Foaming
Note 987 tubes supplied- post #67 above.
Oil pickup will be almost 2" lower than OEM -so hopefully well beneath the foam.
A separate thread is required for low-foam oils for the M96.:-). But they are available.

 

It does - This isn't a photo of mine. Tomorrow when I put the car on the lift I'll snap some shots. I've heard track debris hit it a few times, has a specific ring to it - which is both reassuring and unsettling

 

Thanks!

That's showing them!

Mike

 

Does this mean plastic baffles on the LN version? (Hard to see in pictures if they are plastic.)

 

Apologies if this is burried in the thread somewhere, but is there a reputable sump/baffle solution that does not lower the bottom of the oil pan?

And if so, the natural question is: is it enough to improve baffling, pick up points, etc., and not increase oil capacity?

(Yes, I know the OEM skid plate helps. I have one. For a variety of reasons though, I'd prefer not to reduce the space between it and the oil pan.)

 

I'd agree that "which oil" should be left to seperate threads. But before I go searching for such threads, have you seen convincing arguments or evidence that such oils really are better than the usual suspects (Mobile & Castrol)?

Thanks!

 

"but is there a reputable sump/baffle solution that does not lower the bottom of the oil pan?"
No -I researched this issue carefully.
There is a difference in how deep the replacement sump or spacer is. Some are as much as 2 qts+.Others much less.
The critical issue in my (non-expert)opinion is the effectiveness of the baffles,not so much the depth of the new sump. Some baffles are leaky or too low. So in extreme G the oil pick-up is no longer submerged.
It seems the benchmark is Mantis or FVD ?

 

According to Jake ,the answer is "Yes".

 

Do you know how much lower the factory X51 pan/baffle kit is? Or how many more quarts? Or is that not a reputable solution? Baffles leaky or too low?

(I followed a link in one of the above posts to Patrick Motorsports description of this, but it didn't mention whether it is lower or increases capacity. They do say this alone is not enough, and one should get an accusump - raising the question whether one also needs an accusump with, for instance FVD or Mantis. Or whether perhaps the Accusump alone is enough.)

Thanks!

 

Logically ,I suppose you need input from someone who has tried both Accusump and a deep pan+baffles on the same car,on the same track ?
That person would be Pedro .Perhaps others here?
Lots of useful info to read in the "Chronicals of Sebring"
http://www.pedrosgarage.com/Site_5/C...g,_part_3.html

 

X51 oil pan

 

X51 Baffle kit:
http://lnengineering.com/products/ot...deep-sump.html

http://www.tarett.com/items/986-987-...srk-detail.htm

https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...ump-plate.html

 

Interesting that some are concerned about ground clearance. Not pick to on others deep sumps, but any sump that uses the stock bottom has less ground clearance. The oil pan bottom is 5/8" thick, with the 2L spacers you lose 1" of ground clearance. All 2L sump spacer kits are copy of the Mantissport deep which was designed and produced in 2006.This was developed as we raced the FIRST Cayman S for two years with PCA. Check out Pano issue Sept 2006. With AIM data logging we came up with several versions of Deep Sumps.

None have ever provided as Mantisport does, with race data proving the superior performance of the Mantissport deep sump,posted on another Rennlist thread, built in oil dams,better oil control, which one has yet to be"COPIED", Windage tray,"COPIED" by others, solid bottom design,which gives you 5/8" more ground clearance than the "others", Choice of 1.2L or 2L Deep Sumps. Due to the solid bottom design you have one less joint or possible leak vs the spacer deep sumps. 2L Mantissport solid bottom pan is 1/8" thinner than the 2l spacer pans, plus one less joint that could Leak.

Hope this clears up some history and misconceptions. DFI engine sump coming soon, We use on track data, shaker post, windtunnel testing data to develop product.

 

Ernie, thanks for you post! If I may ask a few clarifying questions:
1. How much does ground clearance drop, if at all, with your 1.2 liter sump?
2. DFI? Direct fuel injection, as is 997.2?
3. You wind-tunnel tested the sump? If so, wow! Must be very few in the Porsche modification/tuning business who wind-tunnel test. (Don't suppose you know anything about the lift, drag, and cooling characteristics of the various OEM front and rear bumper, spoiler, wing, and tail options, by the way? :-) )

 

On the bumper question, I went through an old article in Excellence about the C4S. Seems the C4S bumper sends 8% more air to the radiators. Even assuming all that air made it to the smaller radiators on a C2, I guess that does not make a big difference. If one wants to do something about heat issues, one needs to do more. And if one wants to choose the ideal bumper, drag and lift are probably bigger issues (unless one would consider switching to the larger C4S radiators). (And one should be cautious about a bumper designed to send air to different shaped radiators.)