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.
Lets say you make a right turn, oil rushes to the left, right ball drops into "closed" position to prevent sucking air, left oil channel is open, oil is flowing from left side. Now as you return to a straight section of track, what causes the right ***** to return to their "centralized" location to allow feed from both side.
Sometimes the seemingly simple questions are the hardest to answer/explain. This is due to there being a dynamic element involved and several correct answers and depending on if the answer is to be a simple answer, or a technical one, or a scientific one.
The ball will always move in the same manner as the oil.
There are several forces at play here, weight of the oil, weight of the ball, Atmospheric pressure, g-force , dynamic forces of the weight/movement/inertia..
I'll let you think on it a while and see if you come up with the correct answer, there are several correct ones.
Sometimes giving too much information on technical aspects of a product lessons its appeal to potential purchasers because they don't understand it. I don't wish to be taken to task for any quotes, but will explain or oppose any blatantly false statements.
Originally Posted by Mike Murphy
I could add that accelerating straight might be different from braking straight.
True, and the ports of the UIDS V2.2 are biased to the braking side where more g-force can mover more oil to. This will mean that the 996/997 version will be different from the Boxster/Cayman version.
Originally Posted by 3/98 911 coupe
don’t know what it is today. ***** are all over the place, manscape is sponsoring Emelia Hartford with the world fastest corvette C8, then Manscape is also sponsoring the guys from DDE (daily driving exotics) like it or not today I’m surrounded by talk about *****.
The UIDS v2.2 definitely has two big ***** !!!
Originally Posted by Mike Murphy
I was thinking the exact same thing. Purple for oil, blue or green for coolant. A blinking light is something that will quickly become something the owner will not pay much attention to, and red lights could be important on the dash for critical failure items.
The integrates dash idea is very cool, but I think the SOPL will be more an add on aftermarket looking "In Your Face" product that will be easy to install, with no "down time" and so visible that it cannot be missed/ignored.
Originally Posted by Hal
Several years ago, I bought an X51 car because I too believed it had all of the original goodies described in literature I could find. As Porschetech3 says, that is not and never was the case. So as a way to kill time during Covid, I tried to research what was up. I am pretty sure I found the answers on a British forum and in the 911 Companion book.
The X51 motor that we all seem to see as desirable was a European, one (1) year only, 3.4l motor. I seem to remember it was for model year 1999. A 3.6l version was never built by the factory.
Looking through the LN Engineering website the other night, I found that they sell the scavenging pumps. It would be great if Jake or Charles could jump in and discuss the pro's and con's of adding these to a M96 motor. Would they cure the oil starvation issue seen on the track, etc.
Yep, the 3.4 X51 was a ROW product and was also called "Power Pack" option in Japan.
All the discussion of the scavenge pumps should be over on Zbomb thread"oil pressure instability" . If you haven't read it I recommend it. He even has installed new scavenge pumps on his car to test with data that was supplied by a Go-Fund-Me account that I set up and was the major contributor through sales of the UAOS. Many people donated to see the tests done, and Zbomb has indicated he is will to more product tests and provide the track test data if the product has a serious change of making a meaningful difference in oil pressure stability.
Several years ago, I bought an X51 car because I too believed it had all of the original goodies described in literature I could find. As Porschetech3 says, that is not and never was the case. So as a way to kill time during Covid, I tried to research what was up. I am pretty sure I found the answers on a British forum and in the 911 Companion book.
The X51 motor that we all seem to see as desirable was a European, one (1) year only, 3.4l motor. I seem to remember it was for model year 1999. A 3.6l version was never built by the factory.
Looking through the LN Engineering website the other night, I found that they sell the scavenging pumps. It would be great if Jake or Charles could jump in and discuss the pro's and con's of adding these to a M96 motor. Would they cure the oil starvation issue seen on the track, etc.
Hal, now is the time to post your question on Zbombs Oil Pressure Stability thread. 👍
Hal, now is the time to post your question on Zbombs Oil Pressure Stability thread. 👍
Thanks. Even though I had read some of that thread back at the beginning, I went back and read all 38 (?) pages of it. It has gone so far that I really don't think I have anything to add. But I will stay up on it, and if an opportunity to participate comes up, I'll jump in.
Just remember, it took a bunch of amateurs to build the Ark, while a bunch of experts built the Titanic
Experts also built Apollo 11, while an amature died in the desert testing his homemade steam-powered rocket. So your mileage may vary on that one.
As for me, I'll usually take the experts.
BTW, Porschetech3 is for closer to expert than to amature.
Skip, I’m not sure if this post is just taking up space on your thread - sorry if it’s off topic, but I wanted to share my recent original sump plate experience and obvious design flaws.
