Good News for 997 Gen 2 owners
Discussion
After analysing the design and construction of the Gen 2 engines - I am pleased to report that they look to be a massive improvement on the Gen 1 design.
Many of the issues we had with the Gen 1 designs (and reported on for the last 10 years) have been changed (many in line with our own improvements applied to Gen 1 engines for many years).
Closed deck – we all knew about – but we are still the only suppliers we are aware of that fit replacement cylinders that also locate with a precision machined top hat flange for Gen 1 engines to convert them to a true closed deck design.
100% coolant through the block before the head (instead of perhaps 10 to 15% in Gen 1 and supporting our modifications to increase coolant block flow in that range).
A slightly lower thermostat rating (enough said).
Full depth cylinder coolant channels (as we chose to create our 3 litre 944 turbo block using the older 944 basic block in preference to using a 968 or S2 block with shorter coolant depth).
There are some changes that we could not incorporate into the Gen 1 designs but did report on some as weaknesses – as follows.
(1) The overhung flywheel flange gone back to a normal short overhang (as the chain drive for the camshafts reverts to one end of the engine).
(2) No intermediate camshaft speed reduction shaft (removing the IMS bearing problems).
(3) RMS location machined in line with the crankshaft shell locations (not a separate machining operation in a different part of the engines prone to slight misalignment).
(4) A much improved oil pump (to improve low speed oil pressure and delivery) – very welcome.
Finally the replacement of Lokasil cylinders/crankcases with Alusil (the silicon created in the solution proportions in Alusil being (in our opinion) smaller and better bonded than in the Lokasil process).
The main changes are to increase the cooling to the cylinder walls and in so doing increase the oil viscosity between the piston and the cylinder wall to increase the film thickness and prevent any detached silicon particles for scoring into the pistons (the increased volume and lower temperature of coolant resisting temperature rises during “heat soak” for longer).
One slight puzzle remains – why some seem to already be scoring bores?
Some piston examples we have seen appear to have a different piston coating to others and it would help us a great deal if anyone could send us a photo of a scored piston or better still a scored piston sample (for which we would be happy to pay costs). This will enable us to zone in on the problem while examples are still so rare.
We have tested a lot of different piston coatings in Lokasil Gen 1 engines and the piston coatings we have seen in Gen 2 engines look similar to those that didn’t last as long as the test samples we used and not the same as the original hard ferrous coating in the early M96 engines - that we understand is now outlawed in Europe on health and safety grounds.
The engines look to be more complicated to assemble than Gen 1 engines and will require special tools but look as if they will prove to be well up to the standards Porsche used to supply – fingers crossed at this early stage.
Baz
Many of the issues we had with the Gen 1 designs (and reported on for the last 10 years) have been changed (many in line with our own improvements applied to Gen 1 engines for many years).
Closed deck – we all knew about – but we are still the only suppliers we are aware of that fit replacement cylinders that also locate with a precision machined top hat flange for Gen 1 engines to convert them to a true closed deck design.
100% coolant through the block before the head (instead of perhaps 10 to 15% in Gen 1 and supporting our modifications to increase coolant block flow in that range).
A slightly lower thermostat rating (enough said).
Full depth cylinder coolant channels (as we chose to create our 3 litre 944 turbo block using the older 944 basic block in preference to using a 968 or S2 block with shorter coolant depth).
There are some changes that we could not incorporate into the Gen 1 designs but did report on some as weaknesses – as follows.
(1) The overhung flywheel flange gone back to a normal short overhang (as the chain drive for the camshafts reverts to one end of the engine).
(2) No intermediate camshaft speed reduction shaft (removing the IMS bearing problems).
(3) RMS location machined in line with the crankshaft shell locations (not a separate machining operation in a different part of the engines prone to slight misalignment).
(4) A much improved oil pump (to improve low speed oil pressure and delivery) – very welcome.
Finally the replacement of Lokasil cylinders/crankcases with Alusil (the silicon created in the solution proportions in Alusil being (in our opinion) smaller and better bonded than in the Lokasil process).
The main changes are to increase the cooling to the cylinder walls and in so doing increase the oil viscosity between the piston and the cylinder wall to increase the film thickness and prevent any detached silicon particles for scoring into the pistons (the increased volume and lower temperature of coolant resisting temperature rises during “heat soak” for longer).
One slight puzzle remains – why some seem to already be scoring bores?
Some piston examples we have seen appear to have a different piston coating to others and it would help us a great deal if anyone could send us a photo of a scored piston or better still a scored piston sample (for which we would be happy to pay costs). This will enable us to zone in on the problem while examples are still so rare.
