Taing it to the next level- 3.6 engine build

[rfuerst911sc]

Originally Posted by pkp4911

Finally, a Boxster which runs the way it should have from the get go! Sounds sweet!!! I have an 03 S with a recently installed '03 996/3.6 and while certainly more power/torque, know that with nominally modified exhaust (emissions req'd) I'm still wishing I had more HP. (I live at 8000'...so giving up min of 15% HP.) Scott at Softronic did tune and we still have a little tweaking to do yet. Did JR do your tune? When budget allows, I will uncork with headers/cats and exhaust. Couple of questions:
How was the 987 box modified? What MAF are you running as well? (986/996?) Did you source the parts new or used? Since you are running a bumped 3.2, (but modified induction) what topside clearance issues? Did you lower engine? Any weird vibrations? (Because lowered, I do at 2800-3K and have clearanced as much as I can find under engine (aluminum bracing, rear bumper due to Pedro sport exhaust mod). Using 993 engine mounts.
Again, congrats and well done.
Appreciate any other feedback from others as well.
Patrick

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Patrick I don't know what Jake had to do to the airbox to make it fit maybe he'll chime in. He suggested that box because it flows more air than the 986 box. The MAF is a 996 GT3 I believe that was provided by Jake also. I have zero topside clearance issues. Engine is mounted at stock height. No weird vibrations on this rig and I wouldn't expect any, Jake balanced EVERYTHING and he has so many 986 engines under his belt he can do these in his sleep. We have not done ANY tuning yet as my ECU took a dump from a defective MAF that I purchased used. So we are running a borrowed 996 3.4 ECU and immobilizer with the standard tune in that ECU. We are waiting for my ECU to come back from being repaired. So the only " tuning " that has taken place is the adaptive learning the ECU has done on its own. I think Jake believes there is easily 10 - 15 hp or more available just with some good tuning. And then finally we will install the Jake Raby in house designed/built cams. Not sure if we will also install his own designed lifters but at that point we will probably be at the limits of the current intake manifold. But my goal all along is to still have it be very daily driver friendly and she still is. I don't want a narrow power band or something that only makes power above 6K. I have ridden in several 996 and 997 Porsche's ( normally aspirated ) and my Boxster GT3 has more power ( butt dyno ) than those from idle to 7K.

[jaykay]

Is this engine configuration only workable with a 3 - chain motor???

[rfuerst911sc]

Originally Posted by jaykay

Is this engine configuration only workable with a 3 - chain motor???

Engine block is an 02 S 5 chain . Unless Jake did something I'm not aware of .

[Jake Raby]

Originally Posted by jaykay

Is this engine configuration only workable with a 3 - chain motor???

No, this can be done with any engine, 3 chain, or 5 chain. This particular engine has retained its 5 chain design.

I am currently building a 3 chain version of this thats based from a 3.8 997S engine. I am making that engine SMALLER to produce 100HP+ more than the factory rating.

While everyone else has been busy bragging about how big they can go, I was busy creating what will kick their asses. They never even knew it.

[Porsche9]

Originally Posted by Jake Raby

No, this can be done with any engine, 3 chain, or 5 chain. This particular engine has retained its 5 chain design.

I am currently building a 3 chain version of this thats based from a 3.8 997S engine. I am making that engine SMALLER to produce 100HP+ more than the factory rating.

While everyone else has been busy bragging about how big they can go, I was busy creating what will kick their asses. They never even knew it.

Smaller = stronger cylinder walls to handle the extra power/cylinder pressure and/or higher revs? Just curious. Sounds like we are talking about a 460 hp motor. Sweet!

[j.fro]

3.8 block destroked w/ 2.5 or 3.2 crank??? longer con rods w/ better rod angles?? Short stroke/big bore w/ improved combustion & spark timing?? higher CR??

[jaykay]

Originally Posted by Porsche9

Smaller = stronger cylinder walls to handle the extra power/cylinder pressure and/or higher revs? Just curious. Sounds like we are talking about a 460 hp motor. Sweet!

From the standpoint of straight mechanics I believe the larger diameter pistons give a greater potential for cylinder wall scuffing when coupled increased heat loads of the larger displacements. So you want to stroke it if you can......but in most cases that takes a much higher level of skill

[BYprodriver]

Originally Posted by jaykay

From the standpoint of straight mechanics I believe the larger diameter pistons give a greater potential for cylinder wall scuffing when coupled increased heat loads of the larger displacements. So you want to stroke it if you can......but in most cases that takes a much higher level of skill

Generally true about piston diameter, but longer stroke is problematic also. To minimize piston inertial cylinder loading you may need to increase connecting rod length. This also moves peak torque up the rpm range for higher horsepower peak.

I'm guessing Jake is building a shorter stroke, bigger bore engine to raise rpm level.

[The Radium King]

Originally Posted by jaykay

From the standpoint of straight mechanics I believe the larger diameter pistons give a greater potential for cylinder wall scuffing when coupled increased heat loads of the larger displacements. So you want to stroke it if you can......but in most cases that takes a much higher level of skill

pg 20 - fixed cyl height w longer stroke crank means shorter con rods which increases lateral loads on cyl walls. cyl wall scoring showed up on the 997 engines w the move to longer stroke. piston size not as much of a factor (note the variety of bores on the m96 engines, but bore scoring not typically a factor on these engines). of course, improved cyl liners seems to have fixed it all:

http://www.hartech.org/docs/buyers%20guide%20web%20format%20Jan%202012%20part% 205.pdf

[Jake Raby]

Its all in the combo. This combo has taken since 2007 to develop, and I've shared all about it that I am willing to.

Stroke, rod length, bore, valve sizes, port flow margins, CR, and every other dimension within the engine is altered in some way with this combo. None of these are OEM Porsche dimensions, to include the stroke.

"The bigger is better crowd is always the easiest to beat".

[pkp4911]

Originally Posted by rfuerst911sc

Patrick I don't know what Jake had to do to the airbox to make it fit maybe he'll chime in. He suggested that box because it flows more air than the 986 box. The MAF is a 996 GT3 I believe that was provided by Jake also. I have zero topside clearance issues. Engine is mounted at stock height. No weird vibrations on this rig and I wouldn't expect any, Jake balanced EVERYTHING and he has so many 986 engines under his belt he can do these in his sleep. We have not done ANY tuning yet as my ECU took a dump from a defective MAF that I purchased used. So we are running a borrowed 996 3.4 ECU and immobilizer with the standard tune in that ECU. We are waiting for my ECU to come back from being repaired. So the only " tuning " that has taken place is the adaptive learning the ECU has done on its own. I think Jake believes there is easily 10 - 15 hp or more available just with some good tuning. And then finally we will install the Jake Raby in house designed/built cams. Not sure if we will also install his own designed lifters but at that point we will probably be at the limits of the current intake manifold. But my goal all along is to still have it be very daily driver friendly and she still is. I don't want a narrow power band or something that only makes power above 6K. I have ridden in several 996 and 997 Porsche's ( normally aspirated ) and my Boxster GT3 has more power ( butt dyno ) than those from idle to 7K.

I meant to respond much sooner. My reality: while I motor about in my relatively mundane 3.6, you now have the epitome of what the Boxster always should have been. (If bean counters weren't running Porsche...) Again, congrats and perhaps more of us will consider the paradigm of 'price vs cost', and take the financial plunge to have Jake build something powerful and reliable. After all said and done, I'm guessing that Jake could have built me something similar to what you have based on the investment I made--right around $20K at this point for motor, parts, and labor. Are you willing to share an approximate number? The limiter to the world of Jake is the wait time--good for him but not for those of us who want to be out driving.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk