|
Since this thread has devolved back into a head stud debate, I'd like to share an anecdotal experience of my own. This is about engine component choice in general, nothing specific.
I used to have this friend that wrenched on/restored Ducatis. He was known internationally, and guys would ship their bikes to him for service. One day I was out at his place while he was building a hot rod 900SS motor. This was back in the 90's. so my recollection is spotty... Anyway, I recall asking him why he wasn't using the latest widget I had read about in his build. I design engines for GM, and at the time I was in the Advanced Design group. It was my job to invent things, remove mass, push envelopes, all in the name of improved performance, increased durability, and/or cost reduction. I couldn't understand why Gregg would leave potential performance gains on the table. And then the penny dropped... At my job, I had engineering and analytical support. Lots of it. More importantly, I wasn't writing the cheques. Like any really good mechanic, Gregg stood by work. If he built an engine that failed, he ate it. The point is: why would he -or any other engine builder- take on the risk of an experimental component? Maybe that widget would have yielded an extra couple of horsepower. So what? Unless the client's name was Casey Stoner, he wasn't going to be able to use that additional power.
That's not to say that Gregg wouldn't eventually use said widget. He just wouldn't do so until there was enough data in the community to support it.
As for 993 head studs, I have to disagree with Henry. I would call a fully threaded head stud an abomination. And I'd bet next month's pay cheque that there was no engineer at Porsche pounding his fist on the table hollering, "We MUST use a fully threaded stud, because it's BETTER!!!"
That conversation much more likely went, "Yah, I know it's ugly, but it meets our Bill of Design... And it'll save us six bucks an engine."
|