3.8 engine conversion ? how much ?
02-12-2013, 11:01 AM
#46
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I think the 997.2s are going to surprise people.
The 991 feels like the 996 to me. They arent moving well and Porsche is doing, IMO, *unprecedented* lease deals on them - almost BMW level.
The 991 is bigger, and more clinical than ever, and has some visual cues that people seem to critique much like the 996 did.
I wouldnt say the 991 will be *as bad* as the 996 (thanks to the internet I think the 996 will go down as the worst valued 911 in history), but I don't think its going to put significant pressure on the 997.2 which very well may be seen as the "last traditional 911 that is modern yet doesnt blow up and isnt completely sanitized"
Time will tell, but I think there will be a big difference between 997.1 and 997.2 in value as a result of the massive and endless IMS FUD. Meanwhile, I suspect that the 996 will continue to depreciate at a quicker rate. In other words, whatever the "sell 996, buy 997.2" spread is now? By the time the 997.2 reaches whatever lower price point, I think the 996 will be even lower proportionately and that much harder to sell.
I grapple with this same question... Sometimes I think that ultimately I'd want either a turbo or a 997.2 and I frequently think that I should cut and run sooner rather than later and stay "Porscheless" until I can afford to make the jump. My *only* hope is that the 996 values at least level off. I had thought they were leveling but I'm not so sure lately.
The 991 feels like the 996 to me. They arent moving well and Porsche is doing, IMO, *unprecedented* lease deals on them - almost BMW level.
The 991 is bigger, and more clinical than ever, and has some visual cues that people seem to critique much like the 996 did.
I wouldnt say the 991 will be *as bad* as the 996 (thanks to the internet I think the 996 will go down as the worst valued 911 in history), but I don't think its going to put significant pressure on the 997.2 which very well may be seen as the "last traditional 911 that is modern yet doesnt blow up and isnt completely sanitized"
Time will tell, but I think there will be a big difference between 997.1 and 997.2 in value as a result of the massive and endless IMS FUD. Meanwhile, I suspect that the 996 will continue to depreciate at a quicker rate. In other words, whatever the "sell 996, buy 997.2" spread is now? By the time the 997.2 reaches whatever lower price point, I think the 996 will be even lower proportionately and that much harder to sell.
I grapple with this same question... Sometimes I think that ultimately I'd want either a turbo or a 997.2 and I frequently think that I should cut and run sooner rather than later and stay "Porscheless" until I can afford to make the jump. My *only* hope is that the 996 values at least level off. I had thought they were leveling but I'm not so sure lately.
Now that some solutions have been created in the marketplace there is a potential for the 996 to level off and be considered a good buy - especially for the track enthusiast who just wants a good car for a DE.
Think about the 964 and how that car had been decreasing in value until it was discovered that all of the "problems" were now solvable and the car was a good deal of fun on the track.
02-12-2013, 02:52 PM
#47
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vacuuming Cal Speedway
Posts: 7,306
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
Does not look lean to me, as a general rule most NA motors are aiming for around 14:1 Afr, FI cars closer to 12 to one or lower.On tip in cars are usually lean due to emissins and fatten up under WOT. I would get a custom tune though as i am sure you are leaving power on the table even from an optomized tuning perspective vs a set on kill tune. Nice numbers though!
x2. Some tuners would rather leave a bigger safety margin on the table than others by getting as close to the 14.7:1 ratio as possible. Obviously, the closer you get the more risk but also more power. On the edge ragged tuning is more risky IMO on FI vehicles as you can blow your motor more easily than on NA. I personally wouldn't worry as long as you stay consistent with your gas and you plan on not making any more changes to your setup.
02-12-2013, 02:58 PM
#48
Interestingly, there's a horizontal dash line right at about 13 on the dyno graph. Wonder what that is...
02-12-2013, 03:00 PM
#49
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vacuuming Cal Speedway
Posts: 7,306
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
My engine is a 3.6, but please share your information about your build and what it means in terms of parts being changed/upgraded and also cost.
