I'm tired of this "designed to be driven hard" nonsense
02-17-2011, 08:00 PM
#69
Race Car
02-17-2011, 08:02 PM
#75
Race Director
Thread Starter
You mentioned that this started in the 997 thread... lets be honest, those motors (except GT3/TT) are NOT designed to be driven hard. The aircooled motors, yes. Yes they wear, but I think the reputation of how durable they aircooled motors are is what people get at.
944s loose belts or oil pick up and the motor dies. Same with 928s.
911 motors, due to true drysumping and seemingly "overbuilt" qualities seem to stand up well to the rigors of track use. The aircooled cars I see "broken" at the track are due to mis shifts or shunts off the track, not motor failure.
The watercooled cars I see broken at the track are more often from inherent design issues.
944s loose belts or oil pick up and the motor dies. Same with 928s.
911 motors, due to true drysumping and seemingly "overbuilt" qualities seem to stand up well to the rigors of track use. The aircooled cars I see "broken" at the track are due to mis shifts or shunts off the track, not motor failure.
The watercooled cars I see broken at the track are more often from inherent design issues.
I'm more concerned with why people think "driving the car hard" is somehow beneficial to the engine.
After an oil chabge last spring, my 97 coupe required 1 litre of oil after 1485 KM (hope that's accurate enough) of driving. Driving done in a city environment of stop and go traffic. The car is always driven for at least an hour on trips of at least 35kms (22 miles approx). No full throttle and no more than 5000 rpm unfortunately. This is why I hate city driving.
I already posted above that during a week long 4000KM+ driving fest last August, the car burned, AT THE MOST, 1/2 litre of oil. I say at the most because I think I may have evr so slightly over-filled it at the end of the trip.
As to questioning how "hard" said driving was and for how long, I already said that the 1st 1000KM (621 miles if that's close enough) of said drive was VERY hard. LOTS of full-throttle, many trips to the redline, and sustained high RPM of 4000 rpm or more.
EDIT: Just to clarify, all of the above was performed in my 1997 993 C2 that had 124500KM (I know, not very accurate) in April of 2010 and currently has 131300(ish) KMs now, just as it has since last driven in early November.
I already posted above that during a week long 4000KM+ driving fest last August, the car burned, AT THE MOST, 1/2 litre of oil. I say at the most because I think I may have evr so slightly over-filled it at the end of the trip.
As to questioning how "hard" said driving was and for how long, I already said that the 1st 1000KM (621 miles if that's close enough) of said drive was VERY hard. LOTS of full-throttle, many trips to the redline, and sustained high RPM of 4000 rpm or more.
EDIT: Just to clarify, all of the above was performed in my 1997 993 C2 that had 124500KM (I know, not very accurate) in April of 2010 and currently has 131300(ish) KMs now, just as it has since last driven in early November.
Wow, who crapped in your cereal this morning.......
AS many have said, show us the evidence that it is worse for the engine to be revved vs lugged and we can have a meaningful, intelligent debate in the subject. Shouting out requests for proof without providing any yourself is not getting this thread (and the 997 thread) anywhere.
AS many have said, show us the evidence that it is worse for the engine to be revved vs lugged and we can have a meaningful, intelligent debate in the subject. Shouting out requests for proof without providing any yourself is not getting this thread (and the 997 thread) anywhere.
Woah, you seem to be confused...I don't think anyone is suggesting you drive at 800rpm (as thats what lugging really is in these cars). I'd suggest normal driving keeping the revs generally between 1750 and 4500rpm will likely result in the longest life.
Now, like I've said before, it is commonly regarded that ICEs that see lower revs and lower load tend to live longer lives.