[Walt Fricke]

Thanks, Bill

I've seen the diagram on that other thread in various places in the past and knew the general path for oil to the hydraulic rockers (which I would not want, but that's easy to fix - make them solid). I didn't know about the grooved cam journal.

I notice that these cam carriers are held to the heads by bolts, not studs, but that should not be too great a challenge if the holes and the locating pin are still in the same old places. Getting oil to the rocker shafts could be done by external lines if a guy didn't want to use cams based on 993 cores. Being pressure oiled (rather than spray through two holes) might improve rocker shaft and bushing longevity.

The real attraction for me for a race motor is the speed with which the 993 style rockers can be removed and reinstalled. That's a significant time drain with the pinch bolt system (which leads sometimes to foul language when done with the engine in the car). The bolt-on system would make lifters using the old cap end system for lash adjustment feasible for us Joe Sixpack racers who don't have a bunch of mechanics at our disposal.

But I just bought a set of 3.2 cam carriers for the 2.8 I am (eventually) going to assemble, so I'm not apt to be looking to experiment soon.

I am unrepentant for diverting this discussion, since the original question was answered quickly: 964 heads won't work with a 930 case. However, I would offer this observation: I think you could use 3.2 or earlier heads on a 964 case. I've seen 2.7 heads used on a 930 case despite the difference in head stud spacing. Of course it was expensive and required not only machining but also welding so the head washers and nuts had something better than a fin to bear against in one location.

Walt Fricke