Perhaps, before we get too far down the line here, we should find out if there is any advantage that could be gained here. In talking with those that know much more than I, the tubular headers do not produce any real power compared to the cast headers, they are just lighter (but the weight is in a pretty good spot). Porsche did a good job with the original ones, it turns out.

If, with our timing limitations and stock chip requirement, playing with the secondary tubes do not make any real difference in power, why bother with yet another rule. Keep it simple.

I guess what I am trying to say is lets find out if a proposed rule matters one way or the other, in terms of performance or in terms of maintenance, dependablity, servicability and the like and include that in every discussion from the start.

I, for one, am all for things that help make our cars more durable and/or easier to service, without creating a performance issue. Last year we got a number of good improvements in those areas with Lexan, larger radiators and other changes. Lets keep looking for those kind of things.

Big Dog

I think we know someone who can tell us.

I will see what I can find out.

To me there is no doubt that something can be found. How much that something is is what we need to know.

It would be very expensive to test all the options.

Have adjustable cam gears been explored before? It seems that would be a cheap/easy way for those shaving the head for compression to equal the '88 piston engines with no ill effect to cam timing. Jon Milledge said in the power thread that there is no gain to be had by alternating cam timing on an otherwise stock engine so that may not be an issue.

There is no gain for me here as I have the '88 pistons - just a thought to relieve some concerns over the cost of the pistons and potentially lower the cost to build an engine.

Opening up cam timing is a can of worms, IMHO... There are too many tricks you can play with it. The intent is good but it will have the opposite effect.

And can someone definitively say that there is or isn't an advantage so we an put this one to bed? I need a new motor And the one I'd like to buy is an 88 I don't want to blunder and build the wrong motor and have it deemed illegal or carryy a weight penalty...

If anyone knows it is Milledge. He has done thousands of hours of dyno work with the 944 engine in all forms.

Do not allow adjustable cam gears or sprockets only allow an offset woodruff key to correct back to stock timing. This will equalize the non 88 piston motors to those who have them. That is of course if they decide to do that.

Porsche optimized the timing from the factory. It only gets worse if you alter it from stock.

Jim if the powers that be decide to do anything drastic it will most likely backfire. There is no easy solution to the problem but if you start penalizing racers for maximizing their cars with in the current rules then why continue racing in Spec? We can all go to GTS-1, SCCA, PCA or POC. It has happened before and it can happen again.

I believe they know that and want to make the right decision but they are between a rock and a hard spot.

I think it is important that we get a complete head count from all the Spec racers to see if the rules need altering on this subject.

It sounds as if there is only a few who are having an issue with it. IMO

JRichard wrote:


Jim,
Pull the trigger on the 88 motor. There is not enough data to put a weight penalty on the 88 motor for 2010. Eric Kuhns did some dyno testing back in the mid west. Results did not support 88 pistons as power house motors. In fact a shaved head 9.5:1 motor put out the biggest hp number that day. Darren's Motor is a low comp motor and he runs fast even with weight. While it is easy enough to put xx lbs on 10.2:1 pistons I don't know what that will solve. We still have no hard data to show 10.2:1 pistons are clearly better. Again CONDITION of the motor is actually more important.

So build whatever motor you want. 88 pistons or not. Built it for realiablity to the rules and you will be fine.

Now maybe if we got a whole lot smart in 2010 we might make change, but it just won't happen fast.