Short story - I backed into an asphalt driveway and the extruded sump plate bolts snagged the concrete curb when I exited and ripped out a bolt. So I had to buy a new plate and need some fab work on the case.
interesting the original design has been “upgraded” so the sump plate bolts are now recessed. I assume I’m not the first to experience this issue. Second, the mating surface bolt holes have much more surface area than original design. Third, do you have ANY idea what the two three-point star features are on the new design?
It looks like your design offers recessed bolt holes and offers robust mating area around the bolt holes compared to original design. Is it fair to say that a machined plate is functionally stronger than a cast plate? I assume the updated oem plate is cast.
Original sump plate with broken bolt hole What are these two “star” things for on the superseded plate? Original plate profile Fab work required Profile of superceded plate with extruded “star” feature Superceded plate allows bolt heads to recess.
Skip, I’m not sure if this post is just taking up space on your thread - sorry if it’s off topic, but I wanted to share my recent original sump plate experience and obvious design flaws.
Short story - I backed into an asphalt driveway and the extruded sump plate bolts snagged the concrete curb when I exited and ripped out a bolt. So I had to buy a new plate and need some fab work on the case.
interesting the original design has been “upgraded” so the sump plate bolts are now recessed. I assume I’m not the first to experience this issue. Second, the mating surface bolt holes have much more surface area than original design. Third, do you have ANY idea what the two three-point star features are on the new design?
It looks like your design offers recessed bolt holes and offers robust mating area around the bolt holes compared to original design. Is it fair to say that a machined plate is functionally stronger than a cast plate? What are these two “star” things for on the superseded plate?
Profile of superceded plate with extruded “star” feature Superceded plate allows bolt heads to recess.
Yes the early 3.4 engines had a sump plate with the bolt heads exposed. I have seen quite a few that were broken off and damaged the case. Seen many engines replaced due to this. (personally I would have repaired them).
Yes the UIDS has recessed bolt heads and is billet not cast.
To answer your last question, the three pointed post bosses are put in the as a bump-stop for the two big coolant channel Welch Plugs that are in the cases above them and are put there to keep the Welch Plugs from falling/blowing out the bottom. A very rare, but not unheard of failure.
Third, do you have ANY idea what the two three-point star features are on the new design?
Those star things prevent the freeze plugs installed in the case from falling out. I am not aware of these falling out even on engines that lack the star things.
Thank you, Chris and Skip. Safe to say the early 3.4’s, including my ‘99, were not without unique weak spots. Another reason even non racers may want to consider upgrading.
Very exciting! Pretty cool to see such an impressive, daunting engineering effort for our old M96 technology.
Originally Posted by 996fried
Just remember, it took a bunch of amateurs to build the Ark, while a bunch of experts built the Titanic
Originally Posted by jdbornem
Experts also built Apollo 11, while an amature died in the desert testing his homemade steam-powered rocket. So your mileage may vary on that one.
As for me, I'll usually take the experts.
BTW, Porschetech3 is for closer to expert than to amature.
Originally Posted by GC996
Tough crowd. My money is on Porschetech.
Just call me Dr. h.c. Porschetech3 !!! All I know is when I get a vision that I think will make an engine (in this case an M96) a better/faster/ or more durable engine and I think I can accomplish the task, I DO IT..
Skip
Just wanted to point out, how your ingenuity, passion and entrepreneurship have fired up our crowd of 996 owners.
It seemed like 2021 was going to follow suit with discussions about how all our cars were going to need new engines due to bore scoring.
Then along comes PT3, with a cat out of the bag announcement about another new enhancement.
This is not a thanks for your efforts on this new endeavor, this is a BIG thank you for turning around the attitude and outlook of all the 996ers here in this forum. As you know many more are here following this thread, than posters in it stating their enthusiasm.
For this Skip, you get a biggie size that a boy.
You brightened up all 996 of owners attitude, we have a little more bounce in out step, thinking about how much we can enjoy our cars.
Personal thanks from me for my UAOS.
David
Skip
Just wanted to point out, how your ingenuity, passion and entrepreneurship have fired up our crowd of 996 owners.
It seemed like 2021 was going to follow suit with discussions about how all our cars were going to need new engines due to bore scoring.
Then along comes PT3, with a cat out of the bag announcement about another new enhancement.
This is not a thanks for your efforts on this new endeavor, this is a BIG thank you for turning around the attitude and outlook of all the 996ers here in this forum. As you know many more are here following this thread, than posters in it stating their enthusiasm.
For this Skip, you get a biggie size that a boy.
You brightened up all 996 of owners attitude, we have a little more bounce in out step, thinking about how much we can enjoy our cars.
Personal thanks from me for my UAOS.
David
Thanks David for sending me the positive Karma, and also for sending the positive Karma on behalf of the peanut gallery. George and I truly need it ...
Also thanks to all who have sent positive Karma in private messages and offers to help in testing ect..
One more flow test and then "in-car" testing will begin !!!!!
07-30-2021, 07:15 PM
