Yes, basically a lower compression 968 engine destroked to 2.7L, but with a dry sump to make sure it doesn't blow up when run repeatedly above 6000 rpm. A dry sump is not an easy/cheap device though for the average hobbyist, or at least for me.
That's probably a little too far from what @944m3 had in mind though?
3.0 16V engine mods, etc
I don't know if the extra 500cc makes much more power. it was mostly for the extra torque and better block afaik, and the fact better heads bolt straight on. Years ago I asked on Rennlist how much more it would cost to build a 16v over an 8v turbo, and the answer from Chris White amongst others, was a lot more. If you don't mind spending the extra money, 16v are definitely more efficient, but a 3.0 8v is no slouch.944m3 wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:53 am
I know a 3.0 would make more hp (more displacement) but is it to much for street. And yes I know many think what’s the point, but I’m just curious in regards to drivability between both flavors.
Is a dry sump necessary? No, obviously not. Especially with a street car and not on super sticky race rubber. However if a person has the money (they're not stupidly expensive) and has invested a considerable sum building a very nice motor then DS is a great extra safety margin. I think the biggest problem is packaging and where to put the oil tank. I haven't looked on LR's site for some time. Not sure if they still sell them? From what I was told, LR basically ripped off Dave McGrath's design. I 'think' they get the pan from the same guy who cast the CEP one? Otherwise there weren't too many other options. Jan sells a pan too, no?Thom wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:11 pm Yes, basically a lower compression 968 engine destroked to 2.7L, but with a dry sump to make sure it doesn't blow up when run repeatedly above 6000 rpm. A dry sump is not an easy/cheap device though for the average hobbyist, or at least for me.
That's probably a little too far from what @944m3 had in mind though?
For sure. Again for most guys running on the street, a 3? 8v can be made to hustle highly satisfactorily. A simpler build all round. But the 16v is a nice thing if you can $tretch the budget.blade7 wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 5:09 amI don't know if the extra 500cc makes much more power. it was mostly for the extra torque and better block afaik, and the fact better heads bolt straight on. Years ago I asked on Rennlist how much more it would cost to build a 16v over an 8v turbo, and the answer from Chris White amongst others, was a lot more. If you don't mind spending the extra money, 16v are definitely more efficient, but a 3.0 8v is no slouch.944m3 wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:53 am
I know a 3.0 would make more hp (more displacement) but is it to much for street. And yes I know many think what’s the point, but I’m just curious in regards to drivability between both flavors.
I've had everything except an uprated clutch to build a 3.0 8v for years. But just never got round to it, and it didn't make sense when the original engine had only done 100k miles. But having got used to a much newer car with a 2.0 turbo and 350 bhp, with less lag, waiting until 3k for things to start happening in a 944 does get a bit old. I've never driven one, but I've read a decent 3.0 pulls from around 2.5k revs, even with a bigger turbo.
-
Thom
- The First Carpoke!
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:31 am
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
Had to use the car yesterday for a 600 mile drive and can confirm again the improved smoothness and torque response down low with the larger turbine housing. Again it is a subtle improvement but there is less downshifting needed from 6th to 5th when going slightly uphill on the highway. Fuel consumption is at an all time low with 30 mpg. On a very short section of destricted Autobahn in Germany I couldn't resist applying a little load in 5th, perhaps opening the throttle 30% only and found myself at 150 mph in no time. I can't remember if I mentioned vibrations in the rear axle I experienced last summer during high speed cruising in Germany but the guy during the technical inspection 2 weeks ago noticed the bottom bolts for the shocks had loosened and the lhs one was a few threads away from coming out! No idea how this could have happened and I plead guilty to spending way more time checking out anything in the engine bay than the rear suspension, but it seems that retightening them has fixed the vibrations and the car now feels like it's on rails back again at high speeds. Too bad I had to drive back home and I'm looking forward to more high speed cruising to experience more of it. This will be even more of a monster cruiser considering how effortless the engine feels even at low to medium loads - with the increased flow of the 1.03 turbine housing the engine can properly "talk".
