Sorry to hear, inspector.

Do your due dilligence and build motor with new rods/goodies.

MK

 

it already has new rods and goodies that is what spawned my reseach to not do it again which would be 3 times.

 

Sorry to hear Don. Hope it's an easy fix. Art

 

More power is always an issue, maybe not immediately, but over time. You can't take two 0 mile 996 TT's and mod one to 700 whp with bolt on's and expect the 700 whp to last anywhere near as long as the stock one.

I want enough power to use on the track, and I drive hard for long sessions so even more stress vs a similar car doing occasional boosts on the street.

All of us with mods are doing more damage than would be a stock motor, I don't need, or want that much hp.

Most of us with bolt-ons haven't looked at the inside of the motor to see if there has been any damage. Heck half the tuners that only specialize in bolt-ons haven't seen the inside of one of our motors, or wouldn't know how to take one apart or their way around the inside of one, but the law of averages allows us to trust them anyways.

The result is that with all the limits being pushed we've seen more engine failures in the last year or two than had been present here since the car came out. There are various reasons for that, but the sure thing is that you can run limited hp safely for almost ever.

 

My point was that the power number (within reason) is not the issue. The tune is.

Saying you will never go beyond 520-550 rwhp makes no sense to me. It's a random number that doesn't really mean anything. A car making 500 rwhp could easily blow with a bad tune. While a car making 600 or even 700, but with a good tune and proper fuel, could run safely for years.

 

B-i-n-g-o

 

Got to agree with scott .

 

I understood what you said, but the fact remains that all else equal, the lower hp car will do less damage to the engine over time.

I also said I don't need any more than that for my application which is road racing. Not only does running with all that hp produce more heat and harder to keep everything cool over long stints, but it wears brakes, drivetrain, clutch etc. and is harder to utilize and has serious diminishing returns over that hp amount.

I also never said I'd settle for a bad tune at 550 whp, in fact I need a better tune than any 60-130, 1/4 mile or standing mile guys ever will so let's not assume. But you can't deny that more hp = more other problems and more potential problems, that's a fact of life with cars.

More boost - more damage - more maintenance - more upgrades needed compared to less boost on the same car, especially when we are talking about 100 whp more.

Not to mention there are who knows how many people running around bragging about numbers and have no idea there are bent rods in their engine. Wanna bet the averages are the more hp (actually torque), the more likely you are to have bent rods?

Not many avid road racers will want 600-700 whp because they'd rather spend their time at the track driving and not wrenching and it's inevitable that more hp = more wrenching at the track.

 

and more watching at the track...

 

exactly!

 

I think what Dive is trying to say, he would rather have a fat a/f with a few less degrees of timing. Sure you might be giving up 25-50 hp, but the tune is much safer.

 

I have never seen a headgasket push air and no water out the side.. if its leaking compression water should follow.. Make sure your not getting hustled and get a 2nd opinion..

As far as Meth goes ill say that 99% of the time we get an Evo in with a blown motor it has meth on it.. Meth is a Bandaid.. Each cylinder will not get an equal amount of meth unless you run a direct port which isnt happening.. If you want to make Safer power run Ethanol straight.. My buddy Chris has been running all year long on E85 making over 700hp on his 996 with stock longblock.. Mid 10's, 200+ mph , daily driving.. NO motor issues..

 

And so will the car that never sees a road-course.

I get your point about what you need for your application, but honestly...if you're primary focus is road-racing, you'd be better off driving a GT3.

That said, if someone really wants to track a street-driven TT, there's nothing wrong with having a car that makes low 500's on pump at low boost, and 650+ at high boost for 'other' stuff.

Of course it does. So does hard driving, driving in hot or humid conditions, routinely starting the engine in cold weather, not changing the oil and filter at proper intervals, etc..

The most consistent way to keep problems from occuring is to keep the car bone stock. But when it's modified, there is no 'set in stone' HP level that damages the engine worse than another. There are FAR too many variables. With the proper setup, tune and fuel, the longevity is a true unknown at this point.

More boost doesn't necessarily mean more damage. Less boost while in a lean condition is far worse. Less boost with a bunch of timing isn't great either. I think we need a few more years modifying these motors before we start forming concrete opinions on their max boost levels and/or longevity.

More TQ is always the danger to rods. Not HP. I ran 600rwhp/600 rwtq for a quite a while in my car before I built the motor. And when it was taken apart, everything was pristine. Would it have been the same had I been road-racing it? It may have been, or it may not have been. Point is, there's not enough data to say either way with any certainty.

I agree. But again, I still think that most avid road-racers would choose a platform that is more suited for road-racing.

 

Great post, Kevin. I'm literally too chickensh1t to try water/meth on my car. Thus, with my current setup I won't run anything higher than 1.0 BAR on 93 octane, 1.3 BAR on 100 octane and for 1.4 BAR+ I use 110.

 

For that matter so will the car that's a garage queen and hardly sees any driving at all. However not the topic of discussion.

I'd be slower in a GT3, and I have the same motor, I chose a Turbo because I wanted one, and that has yet to limit me on the track. Still not relative to the subject.

Never said there was, I simply said I PERSONALLY wasn't interested in that, with which you seemed not to understand. Not once have I said that anyone else should do what I'm doing.


True longevity is not completely unknown, there are enough people with mild upgrades that have gone over 70-80-100k miles to know the motor is easily capable of handling whatever the stock (K16/K24) power ugrades can throw at them.

What's consistent is people with big hp having problems. What WAS consistent is very rare engine failures with basic upgrades. I'm saying those instances have increased greatly with all the pushing of the limits.



I shouldn't have said more damage, but in a sense it is, it's more wear and strain, and more power always mean more of a likelyhood that something will fail.



Not really, there are more 996tt's at the track events now than GT3's in many cases because of their affordability. The Turbo wasn't built directly for the track relatively speaking (to the GT3/GT3), but it's better suited than 95% of the other marquees out there.

Look around, you see TT builds for road racing all the time, they just get drowned out by all the 60-130, standling mile, I made 3000 hp threads.

I'd also think people would pick a better platform for drag racing as the TT naturally SUCKS at it, but us guys are stubborn.


I think the big hp levels can be obtained and maintained for lengths of time, but I don't see many tuners doing their research AFTER the mods are installed so the kits and the results come, but the residual effects aren't seen for a while, and then may be brushed under the rug.

But the fact is, failures are more prominent now than ever.







Sorry for the hijack, I'm sure the OP has better things to discuss.