When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
This happened to me twice. U need to get a good wom drive camp on there. Cost me $200 on oil dry at njmp.
I think the water pump just pushes too much pressure after a high rpm de-cel.
It had a worm drive clamp, but the hose also looks to have been cut and was a little shorter than stock. That in conjunction with the motor mount led to the problem.
17558318[/url]]This happened to me twice. U need to get a good wom drive camp on there. Cost me $200 on oil dry at njmp.
I think the water pump just pushes too much pressure after a high rpm de-cel.
Porsche changed to the worm-drive clamps from the spring compression clamps at some point. As long as the worm-drive clamp is not a cheap part, but the real Porsche (or equivalent) clamp, you should be good. The cheap clamps do not supply equal pressure around the entire circumference, and instead, can crack high pressure points or leave gaps at other points. The cheap clamps also rust or strip easily.
There were a lot of 996 there this weekend. Setups varied from full race cars to modified street cars. I asked around the paddock and the results were inconclusive. Some cars had stock sumps, FVD, and LN 2 qt. One other driver with a basically stock car except for the LN sump was around 3 bar on the straight. Another car with the deep sump was at 4 bar @5.5k
I think Kris and I sold a couple of UAOS for you Skip.
Kris had the same results with the UAOS, and he can chime in but he said his pressure was improved from having more oil.
Sorry, no video, though I wish there was. The big coolant hose on the bottom right of the motor decided it no longer wanted to be connected going into the toe of the boot when it let go and made an epic smoke screen. Fortunately the person behind me got out of the way and nobody went off track.
Thank you Tom, word of mouth and actual results from places like Watkins Glen (that has a section known to cause severe oil ingestion) is the best way to spread product awareness and help out the platform !! Thanks to you and Kris, and I think Randy was there also with the UAOS w/high mileage/Extreme Track Duty Auto Drain..
Watkins Glen would be a good place to test out the UIDS v2.2...
Last edited by Porschetech3; 07-19-2021 at 05:44 PM.
Sorry, no video, though I wish there was. The big coolant hose on the bottom right of the motor decided it no longer wanted to be connected going into the toe of the boot when it let go and made an epic smoke screen. Fortunately the person behind me got out of the way and nobody went off track.
Hmm. If only there were parts a person could install so the engine did not move around so much during high G maneuvers. It's almost like the stock engine mounts allow too much movement for track use. Too bad there is no acceptable substitute.
Hmm. If only there were parts a person could install so the engine did not move around so much during high G maneuvers. It's almost like the stock engine mounts allow too much movement for track use. Too bad there is no acceptable substitute.
Hmm. If only there were parts a person could install so the engine did not move around so much during high G maneuvers. It's almost like the stock engine mounts allow too much movement for track use. Too bad there is no acceptable substitute.
Chris Cervelli
Cervelli Technical Service
I actually think it was failing or failed at the time.
Hmm. If only there were parts a person could install so the engine did not move around so much during high G maneuvers. It's almost like the stock engine mounts allow too much movement for track use. Too bad there is no acceptable substitute.
Chris Cervelli
Cervelli Technical Service
Chris, with what you are saying here, what are your findings and thoughts on using non-oem engine mounts. Are semi solid or solid viable without messing with the Ecu? Do you have to reprogram the Ecu to use them?
I'm really happy with the drain back, I'm getting no oil consumption or smoke which is a LONG way from where I was before.
Thanks for sharing your observations - goes to show even with stock suspension, the deep sump just doesn't do a good enough job. If you check out some of my earlier posts on the topic with snapshots of the factory OP gauge, what you saw is similar to what I was seeing, so it's not a huge jump to think if you could pull data with the granularity I can, your results would be similar.
I wonder how many other people are in the same boat we are...
Are you getting any lifter tick after the session once the oil pressure drops below 3 bar?
Chris, with what you are saying here, what are your findings and thoughts on using non-oem engine mounts. Are semi solid or solid viable without messing with the Ecu? Do you have to reprogram the Ecu to use them?
I have not attempted to replicate what Mr Raby says is happening in the video posted in the thread about engine mounts. If I were forced to bet on it, I would bet that I could not replicate it.
Mr Raby does not state a mechanism of action that could cause this. I have to assume that the noise within the engine has been changed by solidly mounting it to the car, and this is totally plausible. But it is also plausible that using pistons and cylinder liners of a completely different material would also change the noise within the engine, and this does not seem to be a problem.
All Porsche factory race cars use solid engine mounts, and some of them use stock type ECUs which almost certainly use stock knock detection algorithms. Porsche occasionally makes mistakes, but that would be a 3 decade long continuous mistake.
I have a fair amount of experience with modded 996 turbos, and can definitively state that I saw no difference in knock ignition retard logs between 964 RS mounts (in a 996 turbo) and solid mounts.