Crossed the 420,000 km mark too. Such milestones are always worth a picture. With 30,000 km in 5.5 years the 16V is engine is probably broken-in now.
Crossed the 420,000 km mark too. Such milestones are always worth a picture. With 30,000 km in 5.5 years the 16V is engine is probably broken-in now.
- _20240606_130252.JPG (202.63 KiB) Viewed 1165 times
'90 944 turbo
A dry sump is way more than I had in mind, especially since I’m not really thinking of tracking the car.
Call me a nerd but @Thom im really impressed with the 30mpg. I was under the impression a 16v would use more fuel.
Sounds like my current 27/6 Evergreen Raptor turbo wouldn’t be big enough (which I’ve been told on other posts), but would it provide fun torque really early in the rev range?
And congrats on the milestone.
Call me a nerd but @Thom im really impressed with the 30mpg. I was under the impression a 16v would use more fuel.
Sounds like my current 27/6 Evergreen Raptor turbo wouldn’t be big enough (which I’ve been told on other posts), but would it provide fun torque really early in the rev range?
And congrats on the milestone.
You should be able to implement this style of traction control with any modern ECU. I'm doing it with my Link and Bas has with his Maxx ECU, even the MS3 I briefly owned has the capacity.333pg333 wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 1:38 pm I concur with Thom's thoughts. If you're going to the trouble of putting a 16v engine together then why sacrifice capacity if it's going to cost pretty much the same amount? There are devices like these that you could implement. I have a feeling that Gustaf used something similar early on with his 3lt build/s? https://www.racetcs.com/
-
Thom
- The First Carpoke!
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:31 am
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
@944m3
Thanks. The 16V engine definitely drinks more fuel than the 8V it replaced. Simple comparison - a bone stock 2.7 head flows statically 230 cfm vs 330 cfm for a 968 head, which is 43% more. Some fuel must be added to compensate for all the extra air, and early measurements suggested that fuel consumption increased by about 30%. This is where the extra, tall 6th gear is showing its true value as it helps reducing consumption by quite a significant margin, at least when cruising fast enough like on the highway where the speed limit around here is 80 mph. Anywhere else though the 6th gear is a little too tall to keep the engine in a load area of comfort but I still use it at every opportunity where the lightest load is needed like on long and flat roads, but also at the end of some full throttle runs as I don't like putting "reverse" load on the engine at high rpm when braking hard to get back under the speed limit. It is a long time since I drove my chipped original 2.5 engine but I would imagine that the 16V engine is quicker in 5th than the 8V was in 4th, so grabbing for the next gear when the car accelerates so well at half loads already makes 6th gear feel natural in the same way that you would switch to 5th on a stock engine with the lightest chip mods. Although usable only under certain conditions I think the tall 6th gear makes for a rather efficient overall package. With the "holy grail" 3.4 R&P of the 968 turbo S which would make for an overall shorter gearing 6th gear would be definitely more usable, but the engine performs so well already with the extra load caused by slightly taller gears that I would not want to go through the hassle or expense even if I could source one - which among the majority of humble 944 turbo owners wouldn't appreciate 30 mpg with 515 hp?
Btw the 3L 8V engine once returned 40 mpg (yes, forty) driving sedately on a mixture of highway and poor country roads, again thanks to the tall 6th gear. The conditions back then were more about enjoying the scenery during Summer holidays than exploiting any of the performance available so it was a nice surprise to get such a low figure. The lowest I ever got with the 2.5 engine with the stock AOR trans was 30 mpg.
I have no experience with a 2.5 16V turbo engine so I don't know but on paper the #6 hotside is known to work with a capacity of 2.5L, and the increased flow of a K27 should work with the 16V head at least until a certain RPM. You may get a massive bump in mid range torque but the power may well collapse up top, let's say above 5500 rpm, as the turbine is unlikely to support the extra flow of the 16V head.
