[Monstrous4Banger]

Rather than continuing to clutter up Xrad's thread, I figured Id start a new one.



Countless people have built force inducted 16v motors, and reached far beyond 400hp, reliably. Ive personally seen powerhaus, and friends build more than I can recall. I guess I dont understand where the notion comes from that no one has done it. I know others around here know of them too. Lets use this thread for pics of them, and info.



Flash: How do you figure it hasnt been done? Has it been pushed as far as it is capable of? No, not IMO. I dont think the limiting factor is money tho....its the cars themselves. I have seen dyno slips from Powerhaus of high 600rwhp cars. Running a 16v. Ive riden in one well into the 500's. The 16v is definitely capable of more over all, but I dont see how youll ever get the same "insta-tq" the 8v provides. The 16v over all is a better head. But for those of us tuning specifically for street power, we want all the grunt down low we can get. The 16v valve takes longer to build pressure over all the surface area. The 8v has less volume to fill, building power more instantaneously. Thats is really the only advantage the 8v has over the 16v. Could this be compensating for in other ways with oodles of cash??? I guess so, when you think about it. You already mentioned a few ways in the other thread. Is it worth it? I dont think so. Maybe for a track car. Why, when for street use all that up top power the 16v has, would never even be fully utilized most likely? The 8v becomes the natural choice. It has the power where I want it. Why dump(even more) cash into something that can be achieved easily? (really)Big power sounds nice, but the limiting factor becomes the tub, and the rear end. Its really only good for bragging rights on a street car.



Ill try to start getting pics together of force inducted 16v motors, and post them here. Dyno slips too. Its really getting to be time to take the 8v in for more dyno time. Now that things are fully broken in. My 8v should easily be putting out 400ish rwhp, and plenty more torque. Especially now that everything has seated fully. Ill post slips here.



edit: I suppose part of my motivation initially was cloning a 968 ts motor, and definitely played a role in my choice for the 8v motor. But in the the end it really had the power band I wanted. If the 16v easily had the grunt down low, Id have gone 16v. A 2.7 head wasnt easy to come by.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

countless? hardly



please name 1 who has done it on a 968 engine - it is NOT the same as doing a 944 engine - it's not even the same as the 3.0 S2 - please do not confuse the issue with 944 builds - they are completely different animals



to date nobody has come forward and shown a 968 16V turbocharged engine that works (except maybe the one rader did, which had much more modest output)



be clear that we are talking about a 968 variocam 16V turbo build and nothing else

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

Flash: What do you mean the 944 engine? No one is really slapping 16v heads on a 2.5 engine, that I know of. Maybe a few exception, and sleeved 2.5 blocks. The 2.7 944 engine, the 944s2 engine, and the 968 engine, all use the same block. The only difference is the 968 has piston squirters stock. They can be machined into the 944 block inexpensively. These blocks are usually what people force induct, and use 16v heads on. These blocks all use the same coolant passages, and plumbing. No mods needed. The only 8v that fits is the 2.7 944 NA head. Id be willing to wager their are at least 50 running 16v in the country. I can find them, and document many if youd like. I could show you quite a few right here in AZ. Call David Raines ask him how many he himself has done.



Here is just one: http://europeancar.a...urbo/index.html

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

the 944 engine is in no way the same as the 968 engine - i think a lot more reading up on that one is in order - there is a very long list of things that are different - that is a very common myth - it's not about the block - it's all about the head, cams, variocam, etc



to repeat though, i am certain it can be done - reworking the manifold to fit the larger 968 head will be a challenge, as will working around the variocam - the rest is fairly straightforward and typical, though getting it to run clean enough to be "right" will also be a challenge (it isn't truly right if it doesn't meet the emissions standards of stock)



even guys who have done 8V engines can't seem to get them to idle right (840rpm)



i think the problem is two fold



1. people cheap out too often and don't get the tuning right



2. people too often seek a number that is too high for the setup - i doubt that anybody will ever get over 400hp on an engine that is perfect for street, and will always involve a compromise



for what it's worth, i ran into the same issues with the supercharger - there is a very real limit to what can be done and have it run just like it was stock

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

so, if you know of a 968 engine using a 968 head, cams, etc, that is turbocharged, idles right, doesn't overheat, doesn't run dirty, yada yada, please let us know - we'd all like to know that it can be done



but, please do not bring up some cobbled together replica of a 968 engine - no matter how it might look, it just isn't the same thing - it has to have a 968 head, cams and variocam - that is wherein the problems lie