Do you think any parts removed could be resold ? My engine works perfectly so may be the pistons have value for someone else...
Do you think any parts removed could be resold ? My engine works perfectly so may be the pistons have value for someone else...
Since you're a healthy running 3.6 my advise would be to build that motor into whatever you want. Definitely use better rods, pistons, bolts......
02-12-2013, 03:11 PM
#51
02-12-2013, 03:18 PM
#52
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vacuuming Cal Speedway
Posts: 7,306
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
It's not terribly out of whack which is why I said "almost" too lean. He's getting great WHP from that motor so I assume it's flashed which is leaning out the motor. I've got several Dynojet runs on 3.6 X51's and never seen anything over 310 rwhp, SAE corrected. I think it's too lean for a stock ECU without something being off which is why I suggest hooking up a PWIS and checking it out. Good indy's have one, or P-car dealers....
02-12-2013, 03:24 PM
#53
Sorry, I react to anything that remotely reminds me of that miserable woman....
It's not terribly out of whack which is why I said "almost" too lean. He's getting great WHP from that motor so I assume it's flashed which is leaning out the motor. I've got several Dynojet runs on 3.6 X51's and never seen anything over 310 rwhp, SAE corrected. I think it's too lean for a stock ECU without something being off which is why I suggest hooking up a PWIS and checking it out. Good indy's have one, or P-car dealers....
It's not terribly out of whack which is why I said "almost" too lean. He's getting great WHP from that motor so I assume it's flashed which is leaning out the motor. I've got several Dynojet runs on 3.6 X51's and never seen anything over 310 rwhp, SAE corrected. I think it's too lean for a stock ECU without something being off which is why I suggest hooking up a PWIS and checking it out. Good indy's have one, or P-car dealers....
02-12-2013, 03:36 PM
#54
02-12-2013, 03:57 PM
#55
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Are you installing the dual oil pump system that LN engineering is selling ? requires some cam cover modification if I remember well.
It would be great if you could have an exhaustive list of the stuff you are adding. I think it would move the thread forward with some data coming from a spec996 racer perspective.
Phil.
02-12-2013, 04:45 PM
#56
The motor's being built are 3.4 crank & rod motors with 3.4 heads & cams. They're designed for 3.4 cars & electronics or cable TB. They have Carillo rods, ARP bolts, JE pistons, fancy head work, etc. etc. They'll make 330whp easy, 350 with a flash and more with injectors, TB, 5-bar regulator, etc...
Since you're a healthy running 3.6 my advise would be to build that motor into whatever you want. Definitely use better rods, pistons, bolts......
Since you're a healthy running 3.6 my advise would be to build that motor into whatever you want. Definitely use better rods, pistons, bolts......
Thanks,
Shawn
02-12-2013, 07:14 PM
#57
Pro
not F1 but FI ie forced induction. I have had/build many motors and 14:1 is fine for naturally aspirated , why do you think 13:1 is ideal?
02-13-2013, 11:27 AM
#58
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vacuuming Cal Speedway
Posts: 7,306
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
I'm pretty sure you know all this. Why do you think 14:1 is OK? Have you ever run a M96 motor that lean for any length of time? Do you know of any shop that recommends or programs their M96's to run that lean?....
02-13-2013, 11:47 AM
#60
FWIW, I've ran into tuners with both schools of thought and I'm not sure if there is any "right" way. However depending on an engine/setup, there might be a best way but it will be specific and not someone can generalize imo.
More ignition advance and more fuel to counter act the heat generated. Less ignition advance and lean it up. The latter I've seen more of on NA engines where as dumping more fuel and advancing the ignition seems to be more common place among FI setups from the tuners I've seen.
Important to note though is I've never met a m96 tuner or have any experience in tuning m96 motor specifically so this train of thought might not be applicable to the characteristics of the M96 motor.
I would really like someone like Bisi to chime in on this.