Notices
997 Turbo Forum 2005-2012
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Update on tuning 997tt Gen II

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-20-2009, 04:23 PM
  #16  
Michael-Dallas
Pro
 
Michael-Dallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 600
Received 11 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TB993tt
The causes of destruction are quite fundamental: conrods and piston failures.
So what caused the rods and pistons to fail? Detonation? Weak internals? Bad gas?

A real ****ty EFI tune can cause that sort of failure.

I wonder if there was as much controversy when Porsche developed the M64. And it would be a crying shame if Porsche, a company that touts its successes on motorsports, can't build a reliable engine, while Honda or Nissan can.

///Michael
Old 12-25-2009, 11:52 AM
  #17  
inactiveuser1
Burning Brakes
 
inactiveuser1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TT Surgeon
This was predictable, that's why they don't race the wet sump m96/97 engines. If it was that easy they would have just slapped a couple of turbos on those wet sumps years ago and called it a day.
On the 997TT-1 being a dry sump is an external tank seperate from from the crankcase.The new motor has oil also seperate from the crankcase being an internal tank built into the motor so it does sound like a dry sump as the oil is still seperate from the crankcase they just tied it into the motor now so motor can be lower for better handling.

Porsche site shows
http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/91...l/?gtabindex=2
Click on drive the click on integrated dry sump
then they talk of:
Integrated dry-sump lubrication ensures a reliable supply of oil even when a sporty driving style is adopted. It also has additional cooling functions. The oil tank is located in the engine, thereby eliminating the need for an external oil tank.
Isn't that a seperate oil tank but built into the motor.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review

They also show:"oil reservoir at the bottom of the engine, although separated from the crankcase. "

The elaborate dry-sump-lubrication system, with its external tank, has also been changed to the standard 911 design with an integrated oil reservoir at the bottom of the engine, although separated from the crankcase. However, in the Turbo’s case, six—rather than four—oil-scavenge pumps are used to return oil to this reservoir because the two turbochargers each require a dedicated oil return

To me it sounds like a dry sump tank built into the engine seperate from the crankcase not a wet sump.How do you guys take the statement of how its designed if tank is seperate from the crankcase?
Old 12-25-2009, 05:14 PM
  #18  
eclou
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
eclou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,060
Received 1,234 Likes on 604 Posts
Default

FYI the gen 1 997tt has 9 oil pumps
Old 12-25-2009, 08:37 PM
  #19  
SchH III
Intermediate
 
SchH III's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

References should be specifically cited. According to "Car and Driver" in the January 2010 issue (page 41) "the elaborate dry-sump lubrication system has been replaced by a simpler version used on the standard 911s." As clearly pointed out in the preceding sentence, the dry-sump system has been replaced. It logically follows if the dry sump has been replaced, then the replacement is not a dry-sump system or it is not elaborate. Why is this so difficult to understand? The rest is pure marketing.

As an iconoclast, another concern of mine was raised by "Car and Driver" in the October 2009 issue. Simply:
"Rather than the Nikasil hard-surface coating used on the cylinder walls of previous Turbos, this one relies on the hard surface produced by etching the Alusil block casting. Although Porsche engineers cringe when we say it, this is the metallurgy that debuted on the Chevrolet Vega about 40 years ago and has since been perfected on many German engines." Let's hope it has been perfected. Perhaps the engineers will comment.

I do not have a dog in this fight. Unlike many who post on this board and on others, I presently own a 2008 Turbo 6speed coupe (also owned for a very brief period a 2007 Turbo Tip); several years ago, I placed a deposit and reservation for the first Turbo S allocated to the dealer. At that time, the demise of the GT1 was unknown. Will I order the S in February? I plan to. Will I keep the 2008? Unless the new Turbo is heads and shoulders superior in performance to the 2008, yes. The 2011 will, however, be available.
Old 12-25-2009, 09:46 PM
  #20  
inactiveuser1
Burning Brakes
 
inactiveuser1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SchH III
References should be specifically cited. According to "Car and Driver" in the January 2010 issue (page 41) "the elaborate dry-sump lubrication system has been replaced by a simpler version used on the standard 911s." As clearly pointed out in the preceding sentence, the dry-sump system has been replaced. It logically follows if the dry sump has been replaced, then the replacement is not a dry-sump system or it is not elaborate. Why is this so difficult to understand? The rest is pure marketing..
I guess difficult to understand when other places say it is as:

Canadian magazine says all new dry sump
http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/1...-911-turbo.htm

The heart of the 2010 Turbo is an all-new dry sump 3.8-litre bi-turbo direct injection flat-six that makes 500 horsepower and 479 pound-feet of torque (up 20 hp and 22 lb.-ft. from last year’s 3.6-litre Turbo). Direct injection allows for a substantial increase in the compression ratio from 9.0:1 to 9.8:1. That, along with a slight decrease in boost pressure makes for more linear throttle response across the rev range.


Originally Posted by SchH III
As an iconoclast, another concern of mine was raised by "Car and Driver" in the October 2009 issue. Simply:
"Rather than the Nikasil hard-surface coating used on the cylinder walls of previous Turbos, this one relies on the hard surface produced by etching the Alusil block casting. Although Porsche engineers cringe when we say it, this is the metallurgy that debuted on the Chevrolet Vega about 40 years ago and has since been perfected on many German engines." Let's hope it has been perfected. Perhaps the engineers will comment...
Porsche 928's have used similar coating on the aluminum block,if its as good as it was on the 928 block then it will last 100,000- 200,000 miles as do the 928motors,better hope it is as well designed as the 928 block was.They bring up the Vega because thats the only things most American magazines remember is failure of the aluminum blocks and coatings they won't bring up countless mile driven in the Porsche 928's with aluminum block.

Originally Posted by SchH III
I do not have a dog in this fight. Unlike many who post on this board and on others, I presently own a 2008 Turbo 6speed coupe (also owned for a very brief period a 2007 Turbo Tip); several years ago, I placed a deposit and reservation for the first Turbo S allocated to the dealer. At that time, the demise of the GT1 was unknown. Will I order the S in February? I plan to. Will I keep the 2008? Unless the new Turbo is heads and shoulders superior in performance to the 2008, yes. The 2011 will, however, be available.
Some say its dry sump some say no.Anything contained in a seperate tank or other similar setup thats seperate from the crankcase isn't it a dry sump or does it have to have its own seperate oil pump to the tank and from it?If it isn't and someone wants to do more serious racing then why not pickup external dry sump tank or too hard to put in on the Turbo?I guess the way I look at it is if the oil is in an external tank pumping into the crankcase when oil is going away from the pickup to provide more oil into the oil pan its a dry sump.
If oil is still seperate from the oil pan but is built into the engine case contained seperate in its own compartment and the only way out is being pumped out into the oil pan then its still a dry sump only difference is instead of the tank being external now its internal.Is that the way the setup is?

Last edited by inactiveuser1; 12-25-2009 at 10:48 PM.
Old 12-26-2009, 11:22 AM
  #21  
TT Gasman
Drifting
 
TT Gasman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

So it follows that my old small block chevy with a windage tray separating the oil sump is also an integrated dry sump. If it has an oil pan it's a wet sump, I don't care how you spin it.
Old 12-26-2009, 01:56 PM
  #22  
inactiveuser1
Burning Brakes
 
inactiveuser1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TT Gasman
So it follows that my old small block chevy with a windage tray separating the oil sump is also an integrated dry sump. If it has an oil pan it's a wet sump, I don't care how you spin it.
A winday trays are not a seperate compartment they are only a stamped piece of metal bollted to the main caps of the crank if has nothing to do with an oiling system of how it is pumped.Just like a scrapper is sometimes bolted off the oil pan internally that oil keeps oil splash down that along with a windage tray has nothing to do with if a motor is called a dry sump or wet sump.