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

[quote name='flash' timestamp='1296093445' post='104134']

the 944 engine is in no way the same as the 968 engine - you really need to do a lot more reading up on that one - there is a very long list of things that are different - that is a very common myth - it's not about the block - it's all about the head, cams, variocam, etc

[/quote]



Ive done my homework here, and opened up my wallet. The main difference is in the cylinder head. Which becomes a moot point if you dont use the 16v. The only thing other than cylinder heads, is stroke. The 944 NA uses the shorter stroke crank from the 2.5. Making it a 2.7, with the 104mm bore block. the 968, and 944s2 use the same stroke, but the 968 crankshaft is 5 lbs lighter. Actually if IIRC correctly, the 968 crank had a 944 part number on it. Its been in the motor for years now, so dont quote me on that. Exlpain any other differences in the bottom end, I would be grateful to know.



The cylinder head is different. The s2 head IIRC, doesnt have variocam. But does have a 16v dohc. Or maybe the last of the s2's had variocam, then it went into the 968 line. Id have to recheck that one for accuracy.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

but that is the entire point i am making - using the 16V 968 head has not worked



the 968 head has much larger ports - very different and will not bolt up to the manifold people use



the cams are different



the variocam is a huge issue



i know there are other differences in the block too, but pete could tell you a lot more about what they are



i just sent you a PM with my phone number - i fear my tone is not getting across the way i'd like

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

[quote name='flash' timestamp='1296094192' post='104138']

so, if you know of a 968 engine using a 968 head, cams, etc, that is turbocharged, idles right, doesn't overheat, doesn't run dirty, yada yada, please let us know - we'd all like to know that it can be done



but, please do not bring up some cobbled together replica of a 968 engine - no matter how it might look, it just isn't the same thing - it has to have a 968 head, cams and variocam - that is wherein the problems lie

[/quote]



IIRC the link I provided uses a 968 top end, and bottom. Joe's car is just one example. Albeit in a 951 tub. Its still a 968 turbo motor.



"Joe Cervantes' car isn't just any modified Porsche 944 Turbo. Not only is it fully restored, it's also likely the fastest street 944 Turbo in the country. Using a 16-valve, fully built 3.0-liter four-cylinder engine from a Porsche 968, the beast puts out nearly 120 whp per cylinder at 1.45 bar boost (21 psi). At 2,900 lb, boasting a measured 194-mph top speed (with a re-calibrated 220-mph speedo), and cloaked by the most stunning black paint that Bidrawn and I'd ever seen, this 18-year-old wolf in sheep's clothing is still every bit a supercar by today's standards, and it's prettier than the day it rolled off the showroom floor."



http://europeancar.automotive.com/72826/...index.html



Cobbled together replica of a 968 engine? What is that suppose to mean?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i wouldn't trust that information - iron block?



it also does not say it has a 968 head, but only that it has a 16V head



it also makes no mention of how it runs, especially down low



note also the use of the custom intake manifold



as for the "cobbled together" comment - i was not taking any personal shot - i was merely saying that we need to stay apples/apples and not apples/oranges



and there is a reason that the company who did it is out of business



but did you notice the comment about the $200k it cost to get there?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

[quote name='flash' timestamp='1296094583' post='104141']

but that is the entire point i am making - using the 16V 968 head has not worked



the 968 head has much larger ports - very different and will not bolt up to the manifold people use



the cams are different



the variocam is a huge issue



i know there are other differences in the block too, but pete could tell you a lot more about what they are



i just sent you a PM with my phone number - i fear my tone is not getting across the way i'd like

[/quote]



Yes the top end is different than the rest. They all utilize the same basic bottom end though. People have used the 968 top end. Many have. It isnt considered the most reliable option, tho. Thats for sure. Its been done to the tilt though. The 2.7 head is tough, and you can port, and polish the hell out of it. Your probably about the internal specs on the 968 head vs 944 s2 head. Id have to check the books for that one. Bottom end, is mostly the same though.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i'm not arguing that the 2.7 head is not a simpler way to go - obviously it is



all i am saying is that i am still waiting to see one that uses a 968 engine in its entirety



i'll see what i can do about getting a list of what differences there are in the bottom half, but the top half is entirely different

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

[quote name='flash' timestamp='1296095063' post='104143']

i wouldn't trust that information - iron block?



it also does not say it has a 968 head, but only that it has a 16V head



it also makes no mention of how it runs, especially down low



note also the use of the custom intake manifold



as for the "cobbled together" comment - i was not taking any personal shot - i was merely saying that we need to stay apples/apples and not apples/oranges



and there is a reason that the company who did it is out of business



but did you notice the comment about the $200k it cost to get there?

[/quote]



Well fair enough. Its not the greatest source. Its all I could find on the fly via google for him. Ive talked to Joe personally about his car. We have the same builders, and hes up in Vegas. There are plenty more. Give me a few to compile.



What company is out of business? Raines is still doing business. Pretty sure he still has his shop in Scottsdale. Was talk of him retiring though.

I dont think he spent 200k. I think thats inflated. Im sure he paid plenty tho. Especially back then.



http://powerhausamerica.com/968t.htm

http://powerhausamerica.com/images/968t16v/dyno1.jpg

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

last i heard david gave up, and was selling his cars - note that there is no contact information on the link you posted



i think he might be still doing something out of his house though



i met him once - a real "gem" - for somebody in a very niche business, and at the time i was shopping for such a kit, he sure wasn't interested in making money



all i have heard from people who used him are complaints about how unfinished the work was, and how it still needed "a bit more tuning"

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

note that on that car on his site he also did not use a 968 head, and it is not in the list of parts for the kit either - he uses a different head, which again brings me back to saying that it has not been successfully done, or at least that we have not seen one

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

Raines is just one builder. He may have retired. Im gonna call around tomorrow, and get some info on different cars from different builders. I know its been done. Most people who are running them arent posting about it on the web tho, it seems. Ill give George D, a call in Tucson. IIRC hes running a 968 head, and cams. In a 951 body tho.



This is an overall subject of interest to me. Id like to keep the conversation open, I know there are people around here who could add to it. Ill use this thread to post dyno slips, pics, and data on the various turbo 3.0 motors, I havent seen much using the search that pertains to the subject, and the intricacies of it. Im sure more people in teh future will be interested in the subject of turbocharging our engines, and the differences between the years, whats compatible, and whats not. Just pushing the forced induction envelope in general.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i enjoyed the time on the phone last night - hope to see you out here soon



i'm all for the concept of pushing the envelope - no worries - i have always said that a 16V variocam would make the best turbo setup, but for whatever reasons, we can't seem to find anybody who has done it successfully and completely - all we find are half-assed attempts that don't run right



good luck

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Monstrous4Banger]

Flash: spoke to the builder of my 3.0. DJ at Don Jackson enterprises. www.donjacksonent.com The builder there, John Jackson, has dont quite a few 16v builds. Said theyve done 2-3 with the 968 top end, variocam, etc. They run great. He said there has been one guy who keeps blowing his engine, and expecting it warrantied. Something about detonation, too much boost, and low octane gas, the guy just doesnt get. Other than that, their builds are running great. No pics tho. You can call DJ if you want. Hes usually more than willing to talk your ear off. 602-997-2785 Thats all I had the chance to contact today.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[333pg333]

Search for Duke's car on RL under the title "Green Hunter dyno - 514 rwhp @ 17 psi"

968 motor, Vario stock cams, pump fuel, conservative tune etc....

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[craigawoodman]

500 rwhp and 600Nm of torque - that is ballistic. Surely there is more done than bolt on a turbo. To run 17psi, there must be intercooling, bigger injectors, de-compression of the engine, massive exhaust, etc, etc.



Either way - I am mightily impressed at the figures.



Now the prickly question - how does it drive. Lots of high HP turbo motors have huge lag due to running large turbos that take forever to spool up. I had a Nissan once in my youth that was like this - nothing - then it went off like a grenade - it just exploded from under you. The torque curve does not look too bad, but it does not give you the time it takes to run up.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[333pg333]

I tried posting a link to his thread but there seems to be a little 'glitch' in here that doesn't permit me to do so?



Running 17psi is nothing. I actually can't remember what intercooler he has in that car. Probably a custom front mount. Sure bigger injectors. There is a slight lowering of the c/r

but one of the strengths of this motor is in fact he hasn't gone back to the c/r of the '80s with 8:0.1 it's more like 9:5.1 from memory. In terms of driveability, well just look at the torque curve.

'Nuff said!!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.