I believe you could do that Jason, but you would have to order the entire assembly for each hose, and the rubber hose is only a small part of the cost of manufacturing such an assembly. In your case, it looks like the assembly would include both fuel rails, just as an example.

John,
Have you considered replacing the Porsche fuel line with AN and using adaptor fittings? I did such a thing in my old 3.2. Earl's sells a bunch of AN to metric adaptor fittings. It probalby wouldn't go with your theme, though of complete OEM parts.

Also, I worked well with Len from www.Autosportengineering.com in Mass. He's a Porsche guy and has run a shop for 30 years. Len has metric swaging dies and buys bulk German hoses and fabs up replacement lines for various applications I used him for my fuel line in the 3.6 conversion (I have the factory 993 rails and hoses), but also some soft oil lines.

You might contact him to see if he can help?

Good luck,

Doug

Thanks for the information Doug. I plan to contact them, for hope
springs eternal.

Yes I certainly have considered using AN fittings and switching to
braided stainless hose, and would do that before I replaced all
the metal lines and assemblies. I like especially the fittings from
Earl’s which are available in black color. It just all seems out of
place in this otherwise OEM car.

Actually I wouldn’t be giving it a second thought were it not for
the experience of Jason, and the doubts that failure has cast on
the SAE hose. Motronic fuel injection runs at about 55 pounds
max pressure and there are thousands of cars running around,
with all sorts of injection hoses in use. Neither is it anything
new……this car is 17 years old! So I am more than a little
surprised to find that the correct hose is this difficult to source.

But so far, the nearest thing I have found is SAE hose.

James

I like your attitude!

Here's another thought, since you may consider the AN route.

check out www.batinc.com . They sell metric fittings, but with AN hose ends, all in one. You don't need an additional AN adaptor to metric fitting. The fitting side of the hose end is threaded in metric. They are no different in cost to Earl's ends, either. I think this may be a viable option for you, too.

Good luck,

Doug

There must be a typo in the above post. batinc.com sells transformers,
power supplies and other electrical equipment??

sorry, www.batinc.net

Doug

Doug,
Thanks for that site. Several ways to solve the issue can be
found there. Before choosing to use AN fittings, there looks to a
better quality push-on hose available.

Jason,
Perhaps the most important finding on the above site is listed
under the MOCAL heading for fluid hoses. Look for Elastomer
Socketless hose and we seem to have found another possibility,
and very interesting indeed. AEROQUIP 332 PUSH-ON hose looks
promising, for using our old fittings. Tomorrow I am going to
check with the local Aeroquip shop and see whether it is in stock.
If not I will order some from the above site. This may be the
answer.

Well, today I did go over and get samples of the Aeroquip push-
on style hose. It certainly is good quality, but the outer cover is
fabric rather than synthetic rubber. The real problem is that this
hose is NOT available in 5/16 inch – therefore of no help to us on
the 964 fuel injection lines. I did have a productive talk with the
hose experts there though, and we all agreed that the SAE J30R9
hose (which I already have in place) is superior to the other
options we have been discussing.

Jason,
I also took off one of my hose sections to check it, because
you reported that you easily pulled the same hose off your fuel
rail barbs. I could not move that hose at all, and wouldn’t have
been able were my life depending on it. So, I still cannot imagine
anything other than a size difference. Either the barbs are
smaller on the 993, or perhaps you ended up with 3/8 inch hose
somehow. Honestly, this stuff is tight and there is not a hint of a
leak in any of the fittings.

Back to the finish-up on the front struts, which require a wheel
alignment whenever they are replaced. That because the
Camber adjustment is made at those two lower attachment
bolts. The car sets too close to the ground to easily do alignment
adjustments without placing the car up on a lift.

This photo illustrates that what one must achieve is zero camber
on the front wheels. That is they must be vertical when
unloaded. Here I have them on turn plates which allow the
wheels to settle on a bed of balls located between the two
plates. Otherwise, one could move the car back and fort to settle
the wheels after each jacking up. Here I note how far off the
camber is in terms of bubble position.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1171494235.jpg
Then take off the wheel for access to the adjusting bolts and
make the needed change by reference to a hub mounted bubble
gauge. It takes three off-and-on exercises with the wheels, but
soon they are both at zero camber, as needed.

