Question for fellow FSI owners (and perhaps everyone else)..

When I first started my engine after the rebuild AND when I completed the first oil change FSI had me do the catch and kill start method to build oil pressure. The weather in my area is going to be nice today and tomorrow and I want to continue to break in the car when I can. Since the car has been sitting for a few weeks, would it make sense to do this if I were to drive it today? I am assuming the oil has all dripped back into the pan not unlike when you complete a fresh oil change. Thanks!

Just let start on its own and don't rev it. The first one was to get oil into the bearing surfaces and purge air from the oiling system. Once its settled down, drive it until it reaches operation temp, then have a bit of fun while following the break in recommendations.

At times I will do a prime start if a car has sat around for a while, and temps are cold.. That's not just an M9X powered car, but also my older vehicles and Aircooled Porsche's. It is not necessary, but it makes me feel better.

Thanks for the replies! Nice to know it isn�t necessary, but it also doesn�t hurt either way. mason

What’s a prime start if I may ask?

Quotes source post: 17116837

Start the engine, and as soon as it sustains combustion, immediately shut it off. This can happen once, or several times in succession.

Start-shut off soon as it fires-start-shut off soon as it fires-. etc-repeat until you see oil pressure when it fires. I think that is the process. I use this process on mine for first start after winter storage. It is a F6I reconstructed engine. I used to do the pull the fuel pump fuse and crank it until it was explained that will not supply enough oil to pre-lube the engine.

Quotes source post: 17117099

Like I said...what Jake says is the best advice!

Quotes source post: 17117115

This should be done to every engine, in every car at an oil service as well. I do it with everything from my tractors, to tanks, to Porsche's to Ferraris.

Quotes source post: 17117099

Is that a joke or do you actually do that??

Quotes source post: 17118552

Happy Holidays to you Nick...

Quotes source post: 17118552

I'm not much of a comedian.

Thanks for the info! One more thing to worry about I guess. With my MFI aircooled 911, I would think that this would quickly flood the engine with fuel though if the cold-start circuit repeatedly dumps raw fuel into the inlets.

I also learned to do the same thing with a pony to start up my father's large gravel crushers. Start the pony and then allow it to turn over the crusher's motor a few times to get it warmed up and lubricated, then allowing it to fire up and run a bit before engaging the crusher flywheels....to turn big, big rocks into pebbles. Still use the same principle with other engines, although I was told by a SAAB mechanic years ago to floor the gas pedal which was supposed to send a message to the car's computer that it is flooded and would cut the flow of gas and help prime the lubrication in order to start. However, at this point, I am not sure, as SAAB is out of business and the car has been turned into Kia's so I still use the tried and true method.

Jake, that is not a good practices. The critical part of a cold start is the moment the engines catches and fires. When it fires the first times all the rotating mass is accelerated to speed and significant force is put on bearings/sliding surfaces. You don't want to repeat that several times. At steady idle there is not much force on the bearings/sliding surfaces. Your technique will also make the engine make more turns before the oil reaches all the bearings since oil will bleed down a little bit between the starts. Your technique will accelerate the cold start wear. Just start it and let it idle until pressure is reached. If you don't like the chain rattle at start-up you can remove the fuel pump fuse and build oil pressure using the starter.

Quotes source post: 17120046

There are circumstances when what I am describing here are suitable. I�ll do it my way, and will direct my purchasers to do what I would do... What direct experience has taught me, and what I have applied over 1,000 times. You can do what you wish. Deal? When you�ve put your name on over 1,000 M9X engines, and shipped them all over the planet, you can rate to compare your results with mine. Till then, it�s just more vapor ware, hearsay & assumption.

I'm trying to help you, like anyone else on this forum, you can do what you want with that.

Quotes source post: 17120046

Dude, you seriously need to step back...Jake has been doing more to understand how things work in these engine under various circumstances than anyone else. How many m96 motors have you built? I'd caution anyone from taking some of your advice pertaining to anything m96! Some of what you've suggested in more than one thread is just mind boggling.

