Hroussard

Just to make sure the numbers add up. The 190 bucks was the price from Porsche to Carlsen.. the rest is capitalism at its finest!! HarryR C2 1999

Yep, that's what Carlsen quoted me today, needless to say that I would not spring for that one. So I asked how did they get to that price. The service person said : 190 bucks for the battery from Porsche + 1/2 installation + 250 bucks. SO I asked him which it would take 1/2 hour and he stated that: 1/ they have to reset the radio ( which is true) 2/ they have to set the windows?? So, I am going to go elsewhere, just wanted to know what I getting myself into .. I see 12 volt batteries for 60 bucks, all good makes from what I can see. I am just wondering what you on this RenTech board do in this case. HarryR PS I noticed Loren has posted a link...better read that one quickly . Thanks Loren!! :clapping:

Gang, I have a battery that needs to be replaced. The Porsche recommendad battery is $ 250.00 + $ 100.00 labor = $ 350.00 add Tax = $ 400.00 and that just does not make sense for a 50-60 bucks battery one can buy off the shelf somewhere else. What would you buy ? HarryR

Just in case anybody is interested. Take an aircraft engine ( they generally are flat 4 or flat 6 engines and aircooled) and read the Manual. They will tell you to run the engine HARD for 30-40 hours ( and vary the rpm regularly) to make sure the rings are seating properly. If you don't you may glase the jugs which results in increased oil consumption AND reduction in power ( blow-by). If / when that happens, you have to take the cylinder(s) off, hone them etc and break the engine in again. Oh yes, and there is special oil too( mineral oil without scavenging additives for the first 50 hours or until the oil consumption stabilizes). Cheers HarryR

Say I lost the code card. Could the radio ( as it is installed and working) show me the code ie is there a set of buttons I can push to expose the radio code??? I am looking at the hand book but there is not information around that. C2 1999 HarryR

Welcome to the Porsche world. I bought a second key on eBay . Make sure it has the package complete with serial numbers and bar code .. Otherwise the Porsche dealer can not energize / program. So even with the eBay key I had to go to the Porsche dealer with both keys so they could program the both keys. I saved about 75 bucks in total.. No way around that . If there is one ..I do not know about it. HarryR C2 1999

Gang, I am back on this subject. Now here is what I am seeing. I start the engine, voltage meter goes ( generally in the morning or first drive of the day) up to just over 14 Volts as it is supposed to. Now, about 10 minutes later or so, the voltage meter starts to drop , slowly , say over 5-10 minutes BUT when the reading goes just under 14 Volts I "hear" a little click and the click I hear comes from the radio as a metallic click sound and it seems that this is also an indication that a relay or regulator suddenly kicked in or out because I also see the instrument panel lights flicker at the same time. Thereafter I see the voltage gauge read maybe 13 volts but I would suggest more like 12.8 volts or there abouts. The reading stays there and seems not to vary much for the rest of the ride / trip. What do yu'all suggest ?? Voltage regulator gone on the blink?? Or is it the battery? One more thing, when I switch the ignition on, the voltage meter reads about 11 volts or so, then, during the actual start sequence the reading drops to about 2 volts or so but comes back up as soon as the engine fires. I am not sure that an engine start would draw that much current but I do not know. Maybe it's another indication of something Appreciate some insight / experiences here. HarryR C2 1999

Gang, I thought this article would be good for everybody as it tells you a little bit more about the Halon stuff. Also notice that Halon is no longer manufactured/ produced.. Hope this helps to get to grips with this issue. Cheers HarryR C2 1999 Cockpit Fire Protection Halon is the only practical, cost-effective option for a fire extinguisher. A 2.5-pound bottle is the best choice. Fire extinguishers abound in type, size and firefighting agent. Avoid cheap dry chemical designs, far right, and CO2 bottles, center. Halon products, second from left, are recommended. by Scott Dyer It’s underneath the pilot seat or in some other out of the way, out-of-mind location. But when you sniff smoke in flight or you overprime your Lycoming and start a stack fire on the ramp in January, your fire extinguisher may be your best friend. Do you have one? Perhaps you haven’t looked at it in years and what a shock it would be to have it fizzle when you need it most. Or to realize in the heat of battle that you have the wrong type of extinguisher. Perhaps you picked up a dry chemical bottle from your local Wal-Mart to replace the extinguisher that came with your 1971 Bugsmasher. You may survive the fire but after use, the corrosive effects of the chemical agent may do more damage to your avionics and wiring than the fire would have. Might there have been a better choice? Since 1993, the manufacturing of Halon, the fire extinguishing agent of choice for aviation, has been banned by international treaty because Halon released into the atmosphere causes ozone depletion. Today, aviation is the only permitted use for