is that Porsche built a damn good and reliable car (we're talking 993). the maintenance requirements are fairly low relative to cars in its class and I can drive it to it's potential without expecting to experiencing a mechanical failure or excessive wear.
These cars have been documented to go 200-300k miles without major repairs. With proper maintenance, I have been thrilled that I can drive mine as hard as I'm capable for 300 miles 6 weekends a year for several years without failure.
As far as documented proof, I think there are too many variables to prove your theory. How many people have posted about their street only driven cars burning excessive amounts of oil, clogged SAIs and top-end rebuilds? I will offer that in the last 3k miles, more than half on the track, my car has burnt less than one quart of Mobil 15-50 with no over heating during the 4 days of track time when the air temps were around 90 degrees.
In summary, these are good, well engineered and durable cars that few if any other can match.
ETA... I just read through the first couple of pages and this is a **** fest, almost not worthy of a reply...
ok folks, I'm getting sick of this.
Never on any forum aside from those for Porsches have I seen people preach so much about how porsche engines were "designed to be driven hard" and that not doing so is detrimental to the engine. In my view, the cars were designed to be driven (on the street, with occasional track use) at a varying level of throttle load and rpm. They may tolerate high load and rpm for a while, but they certainly aren't designed specifically for that purpose.
Now, I'm asking for PROOF of the above statements. Not anecdotal stories about how your car runs better after a track trip, or about how your sister's uncle's cousins' grandfather's brother's girlfriend's dad the porsche mechanic said so.
Dyno graphs, pictures of wear created by driving gently, etc is what I'd like to see.
As far as I am concerned, the following is true for any ICE, including those from wonderchild porsche:
1. higher revs = more engine wear
2. Higher load = more engine wear
So, if anybody has any PROOF to the contrary, I would be delighted to hear it.
p.s. this stemmed from a thread in the 997 if you would like to read it.
Cheers.
Never on any forum aside from those for Porsches have I seen people preach so much about how porsche engines were "designed to be driven hard" and that not doing so is detrimental to the engine. In my view, the cars were designed to be driven (on the street, with occasional track use) at a varying level of throttle load and rpm. They may tolerate high load and rpm for a while, but they certainly aren't designed specifically for that purpose.
Now, I'm asking for PROOF of the above statements. Not anecdotal stories about how your car runs better after a track trip, or about how your sister's uncle's cousins' grandfather's brother's girlfriend's dad the porsche mechanic said so.
Dyno graphs, pictures of wear created by driving gently, etc is what I'd like to see.
As far as I am concerned, the following is true for any ICE, including those from wonderchild porsche:
1. higher revs = more engine wear
2. Higher load = more engine wear
So, if anybody has any PROOF to the contrary, I would be delighted to hear it.
p.s. this stemmed from a thread in the 997 if you would like to read it.
Cheers.
Last edited by rw229; 02-19-2011 at 12:22 AM.
02-19-2011 | 12:05 AM
#227
Three Wheelin'
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,720
Likes: 7
From: Birmingham, AL
can i ask a question in a different way/
suppose
you had two identical porsche engines and
you drove one at 3000 rpm and
the other one at 5000 rpm
would it be logical to conclude that the
engine driven at a slower engine speed
would have less wear on its movable parts
and as a result last longer
(all other things being equal)
suppose
you had two identical porsche engines and
you drove one at 3000 rpm and
the other one at 5000 rpm
would it be logical to conclude that the
engine driven at a slower engine speed
would have less wear on its movable parts
and as a result last longer
(all other things being equal)
02-19-2011 | 09:51 AM
#229
Burning Brakes
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 11
From: Chicago, Il
Quadcammer,
One thing that you have done well is to develop a lot of Rennlister energy around your topic on "driven hard nonsense". While pointing out a few issues with your response to my first post, I would like to keep this friendly since the subject is of interest (apparently to many).
