Hey Stuka, re: 996 oil starvation

[Lartymarf]

Stuka,

I have read at a couple different forums that you absolutely disapprove of Porsche's design for the regular 996s by using wet sump engines. I was curious... does this design result in oil starvation all the time at the track? I understand there's an aftermarket kit you can install on the regular 996s to help improve this problem... but it will not be as good as the dry sump engines. Curious as to why Porsche still went with wet sump even though their prototype testing should have told them about the oil starvation.

What does one experience at the track under oil starvation conditions?
Any idea if the 997 will return to dry sump? Someone I know is planning to buy a 997 when it comes out, so that's why this popped into my mind.

Thanks!

[lemming]

porsche has refined the M96 engine design from its original release in 1999. that is the 296hp engine? it's an awful engine.

the M96 3.6 litre engine, i think, the first model year was 2002. it has variocam plus and has a "semi-dry" sump design.

now, i noticed, porsche at their website is calling the 996 a true "dry sump" engine. so that must mean more internal changes?

i think that they addressed some of the oil starvation problems with the M96 3.4 with the 3.6 litre engine, but it's still not a true dry sump design. there is no doubt you could, if you tried really hard, get the engine to run dry, but i think it's much less of an issue with the newer 996s.

the 997 will likely just be a continuous improvement of the M96 block. this engine is far cheaper to produce than the M64 (full dry sump block carried over from racing cars, used in all 993s, and used in GT2, GT3 and Turbo models). it's about 3 times cheaper. so they will probably use baffles, a new oil pan design and maybe a greater oil reservoir to try to get around the problem.

[Lartymarf]

Lemming,

Would it be under extreme condition before a wet sump engine will experience oil starvation? How about braking for a tight tight hairpin from say 100mph down to 10mph full on brakes?

J

[ayn]

how you drive at the track (drifting/trail braking), prolly happens quite often! :lol: j/k!

[lemming]

Lemming,

Would it be under extreme condition before a wet sump engine will experience oil starvation? How about braking for a tight tight hairpin from say 100mph down to 10mph full on brakes?

J

i forget what you're driving now, but if that car is okay under those conditions, i bet any 911 would be fine.

i don't think 911s are fragile by any stretch of the imagination, but the top 20% of owners who track the cars probably find the limits more often and for longer than any other marque's demographic. so they find the engine and car weaknesses much faster than most other marques' cars are characterized.

[lemming]

one more thing:

i bet you'd get a more detailed analysis/response from Hackernaut than from divebomber boy. Stuka would probably just write, "996s with M96 engine blocks suck".

;-)

[Lartymarf]

how you drive at the track (drifting/trail braking), prolly happens quite often! :lol: j/k!

I don't drift, but I do try to experiment with trail braking. I have no idea where Trixie got the "drift" part from... :lol:
So, it seems like we can take anyone for rides on the track, I'd tell you you are more than welcome to come out to TWS, but I don't want to put your life in danger.

[Lartymarf]

one more thing:

i bet you'd get a more detailed analysis/response from Hackernaut than from divebomber boy. Stuka would probably just write, "996s with M96 engine blocks suck".

;-)

HAHA! That is true. :smile:

I pilot an '03 m3 coupe with SMG around the track these days. I don't think I've ever experienced oil starvation before.. hehe.

[lemming]

one more thing:

i bet you'd get a more detailed analysis/response from Hackernaut than from divebomber boy. Stuka would probably just write, "996s with M96 engine blocks suck".

;-)

HAHA! That is true. :smile:

I pilot an '03 m3 coupe with SMG around the track these days. I don't think I've ever experienced oil starvation before.. hehe.

i think the "semi-dry" sump design of the m3 and m5 engines is more than sufficient for even 95% of track days.

:line:

i think it's more a theoretical than practical concern for most of us, unfortunately.

[Lartymarf]

i think the "semi-dry" sump design of the m3 and m5 engines is more than sufficient for even 95% of track days.

:line:

i think it's more a theoretical than practical concern for most of us, unfortunately.

Ahhh hahahaha. So, why does Stuka still hate it so much?? Most of the drivers (in track condition) won't be likely to cause an oil starvation problem then eh? Hmph....... I know I'll miss the SMG tranny A LOT if I traded it in for something else...

I didn't know the M3 and M5 engines where semi-dry, wet, or dry sump hehe. Now I know.

[ayn]

Like I said in my email, GT1! GT1! 6-speed sequential!

but no room for your golf bag, unfortunately! it is not a perfect world i guess...

[Lartymarf]

Like I said in my email, GT1! GT1! 6-speed sequential!

but no room for your golf bag, unfortunately! it is not a perfect world i guess...

