Interesting thing I learned about the 996 and the track last weekend...
 

I learned this information while at the Jerry Woods / Bruce Anderson class last week. Let me start by saying I don't know too much about the 996 (or didn't until last week).

Here are some factoids:

- The 996 engine and Boxster engine are very similar, if not nearly identical
- The 996 engine is *not* raced by Porsche.
- The GT2/GT3 and SuperCup cars do not use the standard 996 watercooled block. They use a derivative of the 993 engine - a sort of 993 with water cooled heads and pistons.
- The engines used in the racing 996 is not the 996 engine, but in fact, this modified 993 engine.
- The most obvious difference is that the 996 engine is a wet-sump engine, and the 996 race cars are dry sump engines.
- The 996 Turbo uses this 993-based engine. It is not simply a turbo-charged NA 996 engine
- The GT2/GT3 is the same as above.
- Porsche does not race the 996/Boxster engine, nor do they sell the car in a race form with this engine (to the best of my knowledge).

Interesting stuff. My conclusion would be that the 996 engine is not really a race-worthy engine? Although putting out 300+ HP, it hasn't been endorsed by the factory for racing.

I'm sure this will incite some discussion...

-Wayne

Porsche Motorsports will modify the 996 oil system to be 'race-worthy,' but allowing them to do so will also (ironically) void the Porsche factory warranty on the car. Boxster owners who have put in claims for engines blown (on the track) under warranty, have been told that track use is not considered normal use and is not covered.

It's a sad day indeed when Porsche don't consider it normal for their cars to be driven on the track... :(

Oh yes, definitely a turning point for the company. No longer can they be thought of as race cars made street legal.

Also it makes the 993 engine (and it's variations) look like one of the very best ever 911 engines if they are using it as their preference over the later engine types.

There are still a lot of problems with the 993 engine though...

-Wayne

Re: Interesting thing I learned about the 996 and the track last weekend...
 

I don't think the 996 engine is that bad. It's just that the factory already has the 993 based architecture so well developed after all these years it probably makes more sense to use that. The 993 based engines have a lot more exotic design components and metals which make them more suitable for racing but less suitable for the bottom line.

In terms of horsepower per litre, the 996 3.4 is better even than a 993 RS while being quieter, cleaner and more economical. I'd think that most other manufacturers would be very pleased to have that engine in their line up.

Wayne, I'm curious, what problems are you referring to? Thanks!

Just as an aside, can someone explain to me the difference between wet and dry sump? I have never understood this.

Thanks,
Jeb
'79 930

A wet sump is referring to an oil system where all the oil drains to the bottom of the engine and then stays there. It goes directly from the bottom of the engine into the rest of the oil system.

A "dry" sump is an oil system where the oil draining to the bottom of the engine is picked up and put into a separate tank.

I'm just guessing here but I think that the advantages of a dry sump over a wet one is that under heavy acceleration (both in the left-right and forward-back directions) the oil is not sloshed as much, guaranteeing an even, constant supply of oil. With a wet sump there's also the possibility for a large amount of oil to hit the crank and possibly giving poor performance from the extra friction. I would think that internal combustion engine’s that run at extreme angles, such as serious 4 wheel drive trucks need a dry sump to avoid having a lot of oil slosh into pistons.

A dry sump also lets an engine have more oil in it's system than what could but with a wet sump. There's no way you could get 12 quarts of oil in a chevy smallblock and have it run, but our dry sumped 911 engines take that much and they're overall a much smaller engine.

The wet sump on the other hand is cheaper to manufacture since it doesn't require a separate tank and a second pump.

note: a "dry" sump is never really dry, there's almost always going to be at least a little bit of oil in the bottom.

just my slightly educated 2 cents

Wet sump is what most cars have, in that the oil sits in the bottom (sump) of the engine. Dry sump means that the car has an external oil tank (like older 911s). Dry sump is considered better for racing because at high lateral G-forces, the oil in a wet sump system may be pushed to the sides of the engine and the oil pickup in the sump will not have a sufficient amount of oil to circulate through the engine. Dry sump also minimizes frothing and aeration of the oil.

I think that perhaps Wayne is confused. I think 996 and Boxster engines use an integrated dry sump system, which seems like a wet sump, but is really just a large oil tank at the bottom of the engine.

