plpete84

I'm a UIDS customer and happy with the product Skip created but I also see where zbomb is coming from. Call me Switzerland if you want. If you think he is attacking Skip (I don't see it as such) you're not seeing the big picture and missed the first bus that sparked this whole oil pressure thing. Have we forgotten that zbomb and probably hundreds if not thousands of people spent a lot of money on a product that said to solve the issue when in reality it did not?? All the materials said it did but in the end hard proof showed it did not. Now, those folks have every reason to be skeptical of a new product that claims to do the same. It's really as simple as that. I really don't understand why it's so frowned upon to ask questions on this forum, especially when they challenge the status quo or what has been preached for years? For some people, like myself, the provided data has been sufficient, especially in how I will use my car. Other people demand more, which is fine. Paralysis by analysis is also a thing.

hardtailer

I'll fill you in quickly.
The track drain is an improvement as oil is available to the pump to be used for lubrication as opposed to being held in the reservoir till it is manually being poored back into the sump.

Wrt to possible shortcomings of the UIDS:
The UIDS shows a tremendous improvement in oil pressure stability but ultimately (pun intended) does raise the question with a few of the contributors in this thread why it isn't able to provide it under ALL conditions as under certain hitherto unkown conditions (sequence of curves, their radii, brake zones etc.) the pressure still drops.
Is it because the transition feeding the oil pump from the other port in the sump is too slow? Is this due to friction inside the ball valve or due to something else?
Is the much greater than both types of Porsche AOS drain back capacity of the track UAOS still not sufficient to always have the UIDS provide the pressure pump with enough oil?
Or is it perhaps because the pressure pump has to effectively suck against the (vector) sum of both (slick tire induced) greater lateral and gravitational acceleration that causes cavitation of the oil pump thereby reducing its flow and thereby the pressure it generates?

Skip might know but prefers to not share his findings here on rennlist. From how I understand his reactions to focusing on certain excerpts of data instead of data for whole laps he considers these questions as taking focus away from what is worth focusing on and perhaps even (these are my thoughts not necessarily his) an attempt to question (diminish even?) what his UIDS is able to provide regarding oil pressure stability.

I don't believe they are meant as such by those asking but you see how the discussion has evolved right here.

It's difficult (and Skip has written so himself in this or the UAOS thread) to know how well versed a contributor to a thread is in the subject but there is definitely a risk in trying to keep the focus on one aspect because 'one knows best' if questions wrt other things/aspects are asked.

Personally , I'm convinced that looking into those areas too will improve his UIDS and make it the Ultimate in the most literal meaning of the word it can be.

philbert996

What product was that?

plpete84

Not sure if serious question because I'm pretty sure you've seen much of this thread but there you go - https://lnengineering.com/2qt-deep-s...51-baffle.html

wildbilly32

Oh well! I am so glad you pointed out my confusion. How could I have missed such a revelation?

You are so perceptive.

You WIN!!!

Thank you so very much...

philbert996

That’s what I thought.

Did we ever see a baseline WITHOUT the deep sump?

I understand the deep sump doesn’t completely solve the problem.
But without a baseline it’s possible the deep sump is responsible for keeping his engine running on the track.
The deep sump equipped M96 never suffered any damage from low oil pressure, right?

frederickcook87

thanks Bro…

going forward I hope everyone here sees that we are all on the same team and want the problems fixed with good products so we can enjoy our cars.

lord knows we’ve been sold some real snake oil over the years. (Cold air intakes that only replace a hose, open pod filters that sit in a super hot engine bay, ipd plenum, deep sumps that do nothing but lighten your wallet, the list goes on)

There are people out here charging 30-50k for engine rebuilds that refuse to hand over any real tangible proof that that money will net you a better product (ain’t nobody at their throats) From what I’ve seen Skip has been pretty much open to any and all questions/comments.

philbert996

PCA and 9werks have videos showing decent gains from the IPD plenum on a ‘99 3.4.
Both did it the right way:
They got a baseline, installed the plenum and then tested on the same day.

I wouldn’t call an increase of 10hp + 12 ft-lbs across the rev range for the IPD plenum “snake oil”.

frederickcook87

I was for sure 9werks did the ipd and other mods together… I’ll go look but I’ve yet to see an ipd plenum tested alone and make any difference

Justin76

3/98 911 coupe

for whatever reason many people racers I have spoken too say thr plenum does works great on the cable throttle 99. I have one and yes it does.

Porschetech3

Well I slept late today, ( was working most of the night...)...not much here technical for me to respond to, but several things I do want to respond to that are not technical ( and I hope it doesn't lead to more of the same)

EDIT: nevermind I'll respond to the BS later, I have someone coming over to work on the update that will cure the mole hill at Road America ( Big Boy Track)...like I mentioned previously that I had already designed..

Y'all hold off posting for a bit, it will take me a while to catch up......

GC996

Your right. A baseline on an oem sump was never established in the oil stability thread. The testing started with the 2q deep sump partially underfilled. As the uaos track version was added and the oil levels were increased, the data showed that oil pressure stability also increased. But everyone is free to do what they want with their 996. No worries on my end.

Porschetech3

Well I decided not to respond to the BS......I can't see how it would accomplish anything..

Everything I said was accurate , all the "data" I posted was accurate...

So , carry on............I will post more Technical stuff in a bit........

Gear Rower

I feel like I should chime in here.

I am the SPC cayman racer who has been working with Skip this past season to gather data and improvements on the UIDS design, and (with my permission) he has been posting my track data in this thread. We have been in close communication throughout the season sharing details and working to optimize his design. If I didn't believe in his design and commitment, I wouldn't use it and a certainly wouldn't risk racing my car with it.

Let's get a few details straight -- The data is accurate, it has not been manipulated, there are no logging errors.

My engine was rebuilt two years ago and it's likely the greater bearing clearance that is responsible for the baseline P delta between the mantis sump car and mine. Otherwise, the deep sump car's engine and mine are identical with respect to stroke, bore, intake, compression, cooling system (low temp thermostat, 3rd radiator), motorsport AOS, oil weight and brand, lightweight flywheel, stock clutch, semi solid mounts, guards LSD, stock gearbox, air con and PS delete, burning 93 pump gas, stock ECU. We use the same brakes, shocks and the same tyres. It's a "spec" series.

This car is being pushed to its performance limits, beyond what Porsche initially designed the engine to endure. Consistent 2G cornering forces, RPM between 4-7k for up to 1.5hrs at a time. I've been consistently on the podium in a very competitive group, with overall wins this year. The car/engine are not being handled with kid gloves.

The UIDS is not a perfect solution (which seems to be the criticism above), but the data show that it is clearly the best option currently to reduce drops, especially prolonged drops, in oil pressure in these engines. There are short dips in pressure after the car returns to a neutral yaw which may be due to oil slosh +/- a short delay in the UIDS valve system. Again, Skip has been working with my feedback and data, tweaking his design to minimize this factor. At all levels of analysis, the dips are shorter in duration and less frequent than the current deep sump with baffles and windage tray design. Most critically from a racing point of view, the UIDS corrects any P drops during sustained high G cornering (carousels at RA and the Glen, Key Hole at Mid O, T3 Mosport, etc) which have traditionally been the cause of numerous engine failures.

I'm happy to address any questions others may have regarding my car and UIDS experience.