If the new motor is designed with a compartment that is enclosed within the case and uses a pump to pump the oil into the pan then its a dry sump.It could also be a internal pump that storse oil in it also would have to see the design but anyway its stored seperate is dry sump they took the time to save weight out of the car at same time.I know windage trays are stock on alot of motors and have nothing to do with a pumping system they are only trays that keep oil from splashing around in the oil pan.
I am talking if the motor has a built in compartment enclosed within the block in place of an external canister and so far noone has shown an internal cutaway if that is what the new block is all about at least if they call it a dry sump thats how I would picture it.

The best to explain it is at:
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/kitcar/kb.php?aid=322

Four-stroke engines are lubricated by oil which is pumped into various bearings and thereafter allowed to drain to the base of the engine. In most production cars, which use a wet sump system, this oil is simply collected in a three to seven litre capacity pan at the base of the engine, known as the oil pan where it is pumped back up to the bearings by the oil pump, internal to the engine.
In a dry sump, the oil still falls to the base of the engine, but rather than being collected into an oil pan, it is pumped into another reservoir by one or more scavenger pumps, run by belts from the front of the crankshaft. Oil is then pumped from this reservoir to the bearings of the engine by the pressure pump. Typical dry sump systems have the pressure pump and scavenger pumps "stacked up", so that one pulley at the front of the system can run as many pumps as desired, just by adding another to the back of the stack.
No matter how you look at it a dry sump system can still use an oil pan its how the oil is collected and circulated to it.Also there may be some that use low oil pan and that would be in racing where there is no ground clearance to spare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_sump
"the oil pan can be much smaller in a dry sump system"

Last edited by inactiveuser1; 12-26-2009 at 03:14 PM.
Old 12-26-2009, 04:03 PM
  #23  
Michael-Dallas
Pro
 
Michael-Dallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 600
Received 11 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SchH III
References should be specifically cited. According to "Car and Driver" in the January 2010 issue (page 41) "the elaborate dry-sump lubrication system has been replaced by a simpler version used on the standard 911s." As clearly pointed out in the preceding sentence, the dry-sump system has been replaced. It logically follows if the dry sump has been replaced, then the replacement is not a dry-sump system or it is not elaborate. Why is this so difficult to understand? The rest is pure marketing.
It states that the elaborate dry-sump has been replaced by a simpler version used on standard 911s. The italics is my emphasis as they are important in understanding the statement. In other words, the elaborate dry-sump has been replaced with a simpler [dry-sump] used on the standard 911s. Now, whether you consider the sump in the standard 911 a type of dry-sump (i.e. marketing) is up for interpretation.

If it looks like a duck and does everything like a duck, but is from Mars, then is it still a duck? Refer to the Mobil vs Castrol lawsuit regarding what constitutes the usage of the term "synthetic."

///Michael
Old 12-27-2009, 12:08 AM
  #24  
TT Gasman
Drifting
 
TT Gasman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by M928
A winday trays are not a seperate compartment they are only a stamped piece of metal bollted to the main caps of the crank if has nothing to do with an oiling system of how it is pumped.Just like a scrapper is sometimes bolted off the oil pan internally that oil keeps oil splash down that along with a windage tray has nothing to do with if a motor is called a dry sump or wet sump.

If the new motor is designed with a compartment that is enclosed within the case and uses a pump to pump the oil into the pan then its a dry sump.It could also be a internal pump that storse oil in it also would have to see the design but anyway its stored seperate is dry sump they took the time to save weight out of the car at same time.I know windage trays are stock on alot of motors and have nothing to do with a pumping system they are only trays that keep oil from splashing around in the oil pan.
I am talking if the motor has a built in compartment enclosed within the block in place of an external canister and so far noone has shown an internal cutaway if that is what the new block is all about at least if they call it a dry sump thats how I would picture it.