Wayne:
This shouldn't be all that surprising. When the 996 articles first appeared, this was a well-documented fact of how the 996 architecture is *not* the basis for the racing or Turbo versions of the 996. A quick way to tell is that the "old" ( race-worthy) design has the cam drives on the same side of the engine, near thje back of the car ( left and right bank), whereas the "street" versions, for sake of manufacturing similarity, will have one bank driven near the back-end of the engine, and the other bank driven near the firewall end of the engine.

Also..the street 996 is considered to be "semi" dry-sump...essentially a blend of the two styles with the "tank" incorporated with the engine, and not mounted to the chassis with external rubber oil lines...as were the 911/993 series.

This point of newer Porsche's not being as race worthy goes further. In the past, street cars and racing versions used Mahle pistons, Recaro seats, dry-sump oiling, etc etc...whereas now only the Cup or racing cars use these premium products....street cars seats are made by Lear-Seigler ( makers of the Pontiac Trans-Am seats !), shocks by Monroe ( not Bilstein or Koni), wet or semi-dry sump oiling ( not pure dry sump), Lucas ( ! ) not Bosch power brake boosters....yep, no wonder they're the most profitable car maker on the planet. They're cashing-in on the old-way "image" ,.. yet they're building Japanese cars at German prices:eek: They may work better in some cases...but the deep-to-the-bones craftsmanship and premium pieces are no longer there. When I park my 1990 Eagle Talon ( Mitsu Eclipse) next to a new generation 996, I don't see much difference in the build philosophy, nor in the interior materials/design, either. Only the Talon didn't cost $70K.

Thank God I've still got my 85 Carrera !
---Wil Ferch

I'm sorry to say I agree with you Will. I will not buy a 996 for myself because of the facts you list, and because I don't like the way it looks either. The Boxster at least looks good in dark colors with the hardtop on. I said it before and it seems like it may ring truer now ... Porsche sold its soul to feed its greed. Good thing they built some cars that seem to last forever...

Will, I agree with you and think I am going to be sick...http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/...s/pukeface.gif

So if one takes their new Cryin' to the Rubicon, does it void the warranty?

I agree that the 993 was the last real 911 variant... I would not be interested in a standard 996; a GT2 however, hmmmmm...:cool:

ps. Dry sump also allows for a lower center of gravity, a big consideration when the original design was done. Just compare the 911's motor location to any other standard road vehicle, and you can see that the mass is amazingly low down.

Thom:

Amazinly, YES! Fitting slicks on your C2 and taking it to the auto-X will void your engine warranty...Feel free to call dealer and ask. It's sick...

Lucas as brake-booster subcontractor? Lucas as "Lucas the inventor of darkness"??? Lucas as "english car electricals Lucas"?
:eek: :eek:

Yea, remember the early Lotus ' with massive electrical problems....??

Electrical by Lucas

>>Boxster owners who have put in claims for engines blown (on the track) under warranty, have been told that track use is not considered normal use and is not covered<<

Who was STUPID enough to tell the dealer that they blew up their motor on the track?

Used to be if something broke it went back to the dealer, and they would be happy to repair. Wanted to keep you as a customer, keep you happy and coming back ect. Now, there is NO Customer Service. They DO NOT care about us, and if they are nice it's bacuase they are worried about keeping their job. If they can't MAKE $5000 + profit off of you, they will happily show you the double wide door(won't even as much as escort you there anymore). This was an exerp from another current thread...



True, but that is why prices keep going up....or so it should be...

Vehicles have become cheaper quality, and even borderline junk right off the lot, last 1/3 as long as they used to, and cost 4X as much....
Then the companies say they have strict emissions, environment ect to conform too. Ok, that will cost some more money, but that is what the cost cutting was suppossed to be for. It's all BS, and all about bottom line and profits. Companies using their past success and their "name" to sell cars. It is rediculous but everyone buys into it, so it will continue. It's US consumerism, and the reason the economy even now is so much better than in other conuntries is because of it. Buy, buy, buy. Consume consume, throw away and buy more, It is at it's peak for the highly image conscious. I just bought a new $40000 SUV which has orange peel, broken interior parts, and an oil pressure problem. It's disgusting and will not change unless a large amount of "old schoolers" do something about it.

