Kompresor yes, Turbo a no-no !

In my ever quest for additional 100+ HP for my croc, one alternative that I have is of course one of the best german tuners. The only "problem" I have is their price for their kit, which includes just about everything, and as many of you know I have my Milltek and TUBI both which I love to death. Anyway, while asking them for their impression for a turbo kit from other tuners (yeah, what a dumb question) they replied "These engines are not solid enough for turbo charging, that’s the reason, why we developed the Kompressor" I am still debating whether to bite this or wait for TPC, of VF Eng, or whoever reputable to step forward first. I of course dont want to cause any flames on anyone or any tuner, I just want to have a sensible debate whether or not turbocharging our crocs engine, other than possible, structurarily valid or not, and if they are more inherent risks vs a Supercharger, to point them out. Thanks y saludos amigos. :cheers:

Well, I could be wrong, but I thought the engine in the 997TT was the same block as ours, just bored out larger, with a turbo unit and a modified throttle map. I am not sure what kind of re-inforcing Porsche did to make the 997 (or 996 et al) turbo better at handling the additional stress. Maybe there are better seals throughout the engine? Better rings for the pistons? Maybe that would be a good question to pose to the tuner; what about the 997TT motor makes it better able to be turbo charged vs. the Cayman motor.

GT3 and TTs use a different block. I doubt there are many engine components shared between them and the lesser models. Certainly not crank/rods/pistons/etc...

I don't know for sure, but I'd be a bit concerned about heat management since the engine placement doesn't seem to allow as much room for it to escape. If I wanted FI-type power, I wouldn't settle for anything less than a 3.8 conversion.

Other than potential heat concerns from a turbo, how is supercharging from a turbo any different than from a supercharger/kompressor? Come on, they're both compressing air and packing more air into the cylinders. Granted, if you don't properly build the turbo (i.e., waste gate, etc.) you can get higher boost and kaboom, but given equal charge pressure, what's the difference?

Turbocharging does involve greater stresses IMO. The delivery is not as linear or predictable/controllable. There can be more heat issues. And IMO it is a more complex system so more to go wrong.

Hate to say it, but you are wrong... the GT3s and turbos use a completely different motor, lock, stock and barrel... very few, if any parts are shared between those and the newer motors in the water cooled 996s, 986, 987s and 997s. You are correct - the turbo motors are the old air-cooled v-bottomed blocks found in all 911s up until the 993s. They use water-cooled heads, and are the basis for every competition 6 and 12 cylinder competition engine raced by Porsche in the last 40 years. They also have the true dry-sump lubrication - last time this motor was used in competition, the GT1s went 1,2,3 at Le mans in the late 1990s. they were also used in the IMSA 956s, 962s ans 935s. the group C 956s and 962s also used these engines. Basic difference between turbo and super charging (very simple explanation) is turbo charging is done using the exhaust gasses, compressed at high pressure by the turbos, mixed with outside air through the intercoolers, and re-routed back into the intake system. Supercharging is done by using a compressor to compress the cold, incoming air into the intake of the motor. Most of these SCs are belt driven by the engine's crankshaft. Turbo charging uses high pressures, but lower engine compression ratios - and lots of heat is the result - exhaust gasses are already very hot, then they are compressed on top of it. Supercharging is less stressful on the motor - there's also less lag because it's belt-driven by the crankshaft. There's a reason that Porsche doesn't turbo-charge the new water-cooled motors, and Ruf is right to say so, too. When Ruf supercharges these motors, they also replace a lot of the innards with higher quality parts made for more stress, they don't just slap a SC on your engine - that's why it costs so much, they do it right, and give you a warranty, too. They are considered and are a licensed manufacturer, not just a tuner... Just strapping turbos onto one of these M97 or M98 late-model water-cooled motors without substantially beefing-up the innards, for one thing, is not a good idea, imo. brad

Crocodrilo, If you wait for other suppliers to reach the same level of expertise as RUF, one or both of two things will have happened: 1) the cost will be the same (development is not cheap) and/or 2) you will be very old. I have two months and 4000 miles on my 3400 K at present and I couldn't be happier with it. In addition to its inherent attributes, it is very comforting starting every outing being 99.9999999999% certain that I will not be standing by the road waiting for AAA as a result of a mechanical failure.

Everytime I read about someone thinking of turbocharging a Cayman I think another chapter of " when bad things happen to good people " is going to be written. If you want my advice based on years and years of observation of attempts at aftermarket turbocharging of Porsches there are two golden rules. 1. Don't be first, 2. Don't believe the tuner when he promises that "it is different now".

