It sure would be nice if these things were flat-8's
 

I have always thought: why did he stop at 6? I mean six is ok. Turbo's are ok, but turbos are so against the Porsche mentality of refined engineering. Turbo's break, they are working at the highest temperatures, and they have lag. Another pair of aircooled cylinders would be my preference. So why didn't that happen? Let just hope the 8 in 998 means cylinders. I know what everyone is thinking: the cars are ridiculously fast as they are so why more? Well another pair of cylinders would make it even faster, beat the competition even easier, more reliability, and the engine would sound even better!

I think the original concept was. Check this:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1206906292.jpg

(this image is available here on Pelican under the "misc 911 stuff" section. Looks like it eventually was the impetus for the 928. . .

Interesting, but I kinda' like the sound of the flat-6.

There are a few flat-12s out there I think, but you'll pay a pretty penny for 'em. . . :)

my next car will be an 8 or a 10 no mater what porsche does

enough with the sixes already, my gas miser is a four.

You might want to mention $$$s

and more weight in the rear where you don't want it...

... and length.... length.....

I understand that an 8 would add more weight in the rear. And I like that the engine is in the rear because it makes the cabin bigger. HOWEVER, the added weight of 2 cylinders and its associated "stuff" is just a little more than a turbo and its associated hardware and cooling (the benefits outweigh the costs because you have a naturally aspirated engine instead of turbo(s), meaning a longer lasting system.

I wonder if the new 998 will have a flat-8. The rumor is that it will be out in 2012. Boy I hope they put this six business aside. I mean the 356 evolved into the 911 by adding some cylinders. Its time to evolve the 911 into an eight cylinder machine.

I think they will need to move the engine forward, sort of a mid/rear hybrid if they want handling to be a good experience.

Like it or not the direction of future gas engines is small displacement (fuel economy- low CO2) 4 or 6 cylinders with variable cam timing, turbo and direct injection (power density - low installed weight).
8-10 cylinders is not compatible with these.

they made 8s and 10s as far as I know

I agree copbait, however that does not apply to supercars.

I love Porsches but I don't place them in the Supercar category. Porsche will go the direction I mentioned.
In the past Supercars came from Europe and they are going GREEN. Even Ferrari will follow the formula above. The political climate is forcing them.

i prefer 6; better engine balance, cheaper to rebuild.. less = more reliabiity

i dont care what porsche does, I refuse to buy anything new from that company until they fix their quality and failure issues

didn't they build a 914 with a flat 8 for a Porsche family member?

I'm not sure where you got your info from but 27 turbos have virtually no lag and the newer 996/997 turbos has even less lag.

I guess it's time for you to buy. I haven't heard of any widespread quality issues with the 997 series.

Oh, so we _must_ have eight or 12 cylinders? Oh, dear, I'm off next week to pick up a six-cylinder car for a week of testing, puts out something as yet undetermined in the low/moderate 500-hp range, does 0-60 in the mid-threes, goes damn near 200 mph, kicks the scheiss out of 997 Turbos and costs (ostensibly) $70,000.

Nissan GT-R, with a pissy little V6. I guess I just can't count high enough.

If they had built a flat 8, you would have asked why not a flat 12. Coming from the 4s of the 356 series, a 6 was a sensible upgrade. An 8 would have been overkill. I don't understand what's the fascination with more cylinders just for their own sake, like why the BMW M3 has to have 8 cylinders now.

Must have? No, turbo's work. Lag still exists no matter what you do to them, the 997 one doesn't have it as much but its just more complicated. I like the old 901 chassis mentality of very simple high technology.

The 8 would just make more sense. No reason it would have to be less green either. A 3.6 or 3.8 flat-8 would work too. Like the little ferrari V-12's and such.

Nissan? You're still driving a Nissan...

6 cylinder engines have near perfect vibrational dampening. They are very balanced and run smoothly, even without crankshaft counterweights. The power pulses work to cause vibrational nodes at the ends of the crankshaft. 12s in the 917 engine's configuration have a node in the middle, which is why Metzger put the power take off there. Even inline 6s have good first-order balance. I could go on comparing to 8 cylinder engines. Remember the problems with the 908? Even the flat-plane crank has a second-order vibration. The flat 8 is a complex beast.

The horizontally-opposed 6 cylinder engine is the perfect configuration to run smoothly and does not waste much horsepower with vibrational losses.

As for turbos, they can actually increase the efficiency of an engine by capturing waste heat from the exhaust. You can burn more fuel with the extra air if you want more power or you can keep the same fuel volume and run less static compression and suffer less pumping losses while still making the same power.

After all, fuel-economy minded VWs have turbos, along with direct-injection,etc.

The flat 6 in turbo or non-turbo form is just about the most effiecient engine that can be made.