"Back in the Day", I was pretty much a sports car racing junkie, especially since I lived in S. Calif. Can't remember the number of weekends I spent out at Riverside. At any rate, it was then that I had my first 911, a 1966 model. So, obviously the marque was of interest to me. I spent a good amount of time in the pits and had opportunities to discuss some of the stuff that was done to the early 911's that were being campaigned by the likes of Donahue, Folmer, and others. Saw the first ever Penski run IWOC's which used 911's as the cars to showcase the drivers!
But, I get carried away. The thing that always fascinated me was answers to my questions about what was "different" about the race prepared cars that were supported by well funded sponsors. Most of the time, the answers were that "very little" was different. Cases, bearings, oil pumps, etc were essentially factory. There were little tricks like oil pan baffling that were employed, but the point is that the parts were either identical or only slightly modified. No doubt that the pistons and heads were heavily modified to get increased hp and to run on racing fuel, but my point is that the basic designs were not altered.....just embellished.
To make my point about being "over designed"........(and I do agree with you) that there is a finite life to any rotating part........but, for illustrative purposes, hypothetically......if the design allows a life of 200k miles......who cares that by driving the car hard (high revs always!!!) that life is shortened to 150k miles? How many of us keep cars that long? I would pose that most do not. I for one, have never kept any of my Porsches much beyond 100k miles. I did keep track of that first 911, simply because I sold it to one of my friends who put another 100k miles on it before having the motor overhauled.
And, to your specific point about the Porsche designed crankshafts. I'm not certain about the counterweighting issue you mentioned, but I do know that counterweighting has to do with balance and resonance. Interesting that if the cranks are not counterweighted (a fact that I will admit ignorance of), that the 911 motor is one of the smoothest revving motors ever mass produced! What I do know about the 911 cranks are that originally they were forged, had 8 main bearings, and seldom (if ever) broke! When was the lst time that you saw the main bearings go out on a 911 motor? Or the big end bearings? Bearing life is an issue with the 944/968 motors.....but, to the best of my knowledge, never with the 911. Since then, Porsche has started using cast cranks in some cars, and I honestly don't know what the reliability history has been on them......but, I've never heard much rhetoric about any cranks failing......forged or cast!
Over the years, Porsche has had some negative history because some of their designs......such as their apparent inability to deisgn a reliable timing chain tensioner or their inept approaches to meeting USA smog laws with the CIS system, or with the thermal reactors that were a disaster. So, you hear plenty about the things that don't work......but, not their basic engine designs.
At any rate, great job of getting a lot of energy out of your topic. But, to me....the P-car motors are still bullelt proof and should be driven hard!!
One thing that you have done well is to develop a lot of Rennlister energy around your topic on "driven hard nonsense". While pointing out a few issues with your response to my first post, I would like to keep this friendly since the subject is of interest (apparently to many).
"Back in the Day", I was pretty much a sports car racing junkie, especially since I lived in S. Calif. Can't remember the number of weekends I spent out at Riverside. At any rate, it was then that I had my first 911, a 1966 model. So, obviously the marque was of interest to me. I spent a good amount of time in the pits and had opportunities to discuss some of the stuff that was done to the early 911's that were being campaigned by the likes of Donahue, Folmer, and others. Saw the first ever Penski run IWOC's which used 911's as the cars to showcase the drivers!
But, I get carried away. The thing that always fascinated me was answers to my questions about what was "different" about the race prepared cars that were supported by well funded sponsors. Most of the time, the answers were that "very little" was different. Cases, bearings, oil pumps, etc were essentially factory. There were little tricks like oil pan baffling that were employed, but the point is that the parts were either identical or only slightly modified. No doubt that the pistons and heads were heavily modified to get increased hp and to run on racing fuel, but my point is that the basic designs were not altered.....just embellished.
