As far as Motec, I totally agree with you :cheers:

Lots of people confuse Motec and Motronic...

What we can't solve with Motronic can be taken care of with Motec :-)

You have a single trial mule?
 

Without significant mileage on multiple samples, how do you have confidence that your rebuilds and improvements will not blow up in their own unique ways?

Doesn't a engine designer run at least 20 cars for at least 100k miles both in simulation and on real roads in multiple climates (and even then designs and manufacturing techniques prove inadequate)? How can you duplicate such testing?

- yeah, with a whole new list of issues. I've been refining the map on my rotary for the last 5 years. Once you have the ability to tinker, you never stop.

Thanks for the welcome guys!

I have a 3.2 block on it's way to me and probably by the end of next week we should have it updated with a set of Nickies.

And since you guys asked, I will share some info on the IMS update we've engineered. These are the first photos posted anywhere - it's not even on our website yet.

You can see the early IMS hub and bearing support side by side with our billet replacement and you can clearly see our support is much longer, about twice the length, which has allowed us to double up the bearing surface area. We take a stock IMS and machined out the original bearing and then machine the IMS to accept our new bearings. The main key highlights are the increased surface area for the bearing, the significantly larger diameter stud and nut to hold it all in place, and open bearings to allow for positive lubrication and cooling of the bearings, where the originals were sealed. Only when the bearing was to fail on the early IMS, did oil get past the seals, filling up the IMS tube, further throwing it out of balance and making the problem worse. We've actually sealed the tube so it can't fill up while we were at it.

Right now we just have the prototypes done for testing, all one off, but after I get back from the Ventura show, I plan on doing a production run of them and will begin offering our updated IMS on an exchange basis, just like we're doing with the engine blocks.

We also have a few other goodies in development that will be ready for the Ventura show, including billet low temp thermostats and housings and spin-on oil filter adapters for the case and full flow external filter and oil cooler setups. If there's anything else that's of interest, I'm all for it. In for a penny, in for a pound.

First off, I appreciate your objective view of what we are doing.

Porsche did a lot of work for us, and we have not had to start from scratch.. We have addressed the problematic areas with enhanced procedures and components that Porsche could not have afforded to do with engines created in very high volumes. The 911(pre water) never had these issues, because it was a much lower produced vehicle and more time was put into each unit as well as money.

Do some research on our past efforts with earlier engines and you'll see that we have taken other engines, totally redesigned them and made them go from a "Black sheep" to something highly sought after. The best case would be the Porsche 914 engine which we can now double the output of N/A and still attain the longevity of a bone stock engine. A factory 914 engine was anemic and plagued with cylinder head issues, through development we haven't had a single head related failure in a decade.

We have done this through rigorous testing in harsh environments where neglect and abuse was common... An example of this is driving a Boxster against the rev limiter for two miles at a time, trying to create a failure... (I try to do that every time I drive the test car)

I love to break parts and I love to force failures to study what happens, we have been known to scatter engines in front of a crowd of 500 under Nitrous just to see what occurs and how spectacular we can make something fail.. Breaking parts is part of success with engine design and modification.

This is not something we have just started working with and quite honestly the ONLY reason I initially agreed to assist Charles with the development was because of the challenge the engine offered. Tackling an engine with so many issues. that is so hard to work with was right up my alley- he knew that.

Think Porsche did that??? HELL NO! If they did they would have never released the car until all the BS gripes were worked out! Based on the failures that everyone has documented, that we have seen at as low as 30K miles it is clear that Porsche let these engines fly out the door before anyone put close to 1100K on the first one.

In the days of the aircooled Porsche, (and VW) German soldiers were often tasked with driving the cars for tens of thousands of miles to prove their endurance and integrity- that clearly does not happen today.

Extreme effort and attention to concern. No one forces us to test anything, we don't do it because we have to. We do this because I WANT to!

I am currently outfitting the test car with a Race-Technology DL-2 data logger that will observe both the OBD2 sensors and outputs along with 16 more channels of data acquisition that will be used to monitor all critical aspects of the engine. I have used a similar unit with our vintage development program to gain data over both street and competition environments. See this page for the data we gathered on a recent 3,450 mile trek cross the Continent to test colling system enhancements and lubricants for our Air-cooled engine program
www.aircooledtechnology.com/crosscountry

While on this trip we made a run up Loveland Pass, to the Continental Divide. When we reached the summit we met up with a pair of Engineers from Chrysler that were using the 12,000' elevation to program the ECU for their new pick up truck engine. We started chatting with them, looked at their gear and then they looked at ours and asked us why the hell we had 3 computers and 28 channels of data logging in a 40 year old car... I explained it to them and this is the reply the lead Engineer gave me.
"Damn, thats impressive, I have worked here for 18 years and we've never driven a car across the country to gather data".