I went FI on my last car and although I had zero problems, the worry of what might happen was too much. This puppy will stay n/a. I would love to have another 100 hp, then it would be another 100 hp. Then by that time it would be time to sell and nobody would want my oil leaking beat up motor of a car. Enjoy the Croc for what it is. my $0.02

RUF S/C are always reliable. Whats funny is that a fellow board member was less than complementary about our programming yet it's the same programmer who wrote the mapping for RUF S/C.

I had a Vortech S/C on my first S2000 , and it was a stressful, PITA money pit. I learned my lesson, and decided to buy the performance I want off the showroom floor. If the Cayman ever becomes not enough (hard to imagine), I'll just look for a faster production car...unfortunately, I don't see a 997 GT3 in my future budget for a long time!

Thanks guys, points well taken. After test driving a 911 turbo the other day, I am still convinced that another 100 HP in my croc will be pure, adrenaline fun. And its possible. I honestly hate the idea of trading up to a turbo, but the feeling after driving it left me so darn impressed and hooked that takes my sleep hours away. The problem is that I love my croc, and can't see myself in any other P car, all I need are these darn 100 HP extra...thats all I am asking. I know you cant have it or win them all, but do me a favor, drive a 911 turbo and then you tell me. Maybe I am going bonkers. Sure, different strokes for different folks, it all boils down to what rocks my chair, 1) my croc 2) the turbo. Cant have them both, cant trade up, we have over 70% import duty here, a 911 Turbo will cost me nearly $250K, while a S/C or a turbo kit will cost me tops $30K installed, and still get 95% of the fun. Maybe I am not making any sense, apologize for that, maybe I need to grow up, but I am a victim of my own desires, and why not, success. Now time for a beer.

Hmm, I still fail to see a valid argument for why a turbo charger would be more stressfull than a supercharger. I think most of us undertstand the principles of how they work, but the net effect for both is air that is compressed before it enters the cylinder. Kor has a valid point in that you it may be a little more rough on the engine once the turbo spools though, but I dont know if this is just theory though. I think ultimately the turbocharger is not necessarily harder on the engine, but rather more difficult to correctly tune and the effect is that is perceived to be harder. A supercharger is conversely more straightforward to tune at a reliable level. But this is a differnece in the two technologies, not due to a specific motor. I would like to hear more opinions about this though.

Coco, I'm going to share that beer with you. While doing so lets think about a few things. I think we all agree that the Cayman is a curve carver not a dragster. If so then we have to be serious about examining our own ability to put that much more HP to work. Have you reached the skill level that available h.p. is holding you back? Unless you track the car on some wide open tracks with long straights then you are not going to find lots of places to use that extra 100 h.p. And if your skills aren't up to the task you will get frustrated or hurt yourself. On the other hand if you want to win stop light races then add a Mustang or C06 to your collection for less than a RUF modification and choose your weapon of choice as needed. The Mustang is a fine platform for modifications that are fairly inexpensive and trouble free. Or is this a issue of ego between buddies? That's easy to solve in the time tested tradition. Just LIE!

The trouble with turbo charging is that the plumbing can be a nightmare.

Santa....beers on me. Anyway, about carving curves, you are spot on. Problem is that where I live, there are not many curves, unless you drive well outside the city and thats completely, and I mean completely different grounds and road quality (maybe even dangerous, lots of incoming trucks, bicycles, a very busy port city where I am, a true swamp). We have lots and lots of straights, bridges, and no speed limit (J/K). I dont know if you have been to Miami, in some ways, similar. So, about the ego thing, maybe a tiny lil' bit, sure some friends drive good cars, but thats not all. Of course even in my Cayman I am still 99.9% faster than any car in the road at any time. So question of drag racing, not really. No contest The issue for me is the sense of acceleration ever since I was a kid. I just love the neck snapping sensation of taking off. The Cayman does a great job in doing so partly, but the Turbo, is another world. I just could'nt stop laughing like an IDT all the way up to 200 km/hr, that thing is just a rocket on wheels. What a blast, solid, perfect. That sensation is what causes my blood rush to my brain, not carving curves, which might be equally as fun for many, but for me, this time is the rollercoaster ride that does the effect on me. Of course, I could have bough a vette or a stang, but no matter if these can do 0-60 in one second, thats not exactly "the package" I crave. I still seek refinent, heritage, exclusivity, they are all part of the equation. I want a Porsche, no question about it, and dont take me wrong, I luv my croc. But if I can do 100 HP more and still keep in in the swamp, that will just do it. We all know how beautifully designed our crocs are, and how great it handles, its clearly no vette or mustang . But just a little more juice will for sure, make me a happier man. I NEED ANOTHER BEER.

Look at the torque curve of a supercharged car vs a turbocharged car making the same HP. Torque means stress. Let me know which puts the most stress on the engine in the smaller amount of time. That being said, I think that as long as you work within limits, you can have a relatively trouble free turbo car (if you have the cash and do things right).

Hmm, I am wondering if this is just a problem for the power transmittal to the crankshaft. I suspect it would be harder on the crank and the rods, but I am thinking the pistons and the block shouldnt care as long as you dont compress it too much.

Coco, I've been to your nice country and I do understand the road limits as well as that seat of pants thrill of acceleration. Sell the truck and add a Viper as a stable mate to the CS.....that might be a tad expensive there however. hozer, heat is the biggest issue. Not many get dealing with it right with an aftermarket turbo. Believe my 40 plus years of watching the tears of those who didn't.

Here's an interesting and succinct explanation tat not only notes the basic differences, but also the different stresses on the motor from Wikipedia... brad

There are inlet considerations. SC operate efficiently with NA inlet structure, but turbos require a different inlet direction for optimal air flow, from what I've read. Hence SC can be bolt on, but TC require the inlet to be quite different in orientation for efficient operation.

Either way is stressful for engine. S/C is probably easier and simplier to install in the Cayman. If the turbo system is designed correctly it would out perform S/C. I think having turbo or super charger would not work well with stock internals. The lack of space for efficient intercooler and high static compression might required water injection and piggy back computer to reduce knock. I was talking to a Porsche mechanic the other day and he has seen people with S/C 997 engine that last 5000 miles only. Anyone thought about Nitrous? I don't know about the cost of refilling but the inital cost is low and you could possibly revert to stock if there are any issues with engine. May be a GPS enabled nitrous that only activates on the straight away with WOT I got another idea for modification but I guess I will start another thread.

There are a lot of different things going on here such as comparing the two methods, explaining their use, difficulty of incorporation, etc....but I believe the real question was whether or not the motor could handle a turbo, was it not? It seems more logical that the tuner should have said that its too difficult to properly incorporate or there are some restrictions rather than saying the engine could not handle it. I am still of the opinion that if it could handle a supercharger it could handle a properly done turbo setup (provided restrictions such as space, etc were not present - which is probably not the case). Again, the question was whether or not the engine could handle it.

Thats correct. Still no matter which arguements we have here, question is, can the 3.4 engine of Cayman S handle a decent turbo set up? Was the 993 or 996 with similar displacement able to sing with a turbo, should not our engines take the extra heat as well? The German tuner was very explicit in saying "be careful". Maybe sales tactics to sell me the S/C they have but then again its a VERY reputable tuner. I hope someone from TPC ca step in and provide their arguements as well, or maybe we have to wait till end of summer when supposedly their turbo kit wil be out. And for half the price of the S/C form the other guys across the atlantic. And best part is, apparently the turbo kit add much more tq/Hp than the S/C. My guess is that with a S/C weshould add around 120 Hp more (crank) whereas with the Turbo that figure can go as high as 170 HP extra.

While I see no reason the engine could not handle it, the setup of a turbo is quite a bit more difficult to achieve the same level of reliability as a supercharger. If I were a tuner, I would try the supercharger and go for 80-100hp increase. Anything more than this I feel is probably unrealistic and you should be looking for a new car that point. I really question an add on turbo

Sure, but I am trying to avoid this. Maybe I can't have the best of both worlds, but at least I can try. Maybe I need to grow up

Since no one has really pointed it out... a S/C actually puts more strain on the engine then a Turbo. The reason being that the S/C is powered by the crank. This not only adds a greater strain on the crank but the S/C takes more HP to compress the air then a Turbo. I think the real reason why we have seen them coming out with S/C kits is that its much easier to design the kit as a turbo setup requires custom headers , Hot & cold side piping for the turbo, I/C placment and piping, wastegate, etc etc. Its alot more design & fab time then a S/C setup. But because the Turbo is more efficient you would see more power from it. your TQ curve would be diffrent then a centrifical supercharger, but easly controlled with a boost controller. I would only consider going turbo if it came from a major name and had a warranty, which is the only way I would do a S/C kit as well. I stick to playing with my mustang when it comes to bolting on kits to create power. As I can replace the engine in my stang for a couple thousand, not so for the Crocs