Quotes source post: 17120046

I agree with you 100%. However, I do know there are different ways to do things, especially with cars. Many people like to tell me how often they change their oil. They make it sounds like that one thing will be the deciding factor if the engine will last longer. It doesn't. There are so many other variables when it comes to the health of an engine. For example, I refuse to let my engine, cold or warm, idle any longer than it has to. Most of the people I know have no care in the world how long their car idles. Who is right? Who knows? Do what you want. I also don't like to put my car in reverse any more than I have to. I pull into parking spots where I can pull through to the outer parking spot so I can put it into 1st gear and go on my way. Am I right? Maybe. What I do works for me, I have never had a transmission or engine fail on me, and I sleep well at night. Jake is giving advice based on his experience. He has more to lose since his reputation is on the line. It's probably safe to assume he will give the best advice he can.

Everyone has an opinion, but I tend to listen to a noted expert in the field of concern. Especially if he built my engine...

I am amazed at how delicate the 996 engine can be But then again our P cars are so very special Never hear about what oil is best on the Ford or Toyota blogs or how often should I change my brake fluid Funny but part of our obsession with the flatsix

Joining the choir, Jake is the only person that has spent real time to understand the minute details that make these engines work well and reliably at all levels of performance. And not just our M9X engine. On these boards we have operators, technicians, mechanics, masters. But Jake is the level above that. Sage, Guru, Savant, Scholar. Not sure which word to use. If Jake advises a Best Known Method, we should pay very close attention and re-evaluate our position if we are in conflict.

I began downloading Jake's discoveries to my printer back in 2008 when he began posting about timing chain link failures on a 1998 2.5 Boxster with 30 k on the odometer, factory repairs on the engine cases, tensioner issues, the powdered metal technology cracked cap technology being used in rods, freeze-cast MMC liners, the D chunk failures, main seal, IMS, and assorted crankshaft failures. However, rather than to purposely slam or sully Porsche, it was offered as an awareness to the owners of their own responsibility to be more discerning and vigilant when modifying these engines which were all based on his discoveries from customer problems. For somebody to devote that kind of time to publish their results without manipulating language to conceal is totally refreshing, even today. As owners of these toys, we are far better off today for having somebody who did a lot of the hard work.... so, why would I not listen.......

Quotes source post: 17125556

Thanks.. That's about the time I finally felt comfortable sharing what we had learned to date. It is one thing to learn this stuff, but another thing to feel comfortable sharing it with the masses, and not feeling like the things are even partially related to "mis-information". Looking back over the last 18 years or so there's very few things that I have shared that time and more exposure has changed my opinion on. Back in 2008 no one knew we had been doing all this work. In the beginning I was totally, and completely ashamed of having water-cooled Porsche engines on my property. When Charles Navarro told me that Bruce Anderson made a strong suggestion that he and I take on the issues with the M9X engine, I asked him if he was crazy. I added on a section to the back of my 2nd building, and did all the water- cooled work there, so if a customer showed up, they'd have no idea that we had gone to the dark side... All these years later the "dark side" has taken over that entire property, and ran me and the air-cooled stuff to our second facility. It's crazy how time changes things. What you are reading about here is a great plot to a book filled with facts about the early days of all this development work. I think I'll work on that in 2021.I have a great take for it, already. Anyway, the modern human has changed a lot since 2008. Today if I were going to share what we'd learned, things would be a lot different in how it is conveyed, and shared. More than likely people would not be as open to it, because they'd rather read posts, and watch videos from people who are enthusiasts, and clamoring around sharing what they learn in limited exposure to these issues, rather than "someone who is making money from it". That is the problem today, people are too busy reading g to reply, than reading to listen, and learn. They are doing everything they can to try to find one thing wrong with a post, or a video rather than getting the point. Very few traditional humans are left. Luckily, they make up the pool that creates my customer base. I take sure of that by running each through The Gauntlet.