We have tested a lot of different piston coatings in Lokasil Gen 1 engines and the piston coatings we have seen in Gen 2 engines look similar to those that didn’t last as long as the test samples we used and not the same as the original hard ferrous coating in the early M96 engines - that we understand is now outlawed in Europe on health and safety grounds.
The engines look to be more complicated to assemble than Gen 1 engines and will require special tools but look as if they will prove to be well up to the standards Porsche used to supply – fingers crossed at this early stage.
Baz
GregorFuk said:
Business must be slow. Time to drum up some new hysteria?
Stupid comment. Baz has spent hours on here informing people about the issues with Porsche engines. He is very careful to always make clear that the problems affect a relatively small proportion of engines. He also provides an excellent (if expensive) servicing and warranty programme to people who want 100% peace of mind.
No need to be unpleasant.
ORD said:
Stupid comment.
Baz has spent hours on here informing people about the issues with Porsche engines. He is very careful to always make clear that the problems affect a relatively small proportion of engines. He also provides an excellent (if expensive) servicing and warranty programme to people who want 100% peace of mind.
No need to be unpleasant.
Perhaps I've been needlessly snarky, but I always find these post smack of thinly veiled advertisements. If Gen 2 bore scoring rates are infinitesimally small when compared to Gen 1' then why even mention it?Baz has spent hours on here informing people about the issues with Porsche engines. He is very careful to always make clear that the problems affect a relatively small proportion of engines. He also provides an excellent (if expensive) servicing and warranty programme to people who want 100% peace of mind.
No need to be unpleasant.
Edited by GregorFuk on Monday 10th August 15:26
GregorFuk said:
ORD said:
Stupid comment.
Baz has spent hours on here informing people about the issues with Porsche engines. He is very careful to always make clear that the problems affect a relatively small proportion of engines. He also provides an excellent (if expensive) servicing and warranty programme to people who want 100% peace of mind.
No need to be unpleasant.
Perhaps I've been needlessly snarky, but I always find these post smack of thinly veiled advertisements. If Gen 2 bore scoring rates are infinitesimally small when compared to Gen 1' then why even mention it?Baz has spent hours on here informing people about the issues with Porsche engines. He is very careful to always make clear that the problems affect a relatively small proportion of engines. He also provides an excellent (if expensive) servicing and warranty programme to people who want 100% peace of mind.
No need to be unpleasant.
Edited by GregorFuk on Monday 10th August 15:26
Overall Baz's post was very positive.
God, even when people are trying to help each other. There is always someone to come along and make cheap childish comments.
I mean seriously, who cares if there is subliminal sales message in here, nobody has a gun to your head saying you must buy a plan from them. Besides people do need to make a living, no such thing as a free lunch.
Good free information. period.
I mean seriously, who cares if there is subliminal sales message in here, nobody has a gun to your head saying you must buy a plan from them. Besides people do need to make a living, no such thing as a free lunch.
Good free information. period.
Thanks for the informative post, as above please ignore the cynics. I like many others like to know as much as possible about the engines I own (or want to own) so I can make informed decisions on buying, what to look out for and any preventative maintenance I can do to reduce the risk of issues later on.
Hi Baz
Yet again great post,just wondered if there is any difference in years regarding the different piston coatings on the gen2.
Porsche did replace early2009my 2.9 engines pistons/ rings as I believe some suffered premature scoring!could they then have gone on to manufacture all cars with different piston coatings in 2010 my onwards?
Yet again great post,just wondered if there is any difference in years regarding the different piston coatings on the gen2.
Porsche did replace early2009my 2.9 engines pistons/ rings as I believe some suffered premature scoring!could they then have gone on to manufacture all cars with different piston coatings in 2010 my onwards?
hartech said:
After analysing the design and construction of the Gen 2 engines - I am pleased to report that they look to be a massive improvement on the Gen 1 design.
Many of the issues we had with the Gen 1 designs (and reported on for the last 10 years) have been changed (many in line with our own improvements applied to Gen 1 engines for many years).
Closed deck – we all knew about – but we are still the only suppliers we are aware of that fit replacement cylinders that also locate with a precision machined top hat flange for Gen 1 engines to convert them to a true closed deck design.
100% coolant through the block before the head (instead of perhaps 10 to 15% in Gen 1 and supporting our modifications to increase coolant block flow in that range).
A slightly lower thermostat rating (enough said).
Full depth cylinder coolant channels (as we chose to create our 3 litre 944 turbo block using the older 944 basic block in preference to using a 968 or S2 block with shorter coolant depth).
There are some changes that we could not incorporate into the Gen 1 designs but did report on some as weaknesses – as follows.
