New Supertec 3.9 for 87 Back date

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally Posted by winders

I was alive when Kennedy was President and vividly remember the first moon landing. I am hardly a "kid".

I drink my Scotch neat or with just a little bit of room temp water (preferably from the same water source used in the Scotch's distilling process).

Racing on the street is stupid. Gambling is almost as stupid. I don't do either. I don't consider betting $1 gambling...

Build an actual PCA GT3 race car. You don't have to be the one racing the car if you are too old and feeble. Just get a club racer (an actual amateur) to race the car you build. Let's pick an event at Laguna Seca....a PCA Club Race...to see whose race car is better.

You don't get to call me a poser unless you can prove that I am.

Oh, I am pretty sure you know you can't build an engine to compete with a William Knight engine. So this race will never take place.

Put up or shut up!

“I’m hardly a kid” and yet you speak with such childish naiveté.

A drive to and from Vegas is stupid, why? The rules are simple: get a ticket, lose the contest. That obviously suggests a benefit to obeying the law.
Then you proclaim that "gambling is stupid" and yet you gamble every time you strap yourself into your race car. You risk your life/health, a $200,00 car and in the microcosm, risk a $60K engine every time you shift. Why do you do it? To find a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance. And you do it for a trophy. That is the definition of gambling.

I am not going to build a $200K race car to prove to a poser that I can. My ego doesn’t need it.
As for your “you can't build an engine to compete with a William Knight engine”, have Billy come here and say that…you never fail to amuse… it hilarious.

[winders]

You, of course, know that I was using the word "gambling" in regards to its primary definition: betting money. I know, you think you are being clever.

I don't view racing as gambling. I view it as a calculated risk. I race in an attempt to extract the best from myself and my equipment. I have a hell of a lot fun doing it. I consider it an investment in my life experience. I certainly don't do it for a trophy. Of course I want to win...but that is not the reason I race.

Billy would never come on here and say anything like that. But, it's still a fact!

[Jeff Alton]

Henry, thanks for posting about the engine. Interested in your feedback how things work out with Italians. Yes, I am Carrillo/CP fan and user but still always interested in options when lead times require looking around....

Cheers

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally Posted by Jeff Alton

Can we talk a little more about the engine in question in the thread instead of someone continually challenging the the OP??? That would be nice. There was a time when 99% off the responses to a post were truly inquisitive and positive. Now? Well......

Henry, thanks for posting about the engine. Interested in your feedback how things work out with Italians. Yes, I am Carrillo/CP fan and user but still always interested in options when lead times require looking around....

Cheers

Hi Jeff. Thanks for you interest in the build. EFI really isn't my deal but we're having some fun teasing the possibilities and the trolls.
Different sources for quality parts that are getting harder to find, is a challenge. 25 years ago we started finding issues with sources [low quality, inconsistent supplies and crazy inconsistent pricing]. That is why we make as many of the engine specific parts as we can. Heads stud are a prime example. I got a kick out of watching old pistons turn into intake manifolds in my friends garage. I think my next project may be 225 fan rings [a light went off in my head] as well as peanut chamber heads from Dave (drgouk). Innovation is fun to watch a well. The "new" piston design for a 60 year old engine design from Fred (faapgar) is a great example.
I'll try to post more information about rods when I having some.

[rosenbergendo]

Originally Posted by winders

Nice car! Silver is my favorite color for a street 911!

Oh, new pistons, new cams, new ITBs, new headers...stuff like that. Maybe some stuff with the gearbox.

Same stuff here. Haltech ECU, RS 4.0 crank, 98mm Mahle pistons, Extreme heads, and some other fun stuff. Should rev to 8100 and make over 390 to the wheels.

[prschmn]

Some pisant comments here but My vote goes to Henry for style.
Spent 30 years racing open wheel SCCA and ani't got nothin to prove here either!

[winders]

That would be 98mm x 80.4mm so 3.638L. 390HP to the wheels seems a little optimistic. I am running a 3.6L setup (100mm x 76.4mm) with 12.5:1 CP pistons, GT3 crank, custom cams, AT Power ITBs, MoTec M130, 112 octane leaded race gas, custom Xtreme heads, etc., and I get 369 HP at the wheels.

Either way, you are going to have a lot of power in that light car! I think your tire bill is going to go up!

[Jeff Alton]

Originally Posted by Henry Schmidt

Hi Jeff. Thanks for you interest in the build. EFI really isn't my deal but we're having some fun teasing the possibilities and the trolls.
Different sources for quality parts that are getting harder to find, is a challenge. 25 years ago we started finding issues with sources [low quality, inconsistent supplies and crazy inconsistent pricing]. That is why we make as many of the engine specific parts as we can. Heads stud are a prime example. I got a kick out of watching old pistons turn into intake manifolds in my friends garage. I think my next project may be 225 fan rings [a light went off in my head] as well as peanut chamber heads from Dave (drgouk). Innovation is fun to watch a well. The "new" piston design for a 60 year old engine design from Fred (faapgar) is a great example.
I'll try to post more information about rods when I having some.

We do quite a few EFI conversions, always looking for new ideas/experiences. I have a set of Fred's pistons Enroute to us right now for a future build.

Interested in the Peanut heads as well. Been along time since I saw the thread on those....

Cheers

[Henry Schmidt]

Jeff, both Fred's pistons and my heads are an attempt to overcome the inherent defect in the hemi head design.
It is certainly easier to redesign a piston than create a new head. That is why David's CNC head is so intriguing.
I believe my peanut chamber head may be the ultimate in air-cooled 911 heads and David could be the answer to a production dilemma.
The ISMA 962 was limited to a single plug configuration so the factory created a squish chamber head to address detonation and my head takes that concept to a whole new level.

[rosenbergendo]

Didnt later 962's have twin plugs?

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally Posted by rosenbergendo

Didnt later 962's have twin plugs?

The latest 962 heads were 4 valve, single plug water-cooled. Much like a modern 996 GT3.
There were of course twin plug 962 air-cooled engines but the head I posted was a 962 head manufactured to comply with IMSA rules.
Twin plugging helps to control detonation but because twin-plugging was outlawed and fuel was controlled, Porsche sought a chamber design to produce more horse power.
We face detonation and fuel issues as well. My first design was single plug and the next design took advantage of both. Chamber redesign and twin-plugging.
The advantage of the peanut chamber is two fold. Detonation control and much lighter pistons [higher RPM with less stress]. We can make huge compression with a relatively flat top piston. For turbo application, we could even make a dish-top piston....controlling the frame-front starts to see endless possibilities.



Porsche of course realized the problem in head design when they started to build lean burn engines (CIS). The "squish chamber" piston is yet another example of flame control.

[bickyd]

When I said you guy should race, I should have used green font. I did not mean to derail the topic and for that I apologize. Dan.

[Neil Harvey]

The last 962 air cooled engines were twin plugged. These were 3.0L and 3.2L engines with 95.00mm bore. I was not around the early air cooled race engines, so single plug versions I have no knowledge of.

The US typically had the later 962 as the Europeans had the 956. From what I knew, IMSA rules required the feet behind the front axle line, hence the 962 difference to the 956 chassis. IMSA also figured the engine power of the twin plugged air cooled, single turbo engine equal to the rest.

The "C" version was worldwide, water cooled 4V pent roofed chamber and single plug.