19 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHAny info and thoughts on 2003 996 c4s
Leading reported evidence
Use centrifugal
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Leading evidence: 'Use centrifugal' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Use centrifugal' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I'm pretty sure RUF uses a roots blower....VF's the only one that uses a vortec style AFAIK
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
they use a thicker gasket to keep costs down or else it would never sell....
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I'm pretty sure RUF uses a roots blower....VF's the only one that uses a vortec style AFAIK
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
19 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T105141Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
this SC setup costs $25K, not including install.... they lowered the compression by adding a thicker gasket, and produces about another 90Hp, 80lb torque, but that is german HP (there is a difference). It is a vortec type blower to keep the NA characteristic (very linear).... . Its a great setup and looks OEM. Not to many of these are made.... these engines are stronger than what some vendors or internet hysteria make them appear to be.... If the engine is going to blow, it wont be the SC thats gonna kill it. NA engines seems to go on there own.... so its a design thing and not a power thing..... but for the money I would get a TT, for the uniqueness, bragging rights and rarity.... This is nice.
Are you sure that RUF just installs thicker head gaskets to lower the compression ratio because that's so shade tree-ish.
I thought RUF torn into the engine and did the conversion right?
HP is HP, btw. If there's a German HP then there's a fairly simple way to convert the German HP numbers to SAE HP.
Sincerely,
Macster.
Wildly modified car.
I think you should keep looking, unless you are capable of evaluating the car and its mods and in your opinion then the overall package is acceptable.
If you are, then make a deal for the car and enjoy.
Otherwise, keep looking. Lots of unmolested cars out there.
Sincerely,
Macster.
I will repeat, I would like to see it.....
there are a lor of choices for that money, but if YOU like this direction then have a closer look. Not everyone want a modified car...and not everyong wants unmolested - they have a Turbo same year for $2k less, but that wasnt what you were thinking of
High miler
Inherent weaknesses of M96 motor overstressed (debatable)
Heavily modded = decreased value over stock to many
Difficult resale at any price
at that price point you can get a very nice unmolested Turbo.
Shade- treeish? To alot of people, the entire m96/97 line is shade-treeish.... the nikasil/locasil, dry/wet sump, cable/e-gas, clips/screws..... the lists goes on. Bottom line, thicker head gasket reduces compression and lots of people do it. I know this kit.... they use a thicker gasket to keep costs down or else it would never sell.... or else, like the other comments.... just get the turbo....
If they tore down this engine and modified the internals similar to a turbo.... this kit would cost more that $25K.... just look at how much a turbo engine costs. M96 engines are strong engines.... more than people think. People say that FI will ruin these engines..... but its all in the tunning and its only 5-6 psi at wot. Normal driving its rarely under boost.
When Porsche says 380hp, thats minimum. 6Gt3 are known to push 400hp. RUF is the same way, they are conservative in how they rate their engines.... thats what I mean that its German HP.... look at the X51 kit, $17k for 25hp... that hp number is minimum (German HP).
+1....
RUF is a car manufacturer..... but we all know they are more of a tuner, def a diff leaque than Calaway, Henessy or EVO.... etc, but the OP posted a modified car.... we all know there are plenty of unmolested ones out there.
OP.... I can gaurantee, at a GTG or C&C meet, whatever...... open the hood of this RUF and everyone will flock around it.