To make my point about being "over designed"........(and I do agree with you) that there is a finite life to any rotating part........but, for illustrative purposes, hypothetically......if the design allows a life of 200k miles......who cares that by driving the car hard (high revs always!!!) that life is shortened to 150k miles? How many of us keep cars that long? I would pose that most do not. I for one, have never kept any of my Porsches much beyond 100k miles. I did keep track of that first 911, simply because I sold it to one of my friends who put another 100k miles on it before having the motor overhauled.
And, to your specific point about the Porsche designed crankshafts. I'm not certain about the counterweighting issue you mentioned, but I do know that counterweighting has to do with balance and resonance. Interesting that if the cranks are not counterweighted (a fact that I will admit ignorance of), that the 911 motor is one of the smoothest revving motors ever mass produced! What I do know about the 911 cranks are that originally they were forged, had 8 main bearings, and seldom (if ever) broke! When was the lst time that you saw the main bearings go out on a 911 motor? Or the big end bearings? Bearing life is an issue with the 944/968 motors.....but, to the best of my knowledge, never with the 911. Since then, Porsche has started using cast cranks in some cars, and I honestly don't know what the reliability history has been on them......but, I've never heard much rhetoric about any cranks failing......forged or cast!
Over the years, Porsche has had some negative history because some of their designs......such as their apparent inability to deisgn a reliable timing chain tensioner or their inept approaches to meeting USA smog laws with the CIS system, or with the thermal reactors that were a disaster. So, you hear plenty about the things that don't work......but, not their basic engine designs.
At any rate, great job of getting a lot of energy out of your topic. But, to me....the P-car motors are still bullelt proof and should be driven hard!!
Last edited by earossi; 02-19-2011 at 09:58 AM. Reason: Added detail.
02-19-2011 | 10:55 AM
#232
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 14
From: Delaware
I find the point of this thread confusing. I don't think anyone denies that repeated hard driving, specifically track usage, wears down critical powertrain and suspension components at an accelerated rate on any car. However, to call into question the notion of these cars being designed to be driven hard seems strange and nothing more than troll bait, especially when you consider the shared componentry with the RS and cup cars and from an anecdotal standpoint, the number of 6-figure mark mileage original motors that continue to see regular track usage.
02-19-2011 | 10:59 AM
#233
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 14
From: Delaware
That said, ask E36 M3 owners who track their cars regularly about their wheel bearings or their shock towers. Neither were necessarily "designed to be driven hard" and can be a bane to regular track usage.
02-19-2011 | 11:16 AM
#234
Rennlist Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 444
Likes: 1
From: Northern, NJ
Hey Quadcammer, seems like the only thing your interested in is annoying people...I'm guessing you dont even own a 993 but get a thrill out of challenging the good folks on rennlist.
Now, if in fact you do own a 993 the only mechanical issue your car has is the loose nut behind the wheel.
Now, if in fact you do own a 993 the only mechanical issue your car has is the loose nut behind the wheel.
02-19-2011 | 11:36 AM
#235
Burning Brakes
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 886
Likes: 20
From: Toronto
OK I just invested 40 minutes of my life reading this thread from the beginning. So, I feel entitled to contribute my (valueless) review...
This was funny.
This was f!*&n' funny
This captured the spirit of 993 ownership for me.
I could see myself doing this 
Touche
After 8 pages, Quad's unrelenting determination to continue the thread was inspiring.
As promised no worthwhile contribution to the topic...but I was friendly. (Canadian)
I have no proof, but as soon as I get out of winter, I will work on some form of testing procedure. What I need from you is your car sent to me, and provide another one that is exactly the same (age, miles, driven style, climate etc) and I will drive one hard and one easy, I will measure oil consumption, performance data and anything else you wish to track. I will have oil analysis done by blackstone and then in 12 months time we can strip down both engines and start measuring and x-raying.
What do you think? you want measurable repeatable data, this would get it for you...... When can I expect delivery of the test subjects?
What do you think? you want measurable repeatable data, this would get it for you...... When can I expect delivery of the test subjects?