Nothing is perfect... even super models like Cindy Crawford has to fart once in a while...

[The HACK]

one more thing:

i bet you'd get a more detailed analysis/response from Hackernaut than from divebomber boy. Stuka would probably just write, "996s with M96 engine blocks suck".

;-)

Not really. I'm not familiar with the 'Chops anatomy. Heck, I have trouble finding the dipstick in Stuka's pen*s extender (turns out he doesn't have one. The dipstick that is).

I'm still a little fuzzy on the concept between dry sump and wet sump, but the problem with the later Porkchop engines aren't with the actual lubrication system, but the main seal on the lube system. Also Stuka insist on the 996 TT, GT2 and GT3 using a better block than the normal boxster engines (Carrera, C4s, Boxster, BoxsterS, and Cheyenne none-turbo all use the same basic block).

EDIT: Found a great link explaining the difference between dry and wet sump:

http://www.apriliaforum.com/techtips/other/drysump.htm

Those things take like 14 liter of oil, does it not? I've heard of engine cooling problems on long, fast stretches though. Two years ago at California Speedway, a track notorious for it's long front stretch where you're at WT, redline going up to 170 mph a couple of Porsches were suffering from engine overheating.

[stuka]

Ahhh hahahaha. So, why does Stuka still hate it so much?? Most of the drivers (in track condition) won't be likely to cause an oil starvation problem then eh? Hmph....... I know I'll miss the SMG tranny A LOT if I traded it in for something else...

I didn't know the M3 and M5 engines where semi-dry, wet, or dry sump hehe. Now I know.

Because, regular 996 models are giant rip offs. :flame:

Think about it, a regular C2 is about 20K more than an M3. It doesn't have the 8K redline trick inline 6 engine, it doesn't have SMG, and it's not any faster than the M3, and to top it off, it has less room than the M3. :slap:

So, for 20K more, what do you have to show for?

A more advanced engine?

A more advanced tranny?

A faster car?

A sports suspension?

Tell me, why does it not suck? :?

[stuka]

i think the "semi-dry" sump design of the m3 and m5 engines is more than sufficient for even 95% of track days.

:line:

i think it's more a theoretical than practical concern for most of us, unfortunately.

Bottom line is, I think if you want to spend 70K on a P-car, it should be a prestine flawless speed yellow 993TT with painted yellow back (which I was not able to find). :cool:

Porsche did go backwards in engine design for the sake of corporate profit, and you really don't get jack for your 70K. Think about it, the guy driving a 40K 993 C2 has a true dry sump engine with no RMS problem, and you and your 70K 996 C2 has a wet sump boxster block with RMS issues. Yeah, the interior is nicer, and it has indash CD player, but you have got to be :crazy: to be taking a 996 C2 over a 993TT.

[stuka]

Not really. I'm not familiar with the 'Chops anatomy. Heck, I have trouble finding the dipstick in Stuka's pen*s extender (turns out he doesn't have one. The dipstick that is).

I'm still a little fuzzy on the concept between dry sump and wet sump, but the problem with the later Porkchop engines aren't with the actual lubrication system, but the main seal on the lube system. Also Stuka insist on the 996 TT, GT2 and GT3 using a better block than the normal boxster engines (Carrera, C4s, Boxster, BoxsterS, and Cheyenne none-turbo all use the same basic block).

EDIT: Found a great link explaining the difference between dry and wet sump:

http://www.apriliaforum.com/techtips/other/drysump.htm

Those things take like 14 liter of oil, does it not? I've heard of engine cooling problems on long, fast stretches though. Two years ago at California Speedway, a track notorious for it's long front stretch where you're at WT, redline going up to 170 mph a couple of Porsches were suffering from engine overheating.

My what what? :? You forgot my one month rule on the Turbo? No girl will even know that I have a Turbo until we have seen each other for at least a month. The expression on face of the last one was quite priceless. Her being used to my non-working passenger window, non working radio, and non-working passenger door lock 325is and out of the blue I showed up with the Turbo. :cool: I learned my lesson with Miss Oklahoma. :roll:

Anyway, 996's don't hold 14 quarts, but only about 8 to 9.

It's the fact that you are paying more and getting less than people did with the 993's that really p*ssed me off. :evil: If they wanted to use Boxster as the badge whore, fine, but to condemn all regular 996's with that lousy cheap a*s engine is just wrong. Oh, yeah, and then there's the truck. samurai:

[lemming]

all of us need a little stuka and hack in our daily lives.

reading stuff between you two is like watching two old grumpy married people yell at each other while you're saying the same things in different words.