I used semi solid urethane mounts extensively in my Boxsters (as tranny and engine mounts) because they were mandated by the SPB rules the cars were originally built to, and they (more or less) worked ok. I never saw any evidence of knock, fake or real. I can't say I really looked for it though. The stock ECU programming very aggressively detunes the engine (by retarding the ignition point, whether it is knocking or not) when the intake air temperature goes above around 90F, and also when the coolant temperature is high. This effect is almost impossible to avoid on the dyno, and is difficult to avoid on the track.
If Mr Raby is right then this is a problem to be solved, since stock mounts can't be used successfully in a serious track car, as Tom Loder (and luckily not the people behind him) found out.
As a point of interest, in a 911, most of the benefit is derived from stiffening the transmission mount, since the engine mounts cannot prevent fore/aft movement of the engine. Most of the time the transmission mount is not changed, and the engine mounts are. This does not help all that much, although it might prevent the coolant hoses pulling off a 996 engine. Unfortunately it is also true that a stiff transmission mount almost always increases interior NVH, sometimes drastically.
I have not attempted to replicate what Mr Raby says is happening in the video posted in the thread about engine mounts. If I were forced to bet on it, I would bet that I could not replicate it.
Mr Raby does not state a mechanism of action that could cause this. I have to assume that the noise within the engine has been changed by solidly mounting it to the car, and this is totally plausible. But it is also plausible that using pistons and cylinder liners of a completely different material would also change the noise within the engine, and this does not seem to be a problem.
All Porsche factory race cars use solid engine mounts, and some of them use stock type ECUs which almost certainly use stock knock detection algorithms. Porsche occasionally makes mistakes, but that would be a 3 decade long continuous mistake.
I have a fair amount of experience with modded 996 turbos, and can definitively state that I saw no difference in knock ignition retard logs between 964 RS mounts (in a 996 turbo) and solid mounts.
I used semi solid urethane mounts extensively in my Boxsters (as tranny and engine mounts) because they were mandated by the SPB rules the cars were originally built to, and they (more or less) worked ok. I never saw any evidence of knock, fake or real. I can't say I really looked for it though. The stock ECU programming very aggressively detunes the engine (by retarding the ignition point, whether it is knocking or not) when the intake air temperature goes above around 90F, and also when the coolant temperature is high. This effect is almost impossible to avoid on the dyno, and is difficult to avoid on the track.
If Mr Raby is right then this is a problem to be solved, since stock mounts can't be used successfully in a serious track car, as Tom Loder (and luckily not the people behind him) found out.
As a point of interest, in a 911, most of the benefit is derived from stiffening the transmission mount, since the engine mounts cannot prevent fore/aft movement of the engine. Most of the time the transmission mount is not changed, and the engine mounts are. This does not help all that much, although it might prevent the coolant hoses pulling off a 996 engine. Unfortunately it is also true that a stiff transmission mount almost always increases interior NVH, sometimes drastically.
Chris Cervelli
Cervelli Technical Service
Thanks Chris. Your insight as always is exceptional.
I spent the weekend at the glen also (saw your car tom, glad it wasn't more serious) and as usual, had monster pressure drops all over the place. I run XP6 towards the bottom of the stick and the pressure drops almost everywhere. The majority of the time its low under maintenance throttle (like on turn 5) but going up the toe of the boot I'm hard on the throttle at 5000rpm and pressure starts at about 25psi before recovering. Combination lateral G, vertical G, and sustained full throttle has got to be rough on the bearings. Obviously the motor is not happy, but it so far has not resulted in any ill effects. Its coming, thats no question, but hasn't blown up yet.
99 boxster with a 3.2 from a boxster S
catch can with UAOS style regulator
NT01s
black run group
oil temp max was around 215-220 degrees.
Here's a look at Jason's run today. This is the overview. The second chart is the overview from 6/27 previously posted. Both have oil filled to 1/2 on the dipstick. Both have the blow by oil return from the UAOS. The huge differences are in temperatures and a wet track limiting speed. The difference is clear. We can say the obvious: a cooler engine has fewer pressure problems. Look at the difference in the red graph drops between the 2 sessions. Quite striking.
Here's a look at the personal best lap from 06/27 and the best lap of this run. Green lines are from 6/27. Blue are 7/13.
-The overall pressure is higher. This is a little surprising given the bypass valve. My guess is that this shows the difference in viscosity of the oil due to the lower oil temp.
The interesting peak to look at is at 4800ft. The G's on the right turn are the same. The RPM's are the same. Because of this, we can assume the difference in the pressure change is only due to the oil temperature. The total time the hot lap is bobbling around under the bypass pressure is around 8 seconds(4700-5400ft). The time for the cold lap is around 5(4800-5300ft).
My list of next steps would be:
-center rad
-bigger oil cooler (available?)
-thicker oil
Given the known blow by on this engine, the thicker oil will probably help more than just pressure drops. What issues does thicker oil present on the track?
What about also upgraded CSF Radiators including the CSF center.. Thoughts helping keep the temps down? or at least more stable with less fluctuation..
07-19-2021 | 02:55 PM