So, anyway, speaking of bullet-proof, I was wearing my 993 motor on my chest when I was walking in this scary neighborhood...Back to my story. Anyways, these three guys started shooting at me with their gats and Mac 10's and bullets were, like, flying offa me like I was a super hero!
Quadcammer,
I think you may have misunderstood the phrase: "meant to be driven hard".
Its not that if you ride it hard it wont be as good later. What this simply means is that with a 911 you have more RANGE of intensity of how you drive it simply because of the deep, obsessive, highly technical german philosophy of how to build a machine. Simply put: they can take more pressure than most engines of other manufacturers.
"Its meant to be driven hard" ultimately means: "its a shame if you DONT drive it hard, it means "you wasted your money if you never push your 911 to its limits every once in a while." After all, its FUN to do!
I think you may have misunderstood the phrase: "meant to be driven hard".
Its not that if you ride it hard it wont be as good later. What this simply means is that with a 911 you have more RANGE of intensity of how you drive it simply because of the deep, obsessive, highly technical german philosophy of how to build a machine. Simply put: they can take more pressure than most engines of other manufacturers.
"Its meant to be driven hard" ultimately means: "its a shame if you DONT drive it hard, it means "you wasted your money if you never push your 911 to its limits every once in a while." After all, its FUN to do!
!. I've heard Lexus and Bugatti make great cars, but I cannot prove it.As promised no worthwhile contribution to the topic...but I was friendly. (Canadian)
02-19-2011 | 12:55 PM
#238
Thread Starter
Race Director
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,714
Likes: 1,451
From: Clifton, NJ
I find the point of this thread confusing. I don't think anyone denies that repeated hard driving, specifically track usage, wears down critical powertrain and suspension components at an accelerated rate on any car. However, to call into question the notion of these cars being designed to be driven hard seems strange and nothing more than troll bait, especially when you consider the shared componentry with the RS and cup cars and from an anecdotal standpoint, the number of 6-figure mark mileage original motors that continue to see regular track usage.
The Miata, while substantially slower stock-for-stock compared to a 993, is arguably the greatest budget motorsport machine ever built.
That said, ask E36 M3 owners who track their cars regularly about their wheel bearings or their shock towers. Neither were necessarily "designed to be driven hard" and can be a bane to regular track usage.
That said, ask E36 M3 owners who track their cars regularly about their wheel bearings or their shock towers. Neither were necessarily "designed to be driven hard" and can be a bane to regular track usage.
Hey Quadcammer, seems like the only thing your interested in is annoying people...I'm guessing you dont even own a 993 but get a thrill out of challenging the good folks on rennlist.
Now, if in fact you do own a 993 the only mechanical issue your car has is the loose nut behind the wheel.
Now, if in fact you do own a 993 the only mechanical issue your car has is the loose nut behind the wheel.
Right now my car has a few mechanical issues as its missing fuel injectors, and well most of its upper engine accessories.
02-19-2011 | 01:05 PM
#239
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 14
From: Delaware
I think the statement is made tongue-in-cheek and not to be accepted at face value. Most owners believe that the cars are better built to handle extended high RPM and g-force loads than the majority of cars on the road and it's a damn shame if you don't drive the car hard because you'd be better suited in a Prius and it's simply easier to say "they were built to be driven and the engines like it."
02-19-2011 | 01:21 PM
#240
Thread Starter
Race Director
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,714
Likes: 1,451
From: Clifton, NJ
I think the statement is made tongue-in-cheek and not to be accepted at face value. Most owners believe that the cars are better built to handle extended high RPM and g-force loads than the majority of cars on the road and it's a damn shame if you don't drive the car hard because you'd be better suited in a Prius and it's simply easier to say "they were built to be driven and the engines like it."
But I think if what you're saying was truly the case, this thread would have been done 3 posts in...by someone saying that.
I tend to agree with your position though.