I can hear it now. "I was....um....just driving my daugher to school....and.....um....I heard this terrible noise.....and.....uhhh....it just....uhh....started.....smoking....yeah, yeah thats it....it was really black smoke.

Nick.

It’s amassing to me how all the evil of the new world is paralleled by how Porsche all of a sudden turned from something noble into something very bad by a) introducing the 996 b) introducing the SUV, c) continuing to remain one of the last independent and profitable car manufacturers.

Unfortunately, I was too young to have knowingly witnessed similar discussions when the 901 was introduced over the 356. Or how about smaller milestones like doing away with carburetion or putting evil silicon chip-based computers into the engine…..Well, there wasn’t internet then, another of those new evil technologies.

I agree that a 996 is a totally different animal from the earlier cars. But it is fun to drive, nevertheless

Ingo

Jeez Wayne, where have you been? This has been discussed on this board a number of times already.

Just had a 996 TT in the shop the other day, and it was amusing to look under the car and see a 964 engine case staring back at me. The oil tank is separate, but attached to the side of the case on the right side. Seems you need a true dry sump in real racing.

Tyson, let me answer for Wayne to save him some time:

In Wayne's voice.

"You guys are really something. I don't spend 10 hours a day on this board checking every thread. I get on once and a while and I read what I feel is relevant or interesting, so I must've missed the earlier discussions on the 996 engine. After all I am running a company and writing a book. Sheesh."

Well ... having "stirred the pot" ....let me take a more centrist view and offer that ... "all is not lost"....

Certainly, if one looks at how the car may function in 90% of the situations encountered, one can argue that the 996 series is "better"..in that the car behaves much better at the limit, is easier to drive, has better ergonomics, better heater, functioning A/C, etc.

Using an extreme example....it's like comparing a new , throw-away razor with the elaborate , mechanical versions of yore, where you popped-in a blade and twisted a knurled knob on the handle to capture the blade. Today's razor ( with "comfort strip" !) will probably shave much better with less nicks, but there is no denying the mechanical appeal of the old razor...it's heft and it's mechanical "feel". And it's "permanent" nature ( not a throw-away). I think much of this comparison can be made between the 911/993 vs the 996. The newer item may "function" better in real world applications, but it does not give the same pride of ownership or feel. The thing that continues to upset me with regard to this example is that today's plastic throw-away razors are *not* priced as high as yesterday's mechanical device. Yet Porsche is pulling this right over our eyes....I'd be less angry if the 996 cost $35k, as it probably should if you look at it in a cold-light. Could some of this explain why the 996 depreciates like a rock..the first "911" series to drop that fast?

A further example on a car level might be this....a new Z06 might perform even better than a 996TT ( at closer to Boxster prices !)...but many of us, even the HP junkies....prefer a 911 ( of any type) over the plastic-fantastic tupperware car ! Why? Because of the many other factors that give you satisfaction in driving, like the size/shape of the car, the feel of the controls , the apparant build quality , reputation, etc.

I hope the coming 997 addresses some of these issues. Certainly, the more coke-bottle shape of the 997 will remind us more of the 993 instead of the 996. Hopefully, that car won't void it's warranty when fitted with slicks ...

---Wil FerchSmileWavy

Talking about depreciation, did anyone notice BA's Market Report regarding the 90-98 cars. The 993s seem to have taken a $10K drop in the last year alone! Even a 98s can be had in the low to mid $30s. Granted one in excellent condition comands a $10K premium.

And what does this have to do with the 996? The perception of the disposable car, the 996 (?), may hurt the earlier car in the public eye. While the 996 may actually increase the value of the earlier cars to the enthusist, it will effect the enthusist to the extent the market value and insurance companies will place a value on the earlier cars.

It has begun...The fall of an empire.....

SAVE US 997!!! SAVE US!!

my mechanic used to work at Porsche back in the seventies. Periodically, he complains about new parts, new designs, etc. His explanation paraphrased:

"When the bean counters took over the reigns from the gnomes of the Black Forest, it all went downhill."

Uhh, with all due respect, I don't think I'm confused. Well, if I am confused, then Bruce Anderson and Jerry Woods are confused as well.

The 996 is a wet sump engine, by definition. They do a lot of things to make it work like a dry sump (baffles to scavege and scrape the oil, etc.), but it still is a wet sump. The Turbo, and the 993, etc is a dry sump, and thus do have that familiar 964 case.

john_colasante - thanks! You guys must know me pretty well right now...