The best to explain it is at:
http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/kitcar/kb.php?aid=322

Four-stroke engines are lubricated by oil which is pumped into various bearings and thereafter allowed to drain to the base of the engine. In most production cars, which use a wet sump system, this oil is simply collected in a three to seven litre capacity pan at the base of the engine, known as the oil pan where it is pumped back up to the bearings by the oil pump, internal to the engine.
In a dry sump, the oil still falls to the base of the engine, but rather than being collected into an oil pan, it is pumped into another reservoir by one or more scavenger pumps, run by belts from the front of the crankshaft. Oil is then pumped from this reservoir to the bearings of the engine by the pressure pump. Typical dry sump systems have the pressure pump and scavenger pumps "stacked up", so that one pulley at the front of the system can run as many pumps as desired, just by adding another to the back of the stack.
No matter how you look at it a dry sump system can still use an oil pan its how the oil is collected and circulated to it.Also there may be some that use low oil pan and that would be in racing where there is no ground clearance to spare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_sump
"the oil pan can be much smaller in a dry sump system"
I was being a little tongue in cheek, Sorry. I have built many race motors in my time, so I don't need any re-education . Our windage trays and scrapers were elaborate Ed Hamburger units that did a good job keeping the oil off the crank at high rpm (9-10K). We also used trap doors and all kinds of things to keep the oil in the pan on hard, high rpm wheel standing launches. Still, it wasn't a dry sump.
Take time to disassemble a M96 integrated dry sump motor sometime and you will see similarities. Except on the non x51 motors, the windage tray or sump guard was plastic, aluminum on the X51 and the motorsports oiling kits. The sump guard does not isolate the engine internals completely, this is obvious when you remove the oil pan (or whatever you wish to call it). Sadly, the m96 required the oiling kit for track use, a feat the dry sumps can do all day long.
BTW Wikpedia is hardly a peer reviewed source, I wouldn't quote it.

Last edited by TT Gasman; 12-27-2009 at 12:26 AM.
Old 12-27-2009, 12:46 AM
  #25  
inactiveuser1
Burning Brakes
 
inactiveuser1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TT Gasman
I was being a little tongue in cheek, Sorry. I have built many race motors in my time, so I don't need any re-education . Our windage trays were elaborate Ed Hamburger units that did a good job keeping the oil off the crank at high rpm (9-10K). We also used trap doors and all kinds of things to keep the oil in the pan on hard, high rpm wheel standing launches. Still, it wasn't a dry sump.
Take time to disassemble a M96 integrated dry sump motor sometime and you will see similarities. Except on the non x51 motors, the windage tray or sump guard was plastic, aluminum on the X51 and the motorsports oiling kits. The sump guard does not isolate the engine internals completely, this is obvious when you remove the oil pan (or whatever you wish to call it). Sadly, the m96 required the oiling kit for track use, a feat the dry sumps can do all day long.
BTW Wikpedia is hardly a peer reviewed source, I wouldn't quote it.
Doug,thats ok.I remember Ed Hamburgers place back in the 80's used to pickup parts there also and from McCandless Perf both big on Mopar back then.I remember the swinging pickups and the tube that was used in some of the pans for A-body Mopar for the front end bar to go thru,that bring back memories or what?No those weren't dry sump but way back Moroso had external tanks to tied in for external dry sumps.My street car ran good because good friend of mine ran Superstock I automatic back then held class one year thats where some of the ideas came from and used on my car.I ran 4" stroker crank for the 340 block way back in the 80's....3.31" to 4.0" was quit an increase.Its funny how time passes by and now street cars run as fast as some good stockers or superstockers of the late 70's early 80's
So on the new car what do you think they are using to make their claims?A good design would be an enclosed tank built into the block somehow not sure if they would go that far.
I was almost going joke about some quoteing Wikpedia when using it lol

Last edited by inactiveuser1; 12-27-2009 at 01:15 AM.
Old 12-27-2009, 09:04 PM
  #26  
TT Gasman
Drifting
 
