Leigh2

Chrenan. tried to PM but didn't work. Come to the next PCA autocross at Namao...they are a blast! Next one is August 17.

chrenan

Leigh2, email sent, thanks for the invite!

amaist

I wouldn't worry about 996 GT3 prices going up. The pricing is very much driven by the people who want a car to show off to their friends. Track fiends like us are a minority even among GT3 owners (although a very significant minority in the case of the GT3).

I will reserve judgement on the new motor until we see it in action.

I know it doesn't apply the same way but my E46 M3 did not have a realy dry sump, either. I have never heard of oil starvation problems when driven on r-compounds. I did see dry sump systems with external tanks installed on M3 race cars but that could have been for cooling as much as for oiling. Maybe on slicks it would be necessary.

Alan Smithee

There are more 997GT3s and GT3RSs sprouting up with RMS leaks every day, and Porsche has no solution. There's a recent post from a guy that was black-flagged at the track for leaking so much after having it replaced 10 days earlier.

Bring on the new motor. The GT1 has clearly run its course in terms of reliability, efficiency, and emissions. And it's expensive. Also, keep in mind that back in the 'old days', the 911RS motor was based on the 911S motor, which was based on the 911T motor (which was available in the 914). Same with the 964 and 993. No shame in having the same engine family power the whole sports car lineup. If it means Porsche can hold the line on pricing, so much the better.

blake

I can't help but bring up the M96 engine.... Porsche introduced that in the '99 996, and to this day I would categorize it as a reliable street-car engine but an unreliable track-car engine. Let's just hope that this new engine shows vast improvement over this recent history...

-Blake

SpeedGeek

The M96 was designed as a cost saving engine for the road. It was not designed for the track. It allowed Porsche to build and sell the Boxster at a reasonable price (which probably saved the company at the time).

The question is - did Porsche design the A91 for competition use, or not? If so, I expect it will prove to be as good or better than the M64 (I have faith in those Weissach engineers, despite the RMS problems).

The A91 may have been designed in a modular fashion so that the block can be shared across the range, whilst the internals and heads differ according to application.

Regarding oiling, I doubt Porsche would stress the importance of that snazzy test rig if the engine was built primarily for road use. That rig suggests to me that they plan to use the A91 block on the track. And if that is in fact the case, I suspect they've done their homework - I seriously doubt Porsche is about to shoot themselves in the head with race engines that fail in high-G corners.

I have issues with all the electronic and bling wizardry that's finding its way into the GT3 - TC, PASM, Sport buttons and the like. But I have complete faith that whatever engine they see fit to bolt to their track and race cars, they will not disappoint.

ron_dargenio

Haha, I probably will get over it. I'll just keep my 6 Gt3 for a while. When I see silly prices for RS Americas, I have to think the 3's will be very sought after if dry sumps come to an end.

Cupcar

The problem is not just oil starvation, it's all the engine oil sloshing up and filling the cylinders behind the pistons making the car smoke from blowby in long sweeper corners. This is not a big issue in an engine with vertical cylinders such as an 6 cyl M3 has, or even a V8 M3.

Leigh2

The other motivation for using a dry sump on a vertical engine is that the dry sump oil pans are very shallow which allows the engine to be lowered in the chassis. I'm not clear on whether the crankshaft is any lower in our dry sump engines than it would be with the new engine. All that oil has to be stored below the crankshaft so does this mean that the integral sump engines are higher in the chassis that the dry sump versions?

Cupcar

Below is a cross section of the 996 wet sump engine. Note that exhaust system clearance and the not seen flywheel diameter is an issue for clearance as well in the flat engine. In fact the flywheel diameter is the limiting factor in most engines clearance to the ground; the new Corvette Z06 is dry sump but the flywheel precluded lowering the engine closer to the ground.

Also note that the exhaust camshaft housing is not very far above the level of the oil in the crankcase requiring the scavenge pumps to drain the camshaft boxes...hence the name "integrated dry sump" for this engine.

Cupcar

Below shows how close Porsche was able to get the crankshaft to the ground in the RS Spyder engine with a small diameter flywheel. This engine, ahem, has a true dry sump, Porsche has never used anything but in their dedicated racing engines.

Holger B

RS Spyder isn't "factory racing" or have "prestige"?

C.J. Ichiban

for those guys who think oiling issues won't be bad, ask guys who heavily track their cayman S why they quit tracking their cayman S...

the "integrated dry sump" is not good enough for high-G tracks, cars on slicks, etc.

the fact that the engine is flat amplifies the side to side starvation issues! it needs a dry sump to remain reliable as a track car.

Cupcar

In retrospect, the whole reason that video of the A91 engine on the G simulation dyno surfaced is to quell the concern people will have over the lack of a dry sump.

Weissach is one of the most secure places in the world and a video with the gage animations added in happens to "get out"...give me a break. That video was leaked for a purpose...

Leigh2

Those illustrations certainly show the difference and good point about the flywheel. It will be interesting to see where they go with this.