Quotes source post: 17125607

I'd rather watch a video of you (or the assembler that did mine) measuring tolerances and meticulously assembling the engine than some random YouTuber with associated Dunning - Kruger effect talking out his or her backside with some terrible music overlay. Heck, I'd love to watch a video of you testing, disassembling and measuring the new stuff while explaining the findings (good, bad or ugly) and the *why* of the process.

Jake, to speak to how a modern human has changed.... I think a lot of that has to do with your frustrations, and sometimes rightfully so. You get people like Pete, from your IMS video, who have never heard of IMS or bore scoring. When that person understands they speak to an expert, they get it, accept the information presented and end it there. No or few questions come up. Someone easy to work with for sure. You also get the the other crowd, who has somewhat more experience or knowledge than Pete that they have acquired previously through whatever means. That group will ask questions and sometimes question you. Many times that's how that group learns. I don't think it's directed in a negative way but questioning and understanding how and why is how they learn. Whether we like it or not, it comes with the territory when you open up and share the knowledge you acquired over time, for which many of us are grateful - hope you know that. As long as it's done in a constructive and respectful manner there is nothing wrong with asking questions. Is it annoying sometimes? Sure it definitely is, but that's part of the madness.

Quotes source post: 17125752

True, however there are a growing amount of people these days who have no experience on a subject but think they do because they watched a youtube once. Along with that many of these folks have the "me first and that should come with a trophy..." syndrome. I can easily see that it would be extremely difficult/impossible to work with those types because of their attitude. I am just grateful I never worked in a customer interaction position because I would have never lasted in such a job. As I said throughout my professional career: "My job would be so much easier if I didn't have to deal with people."

Fair point. I've been dealing with people my entire career. Teaches you A LOT. The youtube wannabees and people looking to make some noise can be picked up on pretty easily by the delivery of their information or question alone. I watch my fair share of youtube videos and influencers and see large amounts of inaccurate or plain wrong info shared. Cue the scene from "Office Space" - You Tube . I think Jake needs a people person on his team

Quotes source post: 17125799

One of my favorite basketball coaches used to tell me, "Practice making it, not missing it". He was a great coach and I learned to listen to people like him that could take me to the next level. A lot of my teammates were lazy and didn't want to take the time to learn new techniques from people who were knowledgeable. That's the problem with a lot of people today. They'd rather listen to entertaining people on YouTube than knowledgeable people that can take them to the next level of understanding of these cars. People on the forums seem to want the quick fix. They don't want to spend time learning, but rather want people like Jake to stop what they're doing and give out free advice. That's one of the reasons why we started Rennvision, but many still don't want to take the time to learn. For example, lots of people will post their UOA reports on the forums or email them to Jake for a professional opinion. Why? Because they don't have any idea how to read a UOA report. In response, we produced a 4-hour class on UOA and posted it on Rennvision. I've recommended it to many people here on Rennlist. Do you think anyone paid the $25 fee to watch the four sessions? One guy even said he didn't have time to watch 4 hours of videos. But wonder how many hours he spends on Rennlist trying to find the answer from idiots that haven't a clue about the study of Tribology and how it applies to Porsches. Fortunately, the Focus On: M9X Engine Assembly series has done very well because people that want to rebuild their engines are serious about doing it right the first time and aren't of the same mentality as many of the people that come to the forums confused about the so-called "blinker fluid", what direction to point your center wheel caps, lack of cup holders, or where to put their iPhones.

Quotes source post: 17125607

Ahhh the advent of �social media�... wonderful isn�t it? 🙄... Kepp in doing what you�re doing - you�ll be fine 👍😃

Before I was out of High School I learned that you want a persnickety machinest ! However Jake Raby gives away more knowledge than any I have known.

“Modern human” now that’s a slippery slope.....

I can't tell you how much Jake has helped me. He didn't know me from Adam, yet answered my questions more than once at 1am his time...There's so much more to my story with him that I won't get into, he's the best in my book!