We may not have the funding of a vehicle manufacturer like Porsche or Chrysler, but we damn sure have the initiative and drive to accomplish what they couldn't. We have done it before and we'll do it again! The team we have assembled is made up of highly motivated "fire pissers" like yours truly who live, eat and breathe mechanical modification..

I certainly don't want to come off like an egotistical jerk, but we are confident that what we are creating will be effective and we have been and will continue to put it to the test of both time and performance.

Building engines, lab testing them and then field testing them, followed by periodic tear downs to observe the goings on internally are the minimum of what we do. Heck I have been known to change cams in one engine 11 times in a single week just to see the gains in performance for a street engine, and that meant a complete tear down of the test engine each time...

We don't sleep much.

FYI

I have my 3.2 with a slight loss in compression in cyl 3 and 6 that still runs fine for sale. The car still runs and pulls strong but I am going into 3.6. Great deal on a running motor and I will ship on factory Porsche crate. I thought I would throw this in here just in case anyone wants to have Raby rebuild it. Sorry for the thread jack but I thought it tied in well here.

This sounds like a great opportunity for a 3.2 owner to take advantage of our big bore 3.6 and not have to pull their engine immediately to make the swap.

What are you asking for it?

I am thinking of 3K with no core charge and I can ship anywhere. This is a great deal for someone wanting to go bigger with a 7.2 so they do not have to upgrade all other parts (TRUST ME THAT IS WHERE IT GETS EXPENSIVE). In addition that person could sell their running motor for 3K is fair and it not cost much but the labor. Remember this IS a strong running motor that the wife took today instead of driving her JCW MCS. It pulls hard and drives great I just got a hell of a deal (still way more then this) on the 3.6 I am dropping in. The motor will be shipped on a factory Porsche Create and wrapped with the Porsche N/A cardboard to insure safe shipment.

With respect to the 3.2 to big bore 3.6 program, how are you tackling the top end breathing? The 3.6 heads are quite different than 3.2 heads, as is the exhaust its bolted to. I'd be very interested to see a 3.2 bored to 3.6 with Nickies, all other updates, and topped with X51 3.6 heads ;)

I am VERY interested in what you are doing, and I think its fantastic that someone of your caliber (I am very familiar with your air cooled work) is finally going to provide a solid solution to the M96 motor issues.

Patrick

Thanks for the compliments.. We are attacking the Boxster challenges with the same level of enthusiasm that we have (and still do) with the Aircooled engines. This work is easier than the aircooled work because all we have to do is overcome the reliability issues and we have a great foundation to work from.

As for cylinder heads, thats an area that won't see as much work as one might expect. We have already determined that the stock engines generally have a lot of capability built into them and in some instances can flow more than the stock engine needs. We are working to boost torque and extend the usable RPM range, not just make HP at some really high RPM that might good on paper, but ends up driving like crap down low.

Due to that the current hypothesis is the 3.2 heads will flow enough to create a torque monster that is still able to rev to redline easily, this decreases the need to beat on the engine and abuse it to get the power you are looking for and that keeps things alive.

We are looking to source an X51 head to study and see what the logic was at the factory, not so much to replicate, but try tom improve upon.

Given the fact that a good solid valve job can add 15HP to a stock 2.5 engine we don't believe that a super huge set of ports and alves will be needed to attain the power we are looking for from the 3.2>>3.6 modification.

This has turned into an excellent thread! My 2.7 is approaching 80k miles and has been rock solid reliable, but I do know that there will come a day when it's time to address an engine replacement. I had thought of moving to a Carrera after the Boxster, but after driving several, I still find myself preferring the Boxster, but just wishing for more power. My plans have been to transplant a 3.6 when the 2.7 checks out, but after reading this thread I am pleased to find that there are more options than just a factory engine swap.

I am very interested in the 3.2 to big bore 3.6 program, but I have a few questions. My core would be a 2.7, so I assume there would be an additional charge since I wouldn't have a 3.2 to offer as my core. My Boxster is a tip, and I'm wondering if the tip would hold up to power of the "3.6"? I like my tip for driving in heavy traffic and am comfortable with my manhood to not let the manual only crowd effect my self esteem. I also have plans to put a limited slip in while I have it all apart for the engine swap. Would I have to change out my DME from a 3.2 or could my 2.7 unit work with a reflash?

My dream of a "Monster Boxster" is beginning to look like a very viable reality. :dance:

That 2.7 can be made into a 2.9 and make 30-40% more power! It drops right back in without hassles.

We haven't applied these enhancements to the tiptronic vehicles yet, but those trannys and components are fairly substantial, I don't know if they would take a 3.6 retrofit, but we'll have to try and see.

