# It's official, 997's are for poseurs



## gojira-san (Mar 1, 2004)

Patrick said:


> When can I make a deposit? Sounds like my kind of car!


Here you go "dr strangelove" (in honour of your avitar), a Caddy Cimmaron for you...









But to get back to the focus here, it is so sad to see so many sport vehicles become so mass-market. I know that the manufacturers are following the market but it seems like they are selling their souls at the same time.


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

gojira-san said:


> You mean damn moonroof, automatic tranny, cushy suspension, over power-assisted steering for parking, cup-holder lovin' American drivers...


Uhhhhh... you forgot one hand on the wheel-one hand on the cell fone Ameri-cannot Drive errrs.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

LmtdSlip said:


> :eeps: :angel:
> 
> Flame suit fully deployed......I like sun roofs, most of my cars have had them.


Nothing wrong with that 

The problem I have is... thanks to the American buyer the sun roof is a requirement for most dealer lot cars.


----------



## bimNaround (Jun 19, 2003)

LmtdSlip said:


> :eeps: :angel:
> 
> Flame suit fully deployed......I like sun roofs, most of my cars have had them.


You, me, and most other people otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

bimNaround said:


> You, me, and most other people otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today.


Where would that be? :dunno:


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

I always thought Porsche & poseur went hand-in-hand :dunno:


----------



## Jever (Apr 16, 2003)

TeamM3 said:


> I always thought Porsche & poseur went hand-in-hand :dunno:


No, you're thinking of Porsche's and dentists.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

Jever said:


> No, you're thinking of Porsche's and dentists.


 :rofl: good one :thumbup:


----------



## MG67 (Aug 19, 2003)

justinu said:


> Just wait for this...
> 
> http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=100684


 Yes that's what you should do... 997 GT3, my friend from the Netherlands is visiting the factory in Germany next month to take a look at his new GT3...:thumbup: edit, p.s. he told me the engine would not be the M64 but a different engine, he will give me more info once he has been in Stuttgart...


----------



## elbert (Mar 28, 2002)

Jever said:


> No, you're thinking of Porsche's and dentists.


HEY









Well, not wanting to be a poseur, can anyone tell me if this is a wet sump?


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

elbert said:


> HEY
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, normally, wet sump is not an issue on cars, even sports cars.

The problem is, the way the flat 6 in P cars are palced and designed, it really need a dry sump. Or you risk oil starvation and blue smoke problem not covered under warranty if you track the car.

Don't believe me? Do a search on "dry sump" and "oil starvation" on rennlist and pelican parts, and you'll see. :thumbdwn:

A dry sump system basically means that the oil is stored outside of the engine in a separate tank, which in the case of P cars with the flat 6 config, is the way it should be, and has been since years and years ago. Basically, all 911's up to 996 have dry sump block. In 996/7, they decided to cut corners and put a punched out Boxster, yes, Boxster engine in regular 911's since the engine is only 10 grand, compare to the 40K engine cost for a proper M64 block. In 996, only the Tubo, GT2, and GT3 get to have the M64 block that does not have oil starvation issue. So if you decide to track or autox your car, you don't have to worry about the blue smoke warranty voiding problem.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

Stuka said:


> Well, normally, wet sump is not an issue on cars, even sports cars.
> 
> The problem is, the way the flat 6 in P cars are palced and designed, it really need a dry sump. Or you risk oil starvation and blue smoke problem not covered under warranty if you track the car.
> 
> ...


one of the gossip car magazines is claiming the punched out 3.8l boxster engine from the carrera S will be the new engine for the 997 turbo
:yikes:


----------



## TRWham (Aug 21, 2004)

Stuka said:


> Well, normally, wet sump is not an issue on cars, even sports cars.
> 
> The problem is, the way the flat 6 in P cars are palced and designed, it really need a dry sump. Or you risk oil starvation and blue smoke problem not covered under warranty if you track the car.
> 
> ...


The Boxster has a dry sump.


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

TRWham said:


> The Boxster has a dry sump.


"Integrated dry sump" is wet sump. Go look at a POS Boxster engine, what' s that? right, an oil pan. :loco:

A dry sump has a separate oil tank.