Quotes source post: 17125883

Taking the UOA classes now. Wish I had been a part of the live class - it's fascinating.

Quotes source post: 17126653

Thank you for becoming a Rennvision member! We enough support, we can produce more videos for YouTube. Also, you should sign up for Jake Raby's live webinar on Bore Scoring. You'll get information not found anywhere else. And, it's free!

This is an interesting discussion. Let me ask: How do you distinguish between BS and actual good information?

Quotes source post: 17127378

With an Invasive PPI?

Quotes source post: 17127378

When I was small my Father always told me "consider the source"...

With old V8s easily pull the distributor and using a drill rotate the oil pump and pre lube the engine. I suppose if there was a way to do that with the Porsche flat 6 somebody would have mentioned it.

Quotes source post: 17127378

This is a great trolling question. Philosophy is like this. The discussion can go a million ways from here. Without a lot of thinking, BS is when information being presented is known to be wrong. Good information comes from a known credible source. In academia, personal credibility comes from studying, the group you study with, publications that are accepted by the academic community. If you publish information that is contradictory or too far forward you may be ostracized by the community. This means you are either wrong and a BS'er, or you are thinking too far forward and the institutions aren't willing to grant you the license to move that fast. In this case, you need to play their game until you have credibility within the group. Then you can start moving your ideas forward. When you start moving your ideas forward, others will challenge them to prove their validity. This is how science moves forward with good information. It's never perfect and never complete. It is slow and tedious and we may have not recognized some amazing minds over time, but it is what it is. Credibility of a small business in the US is gained in an additional way. Continued business success and growth. The BS'ers will move from business to business figuring out how to get you to spend your dollars for nothing. The credible business guys do the work to figure out some real value to sell to you. If they start selling vaporware, they will be out of business faster than coronavirus can spread.

Quotes source post: 17127378

Simple, you put trolls on ignore.

I asked the question because I've noticed there is a big cultural difference between where I'm from and most people on this forum. If I give you a bolt and tell you it's 40mm long, you can quickly grab your tool (callipers) and measure it. You don't need to trust me(the source), you can check it yourself. If I tell you my car makes 340hp, you can put it on a dyno and check if that is true on not. You don't need to trust me, you can check it. Both the above examples shows that you don't need to give a shlt about where the information comes from, you can just check it yourself. Golock911 is wrong(atleast for the academia outside USA) in his 'credibility' statement. ALL academia outside (and also inside as you see in the linked MIT paper: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/han...=2&isAllowed=y ) USA works in the same way. When you publish information you ALWAYS give information how you arrived at it...in such detail that the reader could RE-CREATE the same tests and verify what is written in the paper. By working this way you don't need to trust the source, you have enough information to check and verify it yourself. I don't expect a forum poster to give such exhaustive explanation but at least some idea how they arrived at their conclusion/advice so that others could verify it. If someone gives ZERO information how he/she arrived at their conclusions (or advice) I take it as snake oil and vaporware, because I'm not able to verify it. Does that make sense?

Quotes source post: 17128315

You Tube

Quotes source post: 17128315

Oh boy, we got a sea lion on our hands.. ...freakin' sea lions.

Quotes source post: 17128315

To all of us, this makes very clear sense. Many (close to all) of your claims have not been able to be confirmed as accurate. There's no "information" beyond your "word", documented data nor external sources. Does this make sense?