@Bergerac
I would be interested to get some feedback on the traction control with the Link ECUs. The last time I checked the Link G4X still uses the exact same harness as my Vi-PEC ECU so if I upgrade the ECU I may be able to reuse my existing harness as @Pauerman had set it up with a speed input already (thanks Vic). I can't justify the costs of a brand new Link ECU only to add traction control though...
Thanks. The 16V engine definitely drinks more fuel than the 8V it replaced. Simple comparison - a bone stock 2.7 head flows statically 230 cfm vs 330 cfm for a 968 head, which is 43% more. Some fuel must be added to compensate for all the extra air, and early measurements suggested that fuel consumption increased by about 30%. This is where the extra, tall 6th gear is showing its true value as it helps reducing consumption by quite a significant margin, at least when cruising fast enough like on the highway where the speed limit around here is 80 mph. Anywhere else though the 6th gear is a little too tall to keep the engine in a load area of comfort but I still use it at every opportunity where the lightest load is needed like on long and flat roads, but also at the end of some full throttle runs as I don't like putting "reverse" load on the engine at high rpm when braking hard to get back under the speed limit. It is a long time since I drove my chipped original 2.5 engine but I would imagine that the 16V engine is quicker in 5th than the 8V was in 4th, so grabbing for the next gear when the car accelerates so well at half loads already makes 6th gear feel natural in the same way that you would switch to 5th on a stock engine with the lightest chip mods. Although usable only under certain conditions I think the tall 6th gear makes for a rather efficient overall package. With the "holy grail" 3.4 R&P of the 968 turbo S which would make for an overall shorter gearing 6th gear would be definitely more usable, but the engine performs so well already with the extra load caused by slightly taller gears that I would not want to go through the hassle or expense even if I could source one - which among the majority of humble 944 turbo owners wouldn't appreciate 30 mpg with 515 hp?
Btw the 3L 8V engine once returned 40 mpg (yes, forty) driving sedately on a mixture of highway and poor country roads, again thanks to the tall 6th gear. The conditions back then were more about enjoying the scenery during Summer holidays than exploiting any of the performance available so it was a nice surprise to get such a low figure. The lowest I ever got with the 2.5 engine with the stock AOR trans was 30 mpg.
I have no experience with a 2.5 16V turbo engine so I don't know but on paper the #6 hotside is known to work with a capacity of 2.5L, and the increased flow of a K27 should work with the 16V head at least until a certain RPM. You may get a massive bump in mid range torque but the power may well collapse up top, let's say above 5500 rpm, as the turbine is unlikely to support the extra flow of the 16V head.
@Bergerac
I would be interested to get some feedback on the traction control with the Link ECUs. The last time I checked the Link G4X still uses the exact same harness as my Vi-PEC ECU so if I upgrade the ECU I may be able to reuse my existing harness as @Pauerman had set it up with a speed input already (thanks Vic). I can't justify the costs of a brand new Link ECU only to add traction control though...
'90 944 turbo
I should have the car running again this week so I'll let you know how it goes. You will at least need a second speed input from the front wheels to calculate the % slip. I'm using inputs from all 4 ABS speed sensors and the accelerometer built into the ECU to calculate slip along with the E-throttle for control so it won't be quite as simple as you hoped.Thom wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 1:30 am @Bergerac
I would be interested to get some feedback on the traction control with the Link ECUs. The last time I checked the Link G4X still uses the exact same harness as my Vi-PEC ECU so if I upgrade the ECU I may be able to reuse my existing harness as @Pauerman had set it up with a speed input already (thanks Vic). I can't justify the costs of a brand new Link ECU only to add traction control though...
Im guessing an ignition cut would be your only option without DBW and would be a bit agricultural, Id have to read the manual again to know for sure.