|
I was really interested in your comment concerning some reading that suggested that extremely high performance engines are designed to last 50,000 miles . Could you provide some more detail on what you learned from the reading.
|
i cannot currently provide much relating to it, except to mention that it comes from information relating primarily to 'entry level' supercars... Ferrari 360, Lambo Gallardo, AM DB9/ Vanquish... basically, the MFR expects these cars to be driven, but
not often... basically... they expect about 4000-5000 miles a year... partially why in gumball rallies, some exotic cars cannot finish the endurance trip due to mechanical failures
i remember some time ago in PN, St-anger mentioned something about an 800 hp CGT... but i havent seen anything yet... it is crazy enough to think that Koenig placed a bi-turbo system in the high-strung F50 motor for an additional 350hp... i would be thinking that the 5.7 liter v10 may be able to do that more reliably naturally aspirated...? modify the heads and cams... shorter connecting rods... and without any added torque (mabey less) it could freely rev to 10,000rpms mabey?... to me, this might be a good option when comparing to the added stress in the drivedrain compared to the high torque values when turbocharging.
|
, were you saying in this quote that some of the changes that people make to naturally aspirated engines are more stressful to the engine than changes to turbocharged engines. If so what be an example of what you are referring to and in what way is it more damaging
|
basically, what i meant there is that increasing power/torque levels no matter which way will more quickly kill a motor. squeezing air into a cylinder head with a low compression is stressful, but so is a high compression ratio... the eventual effect is the same... the engines would sieze under hydrolic lock, and require serious rebuilding.
also, the stress over time causes micro fractures that build up, and eventually lead to a single part failing one time... then another part failing another time... so usually, its not just one part that will cause an early demise to an engine... it may be ball berring in a turbo one time, a tie rod another and so on... i think often, before massive mechanical failure, smaller failures would cause power losses.
|
St-anger so does this apply to the CGT engine as well. Also, I am curious if you know what is the expect life of a 996 or 997 engine before requiring a rebuild, naturally aspirated and turbocharged if you know that info and it isn’t top secret.
|
i am also quite interested in this...reliability data i have read rarely or never includes porsche (i think since they dont generally compare to cirtain a blue oval)
|
they have “quite some” potential left for some light modifications, nevertheless, PAG sent out “some” letter to “some” tuners because of the Cayenne – u know that there´re versions with 700hp and to say it, the 955 is NO sports car, so there were some major concerns on safety and reliability – I mean Porsche has to defend a reputation…
|
mentioning "quite some"... might this mean that porsche has tested to OEM limits? i know you were somewhat unhappy with the Cayenne turbo upgrade package... but might this also mean that other components in the car cannot withstand the pounding of 700 hp (differentials, linkage (if any), transmission... strutctural twisting due to excessive loads...?... related to the cayenne road runner testing included a roll cage?) sorry for the '20 questions' st-a
i guess im just mostly postulating. perhaps its partly because you dont see
any other SUV's that are pushed anywhere near that... i think the closest thing i can think of was a twin turboed Cadillac Escilade making 500 hp/tq... but just as a one-off from SLP