(1) The overhung flywheel flange gone back to a normal short overhang (as the chain drive for the camshafts reverts to one end of the engine).
(2) No intermediate camshaft speed reduction shaft (removing the IMS bearing problems).
(3) RMS location machined in line with the crankshaft shell locations (not a separate machining operation in a different part of the engines prone to slight misalignment).
(4) A much improved oil pump (to improve low speed oil pressure and delivery) – very welcome.
Finally the replacement of Lokasil cylinders/crankcases with Alusil (the silicon created in the solution proportions in Alusil being (in our opinion) smaller and better bonded than in the Lokasil process).
The main changes are to increase the cooling to the cylinder walls and in so doing increase the oil viscosity between the piston and the cylinder wall to increase the film thickness and prevent any detached silicon particles for scoring into the pistons (the increased volume and lower temperature of coolant resisting temperature rises during “heat soak” for longer).
One slight puzzle remains – why some seem to already be scoring bores?
Some piston examples we have seen appear to have a different piston coating to others and it would help us a great deal if anyone could send us a photo of a scored piston or better still a scored piston sample (for which we would be happy to pay costs). This will enable us to zone in on the problem while examples are still so rare.
We have tested a lot of different piston coatings in Lokasil Gen 1 engines and the piston coatings we have seen in Gen 2 engines look similar to those that didn’t last as long as the test samples we used and not the same as the original hard ferrous coating in the early M96 engines - that we understand is now outlawed in Europe on health and safety grounds.
The engines look to be more complicated to assemble than Gen 1 engines and will require special tools but look as if they will prove to be well up to the standards Porsche used to supply – fingers crossed at this early stage.
Baz
Good post Baz no doubt significant interest from the PH ladsMany of the issues we had with the Gen 1 designs (and reported on for the last 10 years) have been changed (many in line with our own improvements applied to Gen 1 engines for many years).
Closed deck – we all knew about – but we are still the only suppliers we are aware of that fit replacement cylinders that also locate with a precision machined top hat flange for Gen 1 engines to convert them to a true closed deck design.
100% coolant through the block before the head (instead of perhaps 10 to 15% in Gen 1 and supporting our modifications to increase coolant block flow in that range).
A slightly lower thermostat rating (enough said).
Full depth cylinder coolant channels (as we chose to create our 3 litre 944 turbo block using the older 944 basic block in preference to using a 968 or S2 block with shorter coolant depth).
There are some changes that we could not incorporate into the Gen 1 designs but did report on some as weaknesses – as follows.
(1) The overhung flywheel flange gone back to a normal short overhang (as the chain drive for the camshafts reverts to one end of the engine).
(2) No intermediate camshaft speed reduction shaft (removing the IMS bearing problems).
(3) RMS location machined in line with the crankshaft shell locations (not a separate machining operation in a different part of the engines prone to slight misalignment).
(4) A much improved oil pump (to improve low speed oil pressure and delivery) – very welcome.
Finally the replacement of Lokasil cylinders/crankcases with Alusil (the silicon created in the solution proportions in Alusil being (in our opinion) smaller and better bonded than in the Lokasil process).
The main changes are to increase the cooling to the cylinder walls and in so doing increase the oil viscosity between the piston and the cylinder wall to increase the film thickness and prevent any detached silicon particles for scoring into the pistons (the increased volume and lower temperature of coolant resisting temperature rises during “heat soak” for longer).
One slight puzzle remains – why some seem to already be scoring bores?
Some piston examples we have seen appear to have a different piston coating to others and it would help us a great deal if anyone could send us a photo of a scored piston or better still a scored piston sample (for which we would be happy to pay costs). This will enable us to zone in on the problem while examples are still so rare.
We have tested a lot of different piston coatings in Lokasil Gen 1 engines and the piston coatings we have seen in Gen 2 engines look similar to those that didn’t last as long as the test samples we used and not the same as the original hard ferrous coating in the early M96 engines - that we understand is now outlawed in Europe on health and safety grounds.
The engines look to be more complicated to assemble than Gen 1 engines and will require special tools but look as if they will prove to be well up to the standards Porsche used to supply – fingers crossed at this early stage.
Baz
No worries I have long since stuck to providing genuine information for those interested.
Strange that when many have been asking if the problems of the Gen 1 will exist in a Gen 2 - and I confirm probably not - that this can be interpreted as scare mongering when it actually confirms the opposite, or is a sales drive when of course it means less engine rebuild work (and we don't usually sell Gen 2 cars anyway) and my post was actually a genuine attempt to demonstrate my impartiality and desire to provide true information despite all the accusations I get to the contrary.