The ECU requirements are still being investigated as the 3.2>>3.6 is just now being taken seriously. We'll know lots more by the end of the year!

Jake, what ECU reflash solution are you going to use? Are you including the reprogrammed ECU and having the old one sent back as a core?

There are several methods of ECU manipulation and the method we choose will be based upon what we have done to the engine and what engine we are working with.

Lots of the items we are working on are well within the realm of "learning" by the very smart Motronic ECU, this is mostly true with the early engines.

We'll prefer to receive an ECU from the client's car and then use it for engine tuning with the replacement unit. Its a plus to keep the stock ECU with the car whenever possible.

Today I began measures to re-outfit our facility with an area and crew to complete full service engine installs/ swaps into the Boxster and 996. We have typically been an engine design/ assembly and research/ testing facility only, but its apparent that it'll be a necessity to offer full services to those who want innovative flat six power :-)
(some are willing to ship engines cross country for us to do the installation)

I'm considering a 3.4 conversion in the next 6 to 8 months. What are options with 2.5 block. I want something that will be capable of 300 reliable HP. I'd also like something that will give me better low end torque range. I dont know if a 2.5 bored out to 2.9 would be solution?

I would think that the 2.9l would end up somewhere between 270-280hp. I think once you start getting close to 100hp/liter or more, you are pushing things in any engine. You don't have VTEC yo. :D

The 2.5 can only be made into a 2.9 by using the crank and carrier from a 2.7 core @ 78mm stroke. The 2.5 block is maxxed out (safely) at 89mm bore, to create the 2.7 with the 2.5 crank, or the 2.9 with the 2.7 crank.

The 2.9 is rated at 260HP and thats attained without high CR or putting the engine "on edge".

We may have the ability to get more HP as time goes on from the 2.9 combo, especially with camshaft manipulation. The limiting factor will be the hydro lifters, but our solid lift mods (that require periodic valve adjustments) can extend RPM ranges and use more aggressive cam profiles for more power.

As always, time will tell....

Guess the other option would be turbo but I'm unsure wether I'm willing to make the car dedicated track car due to smog issues. Probably need to learn about possible smog issues with other configs as well.

I certainly agree, with respect to the "3.6," that I'd much rather have a nice broad torque curve than a peaky high HP motor. If this is achievable with the 3.2 heads, fantastic, though as far as I know, the X51 heads are a good bit different than standard 3.6 heads, which are already quite different from 3.2 heads.

I'll be very interested to hear what you find once you have a look at 3.6 X51 heads on the flow bench.

Patrick

All the heads flow incredibly, even the 2.5 has an amazing amount of flow for such small valves and ports.. and a stock 3.4 head has an exhaust valves thats the same size as the 2.5 intake, and the 3.2 head is similar to those.

Boosting torque is what really makes an engine responsive, be it street or track and torque is something that these engines lack from the factory, especially at lower RPM. The 3.2 is a bit better just because of it's size, but it's still pretty lame at low revs.

Grant,
Any turbo engine would never pass smog in an area that requires a visual inspection... You could keep the OE exhaust system and re-install it for smog time though.

Lack of torque is why I have been considering 3.4. Tracks I drive the torque issue is problematic with Boxster gearing and I do plan to do AX where torque is king.

What would be a good approach for a guy with a 1999 2.5.

I have my suspension all ordered and it will be installed next week. So researching motors is next.

Why did everyone call him "Jack" for the first 3 pages of this thread?? :LOL:



B

Jake,

I haven't checked on it yet, but can I bolt 3.2 heads to a 2.5?? I have the heads and I have a 2.5 I need to get apart.


B

The differences in "Real Estate" between the 25 and 3.2 heads and block vary greatly. The absolute largest we can take a 2.5 bore wise is 89mm (from 85.5mm stock), the 93mm bore of the 3.2 is way too large.. The way the valves are positioned puts them right at the edge of the bore, increasing complexity.

Basically the 3.2 is a small bore 3.4, thats one reason why the 3.2 doesn't see cylinder failures nearly as catastrophic as the 3.4, or any of the earlier 2.5 and 2.7 engines.

I just re-read this whole thread. Jake gave some background on his experience in an early, rather long post answering several questions. And his various websites.

I'd like to reinforce the fact that he is Famous in the 914/Type IV world. The gold standard, the Raby name carries tremendous weight for bragging rights for owners with one of his engines.

I'll bet the -4 community is scared silly that the M96 venture will decrease 4-cylinder work. I for one am relieved to know that a rebuild program is feasible and that Jake Raby is involved.

No affiliation, I just spend a lot of time in the 914 kingdom.

Thanks for the post, 70sixster...

The M96 development is just an extension to our facility and engine development. We haven't changed gears away from aircooled engine development, we have "added a gear" with the M96 program.

My aircooled efforts will not slow, my master plan was to do enough development in 2006 and 2007 to be applied through 2009 while I personally stepped away from the lab and got as far as possible with the M96 plan.

Through 2009 my team will be applying what we created for the past two years.. The M96 is just another challenge with a much newer engine design with another set of very difficult tasks to overcome. Thats what attracted me to this engine- it's problems.

So Jake like in 914 world looks like youre in for some competition from V8 conversion. I'm looking at both big bore six and V8 for my Boxster

Will see which works out best. I will give you a call tomorrow.

Grant,
didn't hear from you yet...

Yeah, there will always be some engine conversion to contend with, but just like in the 914 world, the original engine doesn't require wild mods and keeps the car a tad lighter too.. Once the design issues that were created by Porsche are addressed the OE engine is no longer the achilles heel and you maintain the factory balance and center of gravity that the factory designed into the Boxster.

But we might just surprise some people by doing some conversion installs as well...

I just about pulled the trigger on Jake's 3.2 -> 3.6 uprade a few weeks ago on my 550 SE. However, it was going to cost me over $18k plus my healthy 19,000 mile motor out the door (labor, etc) which was just a touch too much for me. I'll have to hold off for a while or go a different route.

We have had several Clients with good running, low mileage engines that wanted more power and our reliability enhancements. A good number of these have sold their engines to opthers that have had engine failures and gottan 3-6K for them, then put that "free money" toward their new engine from my company.. I sell them a core engine (ildly broken and in need of update ) for 1500 bucks or so..

This is a win/ win for everyone as someone with a broken Boxster and a smaller budget can get a new engine with no issues and the money can be put toward the high performance FSI engine.

We have cars being shipped from all over the country to our expanded facility for our 3.2>>3.6 upgrades. Most are around 20K including installation and shipping from most anywhere in the country.. Shippers are starving and will haul cars dirt cheap!

What a great way to remove the enjoyment right out of the car. The Boxster is such a great little car. Sounds great, feels great, very well balanced. If I want to go fast I'll drive my modded STI. It's a brute, faster, handles better, but isn't anywhere near as fun as a little 217hp roadster. It's easy to make a car fast, but keeping the character of the car is very important. That's just my opinion. I don't think Jake's business will be competing with V8 conversions, because there will always be people that think it ruins the car.

Jake, what about just parts for rebuild. I have a friend that has a lot of engine rebuild experience with Subaru's and has rebuilt 4-5 aircooled Porsches. I thought originally, that was the plan, getting the parts out for DIY and local rebuild.

I disagree that it ruins the car. Apparantly Porsche does too since the new Boxster S is over 300hp now. Besides, making the engines stronger/more sturdy is a main focus of Flat 6, the possibilty of more power is just an optional by-product.

Complete engine kits are coming this summer along with training..

Right now we are still developing the combinations that will be used for this and testing them, since they are different than the turn key offerings..

All the testing and development takes a lot of time... I don't even have time to work on the website!

I am all for Flat6 and Jakes products. I was saying I'm not a fan of the LSx engine swap into a Boxster.

[QUOTE=silver arrow]What a great way to remove the enjoyment right out of the car. The Boxster is such a great little car. Sounds great, feels great, very well balanced. If I want to go fast I'll drive my modded STI. It's a brute, faster, handles better, but isn't anywhere near as fun as a little 217hp roadster. It's easy to make a car fast, but keeping the character of the car is very important. That's just my opinion. QUOTE]

You havent been in my car. It screams for some character definition from a V8 or a big Raby 6 (Jake you dont know what pleasure I get from saying that). See I had to go to 6 verses 8 to keep up with you. Wimpy little sixes are cute and nice for grocery getters. I want something that makes me scream like a little girl when I exit a turn at high speed and hit the throttle. AWD Sti is too sedate and easy to control under 500 HP for my tastes. I have a 300 HP AWD sport sedan and they just dont do anything for me. 986 Boxster will turn into a challenge once your getting into 375 to 400 HP range. ..I like driving challenging cars.

Hey Jake..
 

Did you get Phil's issues get sorted out yet?

No... His engine is making way more power than it was supposed to.. More than we had planned and that helped us find a few more inadequacies in the M96 engine.

Long story short, it'll be even faster next time he goes out with the 3.6 but for the next couple of events he'll be running a 3.2 test engine of mine while we wait for some new valvetrain parts and etc to be finished up.

Jake,

I'm going to go the 3.2->3.6 route with you as soon as the cash is available. I didn't see it on the website right now, but what kind of power are you getting from those in a dependable streetable format? I was reading about the new Boxster S in Road & Track and that sub 13 second 1/4 mile is pretty sweet. I actually like my anniversary edition better than the newer cars, but it would be nice to have similar power to the newer cars.

Thanks,
Mike