Toe-in was checked next and found to be right on the money.
Then while at it, I checked the rear settings and found excessive
toe-in there. Haven’t figured a way to set the rears without a lift,
so that job will go out.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1171494342.jpg
I got the primary distributor coil replaced, and now all plugs are
firing as they should. If ever you do this job, you will find that it
is first necessary to remove a heat-sink plate, after first taking off
the two ignition switching units seen here. The manual will
advise that the switching units must be coated on the heat sink
side with a Bosch temperature conducting paste. Good luck
finding it! An alternative is available from Radio Shack, and seen
here in the small tube. It is called “heat sink grease”.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1171494439.jpg
With the plugs all firing, the engine running smoothly and no drops of any fluid to be seen………..tomorrow will be the road test.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1171494500.jpg

What will be your run-in procedure?

I ran mine up and down hills pretty hard after initial warm-up.

Steve,

My personal run-in procedure does depend upon the engine
type. This is a fairly modern example, and so (at least in my own
mind) not so critical, as to run-in (where the rings are
concerned). I have standard (not synthetic) 10-30 oil in the
system for break-in. The plan is to take it out on an unrestricted
road and run the car for about 30 minutes at what I consider to
be normal RPM; say about 3000.

Then I will take advantage of the open, empty, Nevada highway.
The plan will be first to pull over and make another check for fluid
leaks. That done, I shall go through probably 25-35 cycles of full
throttle to 100 MPH then coasting back to 40 or so; then open
throttle again, over and over again under full load.

Get it hot, then give it hell! That is the road test plan.

After that, I shall put it up on stands again for for additional drip
testing, probably for about a week. So far –So good, but I do not
wish to go forward with even the slighest leak, anywhere. After a
week, without a drop anywhere, well maybe it is OK!

If all is well, I will go for about 500 miles before the first oil
change/inspection, and valve adjustment, with all the mileage
done at highway speeds. When the first oil filter is inspected, I
expect to find a metal-flake luster, visible only in outside light, it
indicates that all is well. If I remember, I shall try to capture it in
a photo. But I don’t know whether such detail is within my
ability…photography is not my hobby. Split a can on a new
engine run, and you will know what is expected. After that first
change, the oil should be clean and pure.

With this specimen………….well, we shall see.

James,
Good luck! Hope everything works out to your satisfaction.

Doug

It was a great test ride. I took it out for about 1.5 hours, more or
less as I planned it. The engine runs great, and really comes
alive when going past 4,000 turns under full throttle.

A most enjoyable morning of motoring, which included a stop for
emission testing, as the license came due while I had the engine
apart.

Thanks again to all Pelicans who were kind enough to offer tips
and recommendations during this rebuild. I could not be happier
with the outcome.

James

HI James glad to hear the road test went OK and the car is performing as you would expect, did the car pass the Co% test OK for the license and did you need to set the addaptions on the engine and gearbox?

regards mike

Hi Mike,
Yes the car passed the emissions inspection as below:

HC PPM
2500 RPM.....LIMIT- 220..... READING- 1......RESULT- PASS
IDLE RPM......LIMIT- 220......READING- 1......RESULT- PASS

CO %
2500 RPM.....LIMIT- 1.2O....READING- 0.00....RESULT- PASS
IDLE RPM......LIMIT- 1.20....READING- 0.00....RESULT- PASS

I have not altered the settings from before the rebuild.

I stayed with factory OE fuel lines for my 964, I think it was axl911 that tried the SAE lines?

That was exactly what I did and then found at my first change.

Sorry for the error Jason........I ment to write Anthony!

Whatever you do - don't get old.

This week I am doing the first service on the engine since the
rebuild. It still runs sweet and there have been no issues to
resolve. It is at about 2500 miles and therefore due for oil
change and valve adjust. I had intended to include a photo of
the filter innards to illustrate the metal flake that I expected to be
present in the break-in oil, what with with new pistons and
cylinders wearing in. I didn’t take the photo because I just
couldn’t see any metal in the filter whatsoever. That did surprise
and impress me.

The only thing I have found to be a problem is the unexpected
failure of that set of aftermarket aluminum valve covers on the
lower or exhaust valves. They looked great and even had “Made
in Germany” cast into the inside surface (certainly they were not
made in Europe but in Asia). Anyway the pressure from the
normal expansion of standard, black rubber gaskets was too
much for the aluminum castings. They cracked and broke away in
two places………I didn't suspect anything because the failures
were on the upper edge and thus didn't cause noticable oil
leaking.


This photo illustrates the damage.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1181873031.jpg
And here is a somewhat closer look at one of the failures.
Needless to say, I am going to scrap them and replace the
magnesium original covers.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1181873112.jpg

Wow. Getting a 964 lower valve cover that does not leak seems to be a real challenge. I am ready to spend the $$$ on the Imagine Auto version, since all my efforts with the stock covers has not kept them from leaking.

Hi Chris,
Yes, the lower valve cover leaks can certainly frustrate. I
went over and looked at the Imagine site and their aluminum
covers. Do we know of anyone with first hand experience? Their
claim that the covers will never leak or warp………..sounds nice,
but has any member actually put them to the test? I am also
interested in them, but all I have to go on is the company claims.
A set of those would cost less than half of a new Porsche set. By
the way, EBS also has billet aluminum covers at about that same
price as Imagine.
For now, I have the originals back on. I seem to remember
that only one side was leaking before, so I have reversed the
originals to see whether the leak moves over too. I also
flattened them both on a glass plate with sand paper. I want to
leave the engine under-shield off and watch them closely for a
while, before deciding what to do next.

Just to warn people in the future, where did you buy those valve covers?

I used the imagine auto valve covers for my rebuild.
They seemed to work well. They are made from billet aluminum, very heavy compared to the stock covers.

For a 964 they dont have spots to mount the plug wire retainers.

Kirk

Thanks Kirk,
I had forgotten that you used billet aluminum on your engine. You
have a few miles on now so if they are not leaking that is nice
information to know.
For myself, I really so like the wire clips of the original style, and
they too were no-leak covers when new. It would seem that if they are
flat, as I have attempted to do with these, then the originals should also
be leak free. The design, with the compressed rubber gaskets should
last for many miles without leaks. Could it be that the black rubber
gaskets we are now getting are inferior? If I cannot resolve the leaks
on this set I probably will spring for a new OEM pair.

I think the leaking is due to them warping when they are torqued. Hence the 89/90 magnesium covers leaked worse than the 91-94 aluminum covers.
The IA replacement covers are heavy, thick billet aluminum which can't warp.

I am going to be dropping my motor again next week to begin installing a supercharger. So I will have a good chance to see what I did right/wrong on my rebuild.

I intend on tapping some holes in the IA covers to accept some plug wire clips at that time.

As far as I know I have had no leaking from anywhere on my motor. However I still havent managed to stop the leaking at the thermostat housing. I went in and tried to fix it once, and I have never been back to try again.

Kirk

Supercharger, eh? That will be fun to follow along!

Thanks Kirk,
I have been watching my own the past two days. Warming
up the engine (without driving so as to better isolate the leak
source – no wind factor), and then watching closely for leaks.
There is still one, a drop or two exactly in the center of the left
side cam tower bottom. It didn’t matter that I changed the
covers side to side, and it doesn’t look to be coming from the
valve covers anyway, but from the other side. I can only imagine
that it must be either a leaking rocker shaft or a leak at the
head/tower joint.
When the covers were off I checked the shafts carefully for leaks
and saw none.
So it is looking like an engine pull and resealing that joint. The
leak is so slight that it is very difficult to locate the exact source,
but I cannot think of anything else.

Further to the persistent oil leak I have watched since the
rebuild, as evidenced by a drop or two always present at the
bottom center of the 1-2-3 cam tower. As I previously stated, I
was hopeful that one of the rocker shafts was leaking, but alas
all were dry at the 2000 mile service. I could see that it wasn’t
the return tubes. They too were dry. That left only the sealing
surface between number two cylinder head and the cam
housing. Ugh!

So, last week it was R/R the engine, tear it down enough to take
off the left cam tower and reseal. Not necessary to take off the
heat exchanger or tamper with the intake stacks. The chain
housing likewise can remain in place. Have to break down the
chain sprocket of course and take out the cam. Later, you also
have to recheck the sprocket shims (they were still right) and
reset the valve timing. I was able to positively locate the source
of my leak. At the lowest point in the cam tower sealing surface
(it was #2 cylinder, as expected) is a dowel locating pin rather
than a stud, and I could see that the Three Bond sealant had
gone on too thin in that spot; it having skinned over, without
first sealing to the head surface.

The engine is back in now with considerable run time on it ……and
no leaks. Anywhere! The stock valve covers likewise are dry. So
this completes the engine rebuild sequence. Couldn’t be more
pleased with the final outcome.

Thanks to all for the many helpful suggestions along the way.

Bravo!
 

Well done! I envy your dry garage floor. For now, I am just dealing my oil leaks - looking to the wintertime for an R&R to fix them.

Cheers,

Congrats on the dry motor!

I had hoped to pull my motor out this week, but it took longer to finish drywalling/priming/painting the garage than I expected. So it looks like I will be pulling the motor in the 3rd week of July instead. (I have to go out of town for work for two weeks)

Oh well. The supercharger is sitting on my bench. I'll get it in eventually!

Kirk

Its interesting that James had this leak ...so I have been checking my rebuilt engine now with over 2800miles on it, and its still 100% dry.

Must have had some "engineering" bad luck.

Ian ...fingers crossed