TT Gasman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

SSIA, now that brings back memories! Our good buddy and engine builder (Tony Shaffer, Day Automotive ) won the US Nationals with their '67 Camaro, talk about trick that thing really pushed the envelope, but that's what you had to do. We ran a 388 stroker small block with Brodix heads and one huge 4 bbl that was good for 600 hp and Super Gas back in the day!
Re the new car, I think it's an improvement over prior integrated dry sumps, but still a lot of marketing speak, cause deep down it's still a wet sump. Which is probably just fine on the 911, but not the top shelf Turbo. They should have never messed with anything other than a GT1 based motor in the Turbo.
Old 12-27-2009, 09:50 PM
  #27  
inactiveuser1
Burning Brakes
 
inactiveuser1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TT Gasman
SSIA, now that brings back memories! Our good buddy and engine builder (Tony Shaffer, Day Automotive ) won the US Nationals with their '67 Camaro, talk about trick that thing really pushed the envelope, but that's what you had to do. We ran a 388 stroker small block with Brodix heads and one huge 4 bbl that was good for 600 hp and Super Gas back in the day!
Re the new car, I think it's an improvement over prior integrated dry sumps, but still a lot of marketing speak, cause deep down it's still a wet sump. Which is probably just fine on the 911, but not the top shelf Turbo. They should have never messed with anything other than a GT1 based motor in the Turbo.
It was back in the early 80's might of been 81 they won class in SSIA(Weber Racing) you're right they really did push every part of the car in that type of racing.They were running the 340.The small block mopar already has long rod 6.125" only .01 shorter than a big block chevy 454 which was 6.135"length rod so knew that 1.53 rod ratio was ok 6.135/4inch stroke so thats why I went with the 416cu in small block with 4" crank.I think if I remember cams where low in the block on the Chevy closer to the crank and cams were offset ground or something when going real long stroke that might of been 400 block?
The lowest rod ratio I have seen was 400chevy of 1.48 but there might be lower.Know thats off topic but good to see someone that remembers the older drag days.
Back to the new motor:
Thought I seen somewhere,that on the gt1 block nothing was setup for direct fuel injection so thats also why the newer block,not sure if thats true or not?Seems like for racing thou you would want something where you can exchange sleeves instead of boring the block out as once you bore so much then what more $ for new block?
Old 02-19-2010, 06:39 AM
  #28  
TB993tt
Addict
Rennlist Member

Thread Starter
 
TB993tt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,441
Received 108 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

Latest from the engine dyno.......

Following on from Porsche engineers telling them "this engine is not for you" RS Tuning got a willing customer with a new DFi turbo.

The engine broke a conrod at the 550hp level, I don't know the protocol for the engine dyno testing but it is quite rigorous with 3 days testing....

So the weak points are the conrods, pistons and head gasket.

RS is re-engineering this dead engine for the customer who has a nice shiny new 997tt.2 sitting high with no motor

They are making it 4 litre, special boring process, having different head gaskets made and Carrillo rods - They are not over cofident that the re-engineered lump will last very long..... It seems the new engine will need quite a lot of development to become reliable when tuned..
Old 02-19-2010, 07:19 AM
  #29  
Alex (UK)
Racer
 
Alex (UK)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Great insight once again, thanks Toby!

Our Gen1 engines may be more sought after now because of this. I will probably go from my 544 PS kit to the 624 PS kit at some point in the future. It's great to have that option!
Old 02-19-2010, 07:55 AM
  #30  
TB993tt
Addict
Rennlist Member

Thread Starter
 
TB993tt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,441
Received 108 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Alex (UK)
Great insight once again, thanks Toby!

Our Gen1 engines may be more sought after now because of this. I will probably go from my 544 PS kit to the 624 PS kit at some point in the future. It's great to have that option!
These are interesting times for Porsche tuning aren't they ?

They also confirmed that the new GT2RS is coming with the Mezger engine....


Quick Reply: Update on tuning 997tt Gen II



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 05:02 PM.