Quotes source post: 17128315

Your comments are consistently wrong and rude, because you make a fundamentally wrong assumption. You assume that whatever internet warrior research you have done, or whatever limited experience you have, puts you in position to question experts, and that they owe you a personal justification and explanation until you are satisfied. Academic publication was not the best example, for two reasons, but you're still wrong. As someone who publishes academic research... 1) Those undergo PEER review. They are written so that PEERS can recreate the work. They do not start from basic layman principles, and in most cases only a few people actually have the expertise to actually recreate the work. If an first year undergrad starts questioning and demanding justification to their satisfaction for the methods and assumptions underlying a successfully published paper, I won't. I don't owe them anything, and I'm not obligated to waste my time. A peer in the field? Sure. 2) Sufficient detail is given because it is to mutual benefit. The author owes the audience detail so that in return they will build on (and cite!) The authors work. This gives the author recognition and prestige. Your examples of bolts and dynos is terribly simplistic and for anything more complicated, you don't have the facilities or expertise to recreate the work, if you were even interested in doing so. So, as a complete novice you can take the advice of experts as it's given, and spend time on your own to understand their advice. Questioning aknowledged experts with simplistic statements, and essentially "Prove it to my satisfaction!" just makes you look like a fool. I'm sure you're not, but it's certainly how you come across. So, last question, is Jake Raby as I suggest, an expert in the field of M96 engines, who doesn't owe you anything? or, as you suggest, a snake-oil salesman? You're free to believe what you like, but for an someone in a commercial (non-academic) enterprise, he's gone above and beyond to share and discuss his knowledge. He's someone who has built and experimented on these engines for decades now, who has discussed some of this knowledge over many many free videos, whos company has a wait list of over a year for his help and, as far as I can find, doesn't have any complaints against his company or work. That's enough for me to recognize that, for a commercial enterprise, he knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't owe me or you, some arbitrary level of detail to satisfy my own ignorance.Again, you're free to believe what you want, but be prepared to continue to look very foolish. See also: Dunning-Kruger effect ​

For reference

Seems like if I were going to be concerned about this particular problem I would fit the car with an Accusump or something similar. This may help with the pressure drop in hard cornering as well.

Quotes source post: 17128764

this may be the greatest response I have ever read on this forum.

Just to be straight, the only thing I'm opposing to is when someone on this forum comes along and claims superior reliability from whatever modification/procedure etc that is not supported by the manual/Porsche. My only advice is following the manual, don't modify and replace old/worn parts with latest revision from Porsche. Sometime I can also give an explanation why you should follow it. What information source do you think is the best: -Porsche with it's army of engineers, technicians and mechanics who designed, engineered and built these engines(with plenty of experience and racing success etc) -Independent, mostly one-man-show companys, merely trying to understand it. Building engines is simple and I have no doubt Jake and others can put them together properly. I have not said anything else. Modifying, in regard to reliability, is a completely different story. It's funny that the Dunning-Kruger is mentioned, because most responders here is in the beginning of it. You have no idea how complicated it is to safely say that a modification or procedure is actually better in regard to reliability. What would you think would be a proper test procedure to determine if a modification improves reliability for every car? Take the IMS bearing as an example. I've put my head and knowledge in to the issues, and most the modifications available for these engines. Over the last year, as I've learnt and investigated, my opinion have swinged from "maybe there is something to this" to "What a joke, seriously?". You know, the development on the curve....

If they were such good at engineering, there would be very little need for Jake or FSI.

Quotes source post: 17129563

You forgot to give credit to the accountants.

Quotes source post: 17129563

Like Yaz said above. Nick you should absolutely keep doing exactly what the owners manual says and get back to us with data driven documentation of your experience.

This thread is so far off the original topic it is ridiculous

Seacrest out...

