need help finding titanium springs

[Trakrat]

Originally Posted by Ryan H

We have a couple sets of the Eibach valve springs in stock if you want to go that direction.

Thanks Ryan... what spring rate are they? and what material are they made out of?

[KTL]

Porsche valve spring specs are at the top of page 6

http://eibach.com/sites/eibach.com.m-america/files/catalogs/evs-catalog.pdf

The imbalanced flow of the 3.2 intake isn't its only issue. Yes, having it extrude honed to balance the flow across each runner is a big help. And slightly enlarging the throttle body is a proven modification to help the engine breathe more. But the issue of power peaking is the intake's physical shape creates the limitations from an RPM standpoint. The 3.2 intake basically hits a HP wall at 6200 rpm. Look at numerous dyno plots for naturally aspirated engines, with various cams and exhaust configurations, using this intake and you'll see the HP go over the peak @ 6200 and predictably fall off beyond 6200. I'm pretty sure that condition with the 3.2 intake is what prompted Porsche to do a major redesign the intake for the 964 3.6.

My point of mentioning this is that while your engine may be able to withstand 7500 rpm, you're not really gaining anything by going there if the power isn't there. A good example of this that comes to mind is the nice engine combo JeremyD built.

Oh Dyno we will go...

He did a good job of building a complete system of stuff that worked together- Mahle 98mm 9.8:1 compression pistons, 993SS cams, good exhaust, flow balanced intake, good final tuning. Made excellent power. Look at his dyno and you'll see the peak I speak of. Go to Steve Wong's 911chips.com website or look at his facebook page and you'll see those 3.2 based engines pretty much all have the same peak around 6200 or slightly above. When you look at the dyno plots you'll see pretty much none of them go beyond 7000 rpm. Sure, they're looking for the power peak and that's why the dyno plot is terminated at 6500-7000. My point is nobody's pushing them out to 7500 to see how much power the engine is making out there because there's no benefit in going there.

Most of the feedback you'll mine from around here with respect to the 3.2/3.3/3.6 rods is cursory DIY sort of experience with them. Look a little deeper and you'll see the pros tend to shy away from them because they aren't willing to take the risk and they've seen some failures to substantiate that concern. I suspect this concern is biggest in the larger bore engines like the 3.6 with the big 100+mm pistons. The bigger the piston gets, the rod is exponentially stressed by that larger mass. In a 3.4 with 98mm pistons, maybe the loads on the rod are still in the safe zone.

Speaking of rods, if you're thinking Carrillo I would also look at Pauter. They make a really nice rod, are fantastic folks to work with in terms of support (i've sent them a few sets of their rods to be inspected and reconditioned) and they'll make whatever you specify for the price of a standard set of rods. If you're looking at lightweight this and that in the engine, they have a set of their 3.2/3.3/3.6 replacement rods that are a lightweight spec and save 30g per rod over their typical 3.2/3.3/3.6 rod. 30g is a LOT of weight savings. Or just get titanium rods like Matt said

Porsche Rods - Pauter

EDIT: And take a look at the different rods on that Pauter page. Look at the second to last column titled WT OA (overall weight). Notice how the 2.0/2.2 rods differ by SEVENTY SIX grams between standard and lightweight. The 3.0L SC style rod differ by FIFTY NINE grams. Whereas the 3.2/3.3/3.6 rods differ by only 30. That leads me to believe there's something inherently different about the sizing of the 3.2/3.3/3.6 rod that limits its strength. Seems like the big end (BE) of the 3.2/3.3/3.6 rod is not as beefy and that limits its strength? Just a broad, wild-azz assumption/observation on my part.

[Trakrat]

Originally Posted by KTL

Porsche valve spring specs are at the top of page 6

http://eibach.com/sites/eibach.com.m-america/files/catalogs/evs-catalog.pdf

The imbalanced flow of the 3.2 intake isn't its only issue. Yes, having it extrude honed to balance the flow across each runner is a big help. And slightly enlarging the throttle body is a proven modification to help the engine breathe more. But the issue of power peaking is the intake's physical shape creates the limitations from an RPM standpoint. The 3.2 intake basically hits a HP wall at 6200 rpm. Look at numerous dyno plots for naturally aspirated engines, with various cams and exhaust configurations, using this intake and you'll see the HP go over the peak @ 6200 and predictably fall off beyond 6200. I'm pretty sure that condition with the 3.2 intake is what prompted Porsche to do a major redesign the intake for the 964 3.6.

My point of mentioning this is that while your engine may be able to withstand 7500 rpm, you're not really gaining anything by going there if the power isn't there. A good example of this that comes to mind is the nice engine combo JeremyD built.

Oh Dyno we will go...

He did a good job of building a complete system of stuff that worked together- Mahle 98mm 9.8:1 compression pistons, 993SS cams, good exhaust, flow balanced intake, good final tuning. Made excellent power. Look at his dyno and you'll see the peak I speak of. Go to Steve Wong's 911chips.com website or look at his facebook page and you'll see those 3.2 based engines pretty much all have the same peak around 6200 or slightly above. When you look at the dyno plots you'll see pretty much none of them go beyond 7000 rpm. Sure, they're looking for the power peak and that's why the dyno plot is terminated at 6500-7000. My point is nobody's pushing them out to 7500 to see how much power the engine is making out there because there's no benefit in going there.

Most of the feedback you'll mine from around here with respect to the 3.2/3.3/3.6 rods is cursory DIY sort of experience with them. Look a little deeper and you'll see the pros tend to shy away from them because they aren't willing to take the risk and they've seen some failures to substantiate that concern. I suspect this concern is biggest in the larger bore engines like the 3.6 with the big 100+mm pistons. The bigger the piston gets, the rod is exponentially stressed by that larger mass. In a 3.4 with 98mm pistons, maybe the loads on the rod are still in the safe zone.

Speaking of rods, if you're thinking Carrillo I would also look at Pauter. They make a really nice rod, are fantastic folks to work with in terms of support (i've sent them a few sets of their rods to be inspected and reconditioned) and they'll make whatever you specify for the price of a standard set of rods. If you're looking at lightweight this and that in the engine, they have a set of their 3.2/3.3/3.6 replacement rods that are a lightweight spec and save 30g per rod over their typical 3.2/3.3/3.6 rod. 30g is a LOT of weight savings. Or just get titanium rods like Matt said

Porsche Rods - Pauter

EDIT: And take a look at the different rods on that Pauter page. Look at the second to last column titled WT OA (overall weight). Notice how the 2.0/2.2 rods differ by SEVENTY SIX grams between standard and lightweight. The 3.0L SC style rod differ by FIFTY NINE grams. Whereas the 3.2/3.3/3.6 rods differ by only 30. That leads me to believe there's something inherently different about the sizing of the 3.2/3.3/3.6 rod that limits its strength. Seems like the big end (BE) of the 3.2/3.3/3.6 rod is not as beefy and that limits its strength? Just a broad, wild-azz assumption/observation on my part.

Great information as always!! Thank you for this.
as for the power above 7000rpm... I completely understand this... but my thought is that I'm not really looking for more power above 6200rpm, but having an engine that is reliable to wound up to 7500rpm (if needed) as fast as possible.
This will allow me to shift into the next gear with that much added power going in. In an auto-x course, sometimes I have to make a 1 second decision to either stay within a gear on a turn or shift up to the next gear. If I can wind out the engine a little longer without hurting it, it will help me maintain speed through the turn and shift up once out of the turn within a better powerband.