If anyone wants to question the accuracy of the technical information we provide they only need to read our buyers guide (sections 4 and 5) which are 8 to 10 years old (with photos of similar age) and you will find points we raised then now proven as true by the problems that occurred later and the changes to the Gen 2 engines (long before anyone knew there was even going to be a Gen 2 version).
The value of this should be for readers to appreciate that we were not scare mongering then - everything we predicted came true and fortunately for many the early designs, testing and development of affordable solutions for those suffering engine problems were available to help and have been a reliable way out for hundreds of happy customers.
It must be difficult for owners to know who to believe especially when some competitors whose engine builds we have had to do again, who have reground crankshafts without re-hardening them and cannot work out how to assemble simple engines continue to claim they know best.
The LTT and the third radiator is a classic example - it has cost us far more than we could ever recover commercially to prove our technical assessment that without a lower temperature thermostat or a control thermostat for a third radiator - it could make things worse - was absolutely correct - purely out of a true judgement rather than a commercial opportunity and a desire to help owners avoid unnecessary problems.
We also have piles of iron liners fitted by others to Gen 1 engines that we have had to replace - not as any kind of sales drive by us - but simply because we are right about the unsuitability of that particular cylinder block design for iron liners when competitors persuaded owners that they know best and they didn't - much to the owners huge cost.
We are not the only people that know what they are doing but there are far more out there that simply don't and claim they do I thought that it was not unreasonable for me to point out that points raised as weak areas many years ago in a public document - by us - were not only proven to become accurate predictions but also the changes we suggested would have improved the Gen 1 engines were put in place in the Gen 2 versions - hardly a criticism.
Yes this is a question of stating that we are good at what we do and demonstrating it - but with points that no one can argue against - at the very least placing us in a position of integrity and trust with excellent engineers providing top quality solutions - in some cases in advance of the original manufacturer.
That the Gen 2 engine looks such a good design will do us no particular good long term but I felt it right to be honest about that (in the same way we are about everything we do) even though it is not actually in our direct business interests.
Now anyone with a scored Gen 2 piston - please let us see it to help in our research onto the very few that might cause a problem so we can find a way to help out with that too!
Baz
Strange that when many have been asking if the problems of the Gen 1 will exist in a Gen 2 - and I confirm probably not - that this can be interpreted as scare mongering when it actually confirms the opposite, or is a sales drive when of course it means less engine rebuild work (and we don't usually sell Gen 2 cars anyway) and my post was actually a genuine attempt to demonstrate my impartiality and desire to provide true information despite all the accusations I get to the contrary.
If anyone wants to question the accuracy of the technical information we provide they only need to read our buyers guide (sections 4 and 5) which are 8 to 10 years old (with photos of similar age) and you will find points we raised then now proven as true by the problems that occurred later and the changes to the Gen 2 engines (long before anyone knew there was even going to be a Gen 2 version).
The value of this should be for readers to appreciate that we were not scare mongering then - everything we predicted came true and fortunately for many the early designs, testing and development of affordable solutions for those suffering engine problems were available to help and have been a reliable way out for hundreds of happy customers.
It must be difficult for owners to know who to believe especially when some competitors whose engine builds we have had to do again, who have reground crankshafts without re-hardening them and cannot work out how to assemble simple engines continue to claim they know best.
The LTT and the third radiator is a classic example - it has cost us far more than we could ever recover commercially to prove our technical assessment that without a lower temperature thermostat or a control thermostat for a third radiator - it could make things worse - was absolutely correct - purely out of a true judgement rather than a commercial opportunity and a desire to help owners avoid unnecessary problems.
We also have piles of iron liners fitted by others to Gen 1 engines that we have had to replace - not as any kind of sales drive by us - but simply because we are right about the unsuitability of that particular cylinder block design for iron liners when competitors persuaded owners that they know best and they didn't - much to the owners huge cost.
We are not the only people that know what they are doing but there are far more out there that simply don't and claim they do I thought that it was not unreasonable for me to point out that points raised as weak areas many years ago in a public document - by us - were not only proven to become accurate predictions but also the changes we suggested would have improved the Gen 1 engines were put in place in the Gen 2 versions - hardly a criticism.
Yes this is a question of stating that we are good at what we do and demonstrating it - but with points that no one can argue against - at the very least placing us in a position of integrity and trust with excellent engineers providing top quality solutions - in some cases in advance of the original manufacturer.
That the Gen 2 engine looks such a good design will do us no particular good long term but I felt it right to be honest about that (in the same way we are about everything we do) even though it is not actually in our direct business interests.
Now anyone with a scored Gen 2 piston - please let us see it to help in our research onto the very few that might cause a problem so we can find a way to help out with that too!
Baz
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff