Best 5 bucks spent on engine insurance.

[marcesq]

This upgrade is something I read about, and it was probably on this board, but I don't remember pictures.

Check out this article:

http://www.dietersmotorsports.com/tech/2002/3-2002.htm

Here are the pics:

Fitting on the left is the "3.6" fitting.

Notice the machined band on the 3.6 fitting which is again on the left.
Here is the part number: 901 105 361 01

What I did learn was that the part number is old, but the part has changed, such that the old fitting with the larger bore is no longer available. Don't let anyone tell you that they are already in your engine, because they are not unless the machined band is present.

[Doug Zielke]

This "upgrade" is also detailed in Wayne's new engine book.
I have the new fittings already installed on my motor's cam towers.
According to a few sources I checked with, this is a worthwhile mod, that is inexpensive and easy to do.

[Joeaksa]

My one question on this is with the later model 3.2 motors, valve guide wear is an issue. Decreasing the oil that carries the heat away from the heads might result in them wearing at a faster rate.

Anyone else ever brought this issue up with the new oil fittings?

Joe

[Speedy1]

Ok what is the part # and can we get them from our glorious sponsor?

[marcesq]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
My one question on this is with the later model 3.2 motors, valve guide wear is an issue. Decreasing the oil that carries the heat away from the heads might result in them wearing at a faster rate.

Anyone else ever brought this issue up with the new oil fittings?

Joe:

It is my understanding that the valve guide wear was a result of the seals used which caused the starvation in the first place. The article seems to say that since the bore is smaller this actually creates a greater pressure through the squirters. These fittings are on the 3.6s and they don't have valve guide problems.

Speedy: The part number is listed above.

[ChrisBennet]

Originally posted by marcesq
Joe:

It is my understanding that the valve guide wear was a result of the seals used which caused the starvation in the first place. The article seems to say that since the bore is smaller this actually creates a greater pressure through the squirters. These fittings are on the 3.6s and they don't have valve guide problems.

Speedy: The part number is listed above.

The restrictor will reduce the amount of oil going to the cam tower - and spray bars. It raises the pressure elsewhere but lowers it at the cam carrier. As for 3.6's not having guide problems, I could swear someone (Wayne?) posted that every 3.6 motor Jerry Woods tore down had premature valve guide wear but I can't find the post using the search mechanism. (I don't mean to construe that the guide wear has anything to do with the oiling.)
-Chris

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by ChrisBennet
The restrictor will reduce the amount of oil going to the cam tower - and spray bars. It raises the pressure elsewhere but lowers it at the cam carrier. As for 3.6's not having guide problems, I could swear someone (Wayne?) posted that every 3.6 motor Jerry Woods tore down had premature valve guide wear but I can't find the post using the search mechanism. (I don't mean to construe that the guide wear has anything to do with the oiling.)
-Chris

this is one upgrade I'm going to wait out.. may be a long wait for members to clock 50k miles. Who knows, maybe some engines will be doing a downgrade?? I never liked the whole idea when I first read about it, especially on a street 911............Ron

[SLR]

Thanks for that info!!
I'v just today ordered my'n

[Joeaksa]

Agree with Ron on this one. Gonna wait this one out.

Do not need more oil pressure and like lots of oil going to my cylinder heads to carry the heat away, at least for now until more information is out there.

Joe

[GIBSON]

Joe and Ron, mine are out of the engine and back on the workbench for now. I can't say that they should not be used, I just think I'll wait for more info as well. They may be great, then again they may be better for some motors than others. Hopefully, time will tell.

[Doug Zielke]

I'll consult JW on this one.
What he advises carries the weight with me.

[Joeaksa]

Doug,

Great idea about getting JW in on this thread! Would also wonder if Wayne heard anything on these upgrades from the Wood/Anderson engine clinic last week.

I just have not heard of a lot of valve train/camshaft failures on the 911 motor and its been around for eons, so to risk my 3.2 style motor to upgrade to a fix designed to help the 3.6 motor is not worth it just yet.

If the above guru's bless this, then its worth looking at but only then in my feeble mind.

Joe

[Wil Ferch]

Hey:
How 'bout this?....
With the new pieces, you have more oil pressure at the main bearings. Wouldn't that also give you more pressure at the squirters ( for the underside of the piston), that may then lower your operating temps even further??
---Wil Ferch

[pwd72s]

Also noticed that crush washers are involved here. IF I decide to make the "upgrade", anybody have size or part numbers on those? I ask this because I once spent a long time chasing down crush washers in this mostly domestic car, mostly pickemup truck, area of the USA...

[Doug Zielke]

Paul, they are 12 X 16 mm (P# 900 123 005 00 )

[pwd72s]

Thanks Doug. I'm still neutral on this one. But bitter experience has taught me to be sure that ALL parts that may or may not be needed are on hand...even a relatively simple project like this one. Have to admit, I'm inclined towards not making the change. My reasoning? What's there has worked, and I suppose well, for 30 years...

[Wil Ferch]

Well...
not exactly 30 years...maybe since 1984 when the Carrera tensioners were used in the first place....

This has a synergistic effect....the original Dieter report says plenty of oil still reaches the valve train...it increases main bearing pressure, and it may ( like I noted before) add pressure to the piston squirters. Taken all-together, this might then also mean I can go with a 10W-30 oil instead of a 20W-50, and gain a little hp ( less pumping losses).

Altogether... a good thing I would think ....

---Wil Ferch

PS - note that along with the smaller diameter hole of the niew piece ( 2.5 mm dia hole ...vs 6 mm)...the new piece is used with a new part number "hollow bolt" that screws onto the new piece, and lies underneath the banjo fitting. This new hollow bolt has a different number/diameter of holes too...it is actually "larger". My point? When you upgrade to the new fitting identified by the ring groove, maybe you should think of using the mating "hollow bolt", too.

[MotoSook]

I made the move to the smaller orifice fittings on my 3.0, and my oil pressure is way high on startup (probably a good thing to fight cold temp wear), but as the temperature increases, the pressure is slightly higher then the rule of 10psi/1000rpm. I did some research on this prior to the change and received some positive feed back on the change out. There were a number of folks on the fence at the time that responded. Some of the folks already posted reponses to this thread (Hi Guys.)

Porsche made this change in '91 on the turbos. According to a certain wll respected source, Porsche determined that the larger fittings were putting "too much oil in the cam housing with the use of modern synthetic and thinner mineral oils". Remember that the larger fitting design is a relic of the days when oils were not as well formulated as they are today.

I have a Words document with information and comments that I collected when I was researching this. I can send it via e-mail if anyone is interested. There are quotations and excerpts that are relavent. I don't feel comfortable posting it without permission from my sources, but I'll edit the doc to protect my sources and share it for the good of the community. I don't take any responsibility for how you use it, nor would the sources I quoted in the doc.

Souk
(best to use my work e-mail if you want a quick response; soukh@enengineering.com)

[Superman]

Manufacturers of new cars these days seem to be recommending very thin oil. I see 10w30 and 5w30, etc. The thickest stuff they seem to recommend might be 10w40. So, the oil used in testing these parts may have been no thicker than 30w synthetic.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Superman
So, the oil used in testing these parts may have been no thicker than 30w synthetic.

great cognitive processing.........Ron