:lol:

in summary: 996 c2s suck.

:D

[FC]

all of us need a little stuka and hack in our daily lives.

reading stuff between you two is like watching two old grumpy married people yell at each other while you're saying the same things in different words.

:lol:

in summary: 996 c2s suck.

:D

I thought we had settled this in my "definitive 911 thread."

Anyhow, while this is true, what about a 5-year old 996? They are already plummeting in resale and offering steep discounts. After the 997's come out, they will be very "cheap". Probably not too much more than an M3.

As far as real P-engines go... it seems Porsche is not really selling a whole lot of GT3's which to me is awfully surprising.

I wonder which of the two between a 996TT and a GT3 (of the same model year) will be less expensive to acquire as a used car in a few years. I mean the 996TT is about 20K more, but they sell a LOT more of them and they sold them for years before the GT3 was offered.

[rumatt]

I have trouble finding the dipstick in Stuka's pen*s extender (turns out he doesn't have one. The dipstick that is).

:lol:

[lemming]

all of us need a little stuka and hack in our daily lives.

reading stuff between you two is like watching two old grumpy married people yell at each other while you're saying the same things in different words.

:lol:

in summary: 996 c2s suck.

:D

I thought we had settled this in my "definitive 911 thread."

Anyhow, while this is true, what about a 5-year old 996? They are already plummeting in resale and offering steep discounts. After the 997's come out, they will be very "cheap". Probably not too much more than an M3.

As far as real P-engines go... it seems Porsche is not really selling a whole lot of GT3's which to me is awfully surprising.

I wonder which of the two between a 996TT and a GT3 (of the same model year) will be less expensive to acquire as a used car in a few years. I mean the 996TT is about 20K more, but they sell a LOT more of them and they sold them for years before the GT3 was offered.

since the Turbo and GT3 use the same block, you can't lose with either, would be my guess. GT3 is actually as fast (just about) in straightline, likely faster at the track because it's far lighter.

personally? i'd opt for the used GT3 myself.

higher redline so you can hold gear longer per shift and less weight.

[FC]

...since the Turbo and GT3 use the same block, you can't lose with either, would be my guess. GT3 is actually as fast (just about) in straightline, likely faster at the track because it's far lighter.

personally? i'd opt for the used GT3 myself.

higher redline so you can hold gear longer per shift and less weight.

No doubt, if I ever have a chance to own either, I'd go with the GT3. It has the GT2 suspension and like you said, it is lighter and with a higher redline. And yeah it is awfully close in accelration numbers as the TT.

I don't think it looks as good, but I'd take it anyway.

[Lartymarf]

Stuka,

How about in the used Porsche market... would you get a used 993 C2/S or a 996 C2? That would be more miles on the 993 in general and slightly less miles on the 996.... would both 993 and 996 be same in terms of maintenance cost?

I still can't believe how Porsche went backwards in technology when it came time for the 996... why? How come? :cry:

Tks,
Jimmy

[ayn]

Simple economics, most P-Car buyers are badge hunters and they don't really care if it doesn't come with LSD, or has a wet-sump design, quite a few P-cars sold are Tip's. It's far cheaper to make a 996 than a 993.

At least they have the GT models to satisfy the (affluent) true enthusiasts.

--Andrew

[Lartymarf]

Simple economics, most P-Car buyers are badge hunters and they don't really care if it doesn't come with LSD, or has a wet-sump design, quite a few P-cars sold are Tip's. It's far cheaper to make a 996 than a 993.


Yeah, I understand that. I'm asking why would such a pure sports car company be willing to sacrifice performance and go backwards? I thought Porsche was the one who said "No Compromise."
I thought I read or heard that somewhere. :cry:

[ayn]

They did what they had to do to stay profitable and be independent.

[Lartymarf]

They did what they had to do to stay profitable and be independent.

I KNOW THAT! But that's not the answer I'm looking for. Oh well...

[lemming]

Simple economics, most P-Car buyers are badge hunters and they don't really care if it doesn't come with LSD, or has a wet-sump design, quite a few P-cars sold are Tip's. It's far cheaper to make a 996 than a 993.


Yeah, I understand that. I'm asking why would such a pure sports car company be willing to sacrifice performance and go backwards? I thought Porsche was the one who said "No Compromise."
I thought I read or heard that somewhere. :cry:

i've waited for stuka boy to weigh in, but he hasn't.

look, porsche almost died as a company because of the way it did business. the idea of selling the 964s and 993s where cost was not really important so long as the engineers had their say almost seriously killed them.

their plan to save the company and to remain independent meant two things.