Does the Boxster and regular 911's have a separate oil tank?

Right, that's what I thought. :thumbdwn:

Thank you for playing, better luck next time.


----------



## TRWham (Aug 21, 2004)

Stuka said:


> "Integrated dry sump" is wet sump. Go look at a POS Boxster engine, what' s that? right, an oil pan. :loco:
> 
> A dry sump has a separate oil tank.
> 
> ...


You believe a separate oil tank is the defining feature of a performance car and anything without such a system is a toy? Must the crankcase be free of even a single oil molecule?

Of course the Boxster has an oil pan, even a dry sump system must have some means of collecting return oil and directing it to the scavenge pump(s), thus an oil pan of some sort is required. You focus on the separate oil tank as if it were the holy grail, but it is not simply the segregation of the oil supply that controls starvation during cornering, but rather the use of scavenge pumps for return and well designed baffling to deaerate the oil and control slosh that ensure a constant supply of oil.

Integrating the oil supply tank into the crankcase casting seems a reasonable design decision to me. There may be a problem with Porsche's execution of this particular decision (thus the lubrication issues you report). Design decisions are always trade-offs. Weight versus cost versus complexity versus performance, _et cetera_. And, yes, cost is a perfectly legitimate criterion even for a relatively high dollar sports car. Every product is designed for a price point. Porsche markets cars from $40k to $440k, so some compromises must be made. Does your Turbo have a 10 stage dry sump system like the Carrera GT? Why not? I'm guessing cost is one reason. Does the Carrera GT have 1,500HP or platinum plated wheels? Why not? Perhaps because even at >$400k some concession to cost must be made?

The integrated oil tank/pan in the Boxster does seem to eliminate some of the other advantages of a dry sump that drove its use in the original 901: lower engine mounting and increased oil capacity for engine cooling. Oil capacity is somewhat less than before right? But the 901 and many of its successors were "air" cooled. Now with water cooling, I imagine Porsche decided they didn't need as much additional cooling capacity.

I'm sure you're generally correct in saying the M64 is superior, but your obsession with this dry sump business seems almost pathological.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

To be fair, if Porsche could make a wet sump engine that didn't fail on track, he'd probably be able to look around it.


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

TRWham said:


> You believe a separate oil tank is the defining feature of a performance car and anything without such a system is a toy? Must the crankcase be free of even a single oil molecule?
> 
> The integrated oil tank/pan in the Boxster does seem to eliminate some of the other advantages of a dry sump that drove its use in the original 901: lower engine mounting and increased oil capacity for engine cooling. Oil capacity is somewhat less than before right? But the 901 and many of its successors were "air" cooled. Now with water cooling, I imagine Porsche decided they didn't need as much additional cooling capacity.
> 
> I'm sure you're generally correct in saying the M64 is superior, but your obsession with this dry sump business seems almost pathological.


1. There is no such thing as "integrated dry sump." It's PAG marketing playing with words. Look up the automotive definition of dry sump. The POS block found in regular 911's and Boxsters do not fit the description.

2. Did you do a search on rennlist and pelican parts to see how great this "dry sump" system works?

3. Why is it that a 90 grand 997S has that crap engine while the 100K GT3 has the M64? Keep in mind that up to 993, all 911's have dry sump blocks. I don't think for 90K it is unreasonable to expect that the 911 should have as good of an engine design as the 993.

But if the "dry sump" on the new 911's were so good, what's up with all the hits on rennlist and pelican parts about the almighty M96?

So in a regular 911 you now can spec it with ceramic brakes because it's a sports car, but you can't spect it without sunroof? What is that?

And in a regular 911, you now have an inferior engine that should any issue arise from tracking because of oil starvation, you are SOL on warranty? And why it is that the M96/7 have this problem but the M64 does not?

Cost cutting for the sake of passing off an inferior product as a better product as before is what the new 911's have become. Remember, I almost bought a 996 C4s, that would have sucked. Rennlist and pelican parts saved me from making that huge mistake in getting a lousy engine for paying close to 100K.


----------