Quotes source posts: 17129563, 17129563, 17129563, 17129563

You say quote, " My only advice is following the manual ". If that were true, you wouldn't need to come to the forums. You also say, " don't modify and replace old/worn parts with latest revision from Porsche ". I followed that advice and ended up on the side of the road with a coolant light blinking. The coolant sprayed all over the place in the engine bay. Found out on Rennlist that the older OEM Porsche cap had problems with sealing correctly. They recommended an updated cap. Changed it out. No more issues. Another example, before I bought my 996 I was considering a 997 that I found listed on AutoTrader for a really low price. Come to find out the engine was completed locked up from overfilling the oil. The owner was reading the manual and was overzealous about keeping the oil level at the top per instructions in the manual. He kept adding oil until it killed the AOS and hydrolocked the engine. Well, I'm been around the block a little longer than most and want I have found is that car manufacturers like to suppress knowledge of problems that could hurt their reputation or worse, lead to lawsuits. Examples: A. VW dieselgate B. Ford Firestone tires C. Toyota Takata airbags D. Toyota accelerator lock up E. Porsche IMS bearing failures Manufacturers will do everything in their power to keep problems from going viral on the internet or mass media. That's why there has been a rise in recalls in the recent history versus past techniques of claiming no problems in the past. The term "recall" used to have a negative connotation. Now, people welcome the manufacturer taking care of known problems that could be safety risks or car failure. Therefore, companies like Flat 6 Innovations, Hartech, and others have spent lots of time and effort to educate Porsche owners to the common problems with Porsche cars. It seems that Barry Hart of Hartech prefers to communicate via technical writings and Jake Raby of Flat 6 Innovations prefers to communication through video mediums like YouTube. Both methods work depending on your learning preference and lead learners to the same conclusions. The only differences that I can see is they both have different paths to remedy the problems. They're also located on different sides of the pond. Lots of so-called Euro repair shops, but not too many shops that fully rebuild the engines to the detail, precision, reliability, and quality level like Hartech or Flat 6. Both companies don't replace parts that are known to fail, but have spent years documenting weak points that even the factory hasn't addressed in their reman engines. (e.g. Lokasil) When Barry Hart and Jake Raby have a debate, that's one thing, but when Nick_L, who has tinkered on one 996 in his lifetime, wants to debate Jake Raby that's a whole different story.

Quotes source post: 17129563

Your posts and thought processes are so self-contradictory, it's hard to know where to start, but you really do sound foolish. 1) You demand and claim to use evidence to support your opinion, but yet also claim to follow the original Porsche manual. However, there is a mountain of documented evidence (IMS, AOS, Borescoring), including lawsuits (IMS) that they didn't get it right. So, you're just ignoring evidence that doesn't support your bias. 2) You claim that the Porsche engineers are the best source of information for these cars ("My only advice is following the manual"), and yet in the very same sentence you say "don't modify and replace old/worn parts with latest revision from Porsche". But wouldn't updated parts from Porsche have been designed by those same Porsche engineers after they've learned more or made improvements? How do you explain Porsche Technical Service Bulletins? 3) You demand sufficient data and explanation to back up any claim that doesn't support your preconceived ideas, but then say "Sometime I can also give an explanation why you should follow it", indicating that you can't even always give explanations to support your own ideas. Your posts are full of claims to expertise that you never support, nor have you ever shown any particular insight, you just spend time putting down and insulting. You should know that claims like "I've put my head and knowledge in to the issues", "I've learnt and investigated" count for exactly nothing on the internet and just make you sound arrogant. 4) You discount people outside of Porsche who have documented experience studying and experimenting on hundreds of engines, and yet as far as I've seen, you haven't even studied one Porsche engine. All the while saying, "You have no idea how complicated it is to safely say that a modification or procedure is actually better." Well, obviously I'm not as smart as you, but as a guess, I would say it probably involves experimenting with more than one engine and only reading other people's work. I would speculate it might involve working on several hundred engines over time. You know, the very thing you discount in others. By the way, as a scientist, there is a place for technical papers which is how you seem to "put your head to the issue". They serve as a great starting point for engineers and technicians to learn about or improve a specific system or technology. But I'll be the first to acknowledge that reading scientific papers and then using those to make claims about real-world issues is tricky at best, and outright wrong in many cases. For instance, the MIT Master's Thesis you cite is on a 3.0L V6 Ford engine, and way down in the conclusion, they correctly acknowledge that "Engine component design is also believed to affect aeration", and "Some mechanism other than the processes occurring in the oil layer on the windage tray must be the cause of the aeration and should be further investigated". So what exactly from that paper would you use to think you've learned about aeration in a 3.4/3.6L Flat 6 Porsche engine? 4) Why are you on this forum? If the Porsche manual is so perfect, and if your amazingly special brain has been applied to this problem and you've got it all figured out, why do you frequent a forum devoted to the continued sharing of knowledge about the maintenance and modification of these cars? I thought the manual already had everything you needed? Last, I'll copy from another one of my post, also directed at you: I believe that your faith in Porsche is misplaced, and there is plenty of evidence to support some skepticism. (IMSB?) Don't get me wrong, we all love these cars and Porsches are excellently engineered overall, but we have to acknowledge that Porsche worked on the 996 from perhaps 1995-6 (early engineering) through to perhaps 2003 (on the last 2004 model), so 7 years. Further, Porsche was not doing well financially at that point in time. They were looking to cut costs, so they were not in a position to make the best engineering choices, they were working in a tradespace that included cost as a major driving factor. It would be incorrect to assume that their design is the best engineering design. Their choices are the best design, within an acceptable cost. On the other hand, most aftermarket builders have now been working with these engines for 20 years or more. Further, their market is to enthusiast who are willing to put money into these cars, so the cost/performance tradespace is different. I'm sure cost is somewhat a factor, but largely, the aftermarket for enthusiast is less constrained. The commodity/appliance buyers don't have their engines rebuilt. This makes it very likely to get excellent engineering solutions (better than Porsche's) from the aftermarket. P.S. I'm done arguing on the internet.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/659x430/c6f2a774_c8fa_4631_bbfd_c91ff934cee1_1_105_c_db95e3f639f0047ce4f4c94e8cc9cbe8f89ed580.jpeg

Quotes source post: 17127378

This is probably the most important and the most difficult thing to be good at

Quotes source post: 17130382

True statement, however needed slight adjustment. It's not difficult to fact check, but can be time consuming. This works against the lazy and/or voluntarily uninformed, as we see with a certain board member.

Here's the 64k dollar question. What is the piston to cylinder clearance set up from Porsche and from FSI?

Quotes source post: 17130407

Problem is many times you cannot find the facts!

Quotes source post: 17130433

The specifications from Porsche have never been released. All the empirical data I have collected from new engine measurements puts these specs all over the place, along with surface finishes of cylinders. The FSI specifications will never be released. There's no need for them, since the components to replicate what we create can't be purchased. If these were posted, they'd just lead someone astray when they use a different piston forging, or change any of the other dozen variables that compose the combination. Right down to surface finish, and ring package, what we do isn't what anyone else does, or can replicate. You know how you figure out what the proper clearance is? You build the damn engine, run it, and pull it apart to inspect it. I have done this very thing 7 times in the past 6 days, as I work to develop the next generation of cylinder treatments for Aircooled and water-cooled Porsche engines... SUMEBore. You don't get these specifications by asking for them online, or by asking manufacturers. If you want to know, you spend the time, and the money to EXPERIENCE it, and let the engine be your teacher. Nothing else works. Nothing. Bolting engines together is easy. Building engines, developing combinations, and perfecting them isn't. While you were having Christmas dinner, I was on the dyno. While you celebrate the New Year I'll be measuring running clearances. Thats the difference.

Quotes source post: 17130466

Well then i'll ask a different question. It would seem to me you want the clearance to be just enough such that thermal expansion couldn't cause an interference problem....no looser. Is this correct?

Quotes source post: 17130483

That's one of several targets for proper clearance. Different piston materials expand at different rates, and everything is a variable. This is why it takes development to determine what works, and time in service to prove it.

Quotes source post: 17130466

Happy New Year Jake 🥂

Quotes source post: 17131471

I will second that! Happy New Year Jake.

Happy New Year, Jake. BTW I have a question...Why is there air and can you prove your statement with data?... Ain't nobody got time for dis! SShheeesh!

Happy New Year, Jake and Jud. Thanks for the *many* happy and fun miles over the last year!

Quotes source post: 17131969

Ditto! You guys are rock stars in my book!