1. hire japanese consultants to rework the entire manufacturing process to save money everywhere and to then go about making cars a different "way". i.e. beancounters and not engineers had the final say for mainstream product.

2. new models other than the 911 to increase sales while still maintaining ridiculous profit margins. voila. the 986 and the cayenne.

you can see that the beancounters won because porsche pulled out of serious racing, lemans in particular, to spend money launching the STUPID cayenne. the carrera GT is a half-assed bone thrown to the porsche diehards. still too heavy and likely too slow to really be an enzo beater. it obviously didn't beat the mclaren F1.

further, most of the complaints about the 996 come from aircooler people. look, those people? they're fanatics. that porsche had real issues trying to save money while also going back to watercooling at the same time and it failed miserably just gives the aircoolers something to cheer about.

but facts are facts. the 996 is lighter. it's stiffer. it's more aerodynamic. it has more torque AND passes emissions. they've obviously learned a lot from the M96 engine program and the second generation engines are a lot better. but the fact remains that the 996 shares basically 40% of its parts with the 986 and it's far cheaper to manufacture but they also brilliantly raised prices.

now, fast forward to 2004. the "base" 996 c2 is a damn fast car. it will go 0-60 in under 5 seconds consistently and laps the 'ring a fair margin ahead of the e46m3 (which has 13 more hp).

you could buy a 993c2s and have a looker of a car, but ultimately, you'll go much faster in a 996c2 3.6litre M96 car. that is indisputable.

[Lartymarf]

you could buy a 993c2s and have a looker of a car, but ultimately, you'll go much faster in a 996c2 3.6litre M96 car. that is indisputable.

Lemming,

Thanks for the detailed explanation, great info!

Quick follow up... do you have any idea how a 1999-2000 996 C2 will hold up against the 993C2s on the track in terms of lap times given equal driver? Is the 2001+ base 996 engine that much better than the '99-'00 versions?

Tks tks!

Jimmy

[lemming]

you could buy a 993c2s and have a looker of a car, but ultimately, you'll go much faster in a 996c2 3.6litre M96 car. that is indisputable.

Lemming,

Thanks for the detailed explanation, great info!

Quick follow up... do you have any idea how a 1999-2000 996 C2 will hold up against the 993C2s on the track in terms of lap times given equal driver? Is the 2001+ base 996 engine that much better than the '99-'00 versions?

Tks tks!

Jimmy

if you spend time over at the rennlist forums, you'll see that plenty of guys still track their 1999 996s without a lot of issue. they've maybe had to take their cars in for the rear main seal fix, but they seem to be fast enough and reliable enough.

i think the concerns are more theoretical than real. the overheating is being addressed during the production runs and the warranties usually give you a new engine (sorry, re-man. according to porsche spec).

the difference is that the 3.4litre M96 engine is really peaky and it overrated for power. the 3.6litre M96 engine has a pretty nice flat torque curve and is more reliably rated in terms of power. if you can wait, i'd wait for the 02s to drop in price as the 997s roll out because those would get around all of the issues we're talking about.

[ayn]

Larty, go here: http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106777

[Lartymarf]

Larty, go here: http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106777

Hey man, wow.. great thread... thanks Ayn.

[Lartymarf]

the difference is that the 3.4litre M96 engine is really peaky and it overrated for power. the 3.6litre M96 engine has a pretty nice flat torque curve and is more reliably rated in terms of power. if you can wait, i'd wait for the 02s to drop in price as the 997s roll out because those would get around all of the issues we're talking about.

AHHH Lemming... you just put a new thought in my mind... the next 997.... hmmm... yummmy!!!! :cool:

But it's still water cooled...... not that I know what the difference in feel it is compared to the air cooled 911s.

[lemming]

the difference is that the 3.4litre M96 engine is really peaky and it overrated for power. the 3.6litre M96 engine has a pretty nice flat torque curve and is more reliably rated in terms of power. if you can wait, i'd wait for the 02s to drop in price as the 997s roll out because those would get around all of the issues we're talking about.

AHHH Lemming... you just put a new thought in my mind... the next 997.... hmmm... yummmy!!!! :cool:

But it's still water cooled...... not that I know what the difference in feel it is compared to the air cooled 911s.

i've owned a 993 and it's a beautiful sound.

the 1999s have zero sound.

for 2002, one of the things they did was to re-engineer the car for "aircooled" sound. they sound great.

the new engines have torque everywhere. the 993 engines are even peakier than the 1999 996 engines. two valves per cylinder and no variable valve timing. whole lot of nothing going on under 5500rpms before varioram kicks in.

i love the way the new 996 engines can push you into your seat (lighter than an e46m3, more torque).