-Wayne

I don't know the answer, but I do recall reading an article and looking at a cutaway of the Boxster engine, and it was described as a "dry sump" system, but with the oil tank integrated into the engine block.

Here's how the factory describes the Boxster engine:

"Mid-mounted, water-cooled, horizontally opposed six-cylinder with aluminum alloy block, heads and pistons. Integrated dry sump lubrication, dual overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder w/VarioCam variable valve timing system."

And you haven't touched on the plastic interior yet. Even Excellence magazine feels the leather interior should be a standard over the cheapo plastic look.

I have never looked closely at all that 996 interior "chrome". Can someone tell me if it is real chrome on metal, or chrome finish on plastic? In which case it is going to look like poopie when it gets old and starts to peel away.

what chrome? Are you referring to the Aluminum doorhandles, shifter, shifter boot ring, emergency brake handle, etc? Well some of it is real others is painted from what I understand.

Ingo

A local guy bought one of the first boxters in '97 and then discovered track driving. At 15,000 miles, the tranny went out. Even though about 10,000 of those miles were on a track somewhere, not only was the tranny replaced under warrenty, but the factory wanted his old one to see where it failed. He was told that the car is a Porsche, and it better stand up to track duty.

I guess something has changed since then. Sad.

I'm not saying that the 996 is a bad engine or a bad car - just merely pointing out that it seems more oriented towards the street rather than racing.

Yes, I know that the factory calls this an integrated dry-sump system. Kindof a play on words if you ask me.

-Wayne

I don't want to get into a semantic argument, but, as you say, the factory calls it an integrated dry-sump system. That is the information I was using. In any case, your point about not using external oil tanks is valid.

ism
 

i am into porsheism i dont care for any other ism.

Hey I found a integrated dry sump for a SBC. ;)

Yes, they do offer true dry sump stuff too. It just costs a bunch more.


http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=4187&view=2047


What % of 986/996 buyers know they have a oil sump of anykind?

Re: Interesting thing I learned about the 996 and the track last weekend...
 

Can anyone elaborate on this? Are just the heads water cooled, like a late 935 or 962, or is there more to it?

Thanks,

Tom

I've stopped lusting for a new Porsche after the 993 for exactly the reasons posted. It looks like a Ford Probe at some angles (if you hide the 911 rear side window profile). The engine is not a derivative of a Le Mans winning racer (i.e. GT1 of late and last of it's breed). The only Porsche that carries on that tradition are their ultra expensive Turbos and GT2, GT3 which are not readily available for mere wage earning mortals (which the pre-993's were if you wanted a stripped down standard version). The Porsche warranty is revoked only if you blew the engine or other components by fitting race tires and/or suspension (specifically invoked in their owner's manual and warranty disclaimer (for those who read that kind of stuff!). I saw all those differences Wayne discovered and posted before the first 996 came on sale from reading carefully about the design specifications from Panorama and Christophorus in 1998-2000. The fact that the new 996 is a sales success was partly timing and capitalization of the Le Mans victories before Porsche stopped racing competition. Ruf who sells modified Porsche have always pointed out that the new 996/Boxter engines were built to a looser spec range (Horsepower would vary more than 3% car to car whereas for the 993 and earlier models that 3% was the standard variations in build quality!). Now in order to get a good proper Porsche you still have to avoid their lower priced products (if you can relatively acknowledge $90K 996 tarts to be lower priced than $125K Turbos). Finally, thank god there are lower priced pre-owned great Porsche for sale to give one the joy of driving in it's finest form!

I haven't seen a cutaway drawing of the 996 engine but if the "integrated oil tank" isn't open-topped and sitting below the crank then it is indeed a dry-sump engine.
While this design yields a manufacturing efficiency, it also eliminates another source of oil leakage (there's a lot of those on our 901/911/930 engines: crankcase seam, oil return tubes, oil lines, ect.).

In addition to the advantage of eliminating oil starvation in high-g situations and reducing oil foaming, the dry sump eliminates the windage losses caused by the crankshaft counterweights splashing through the oil of a wet sump. These losses can account for a 10-20 hp loss at max RPM, depending on where the redline occurs.

They obviously like to play with words and names. They call the 996 a 911 http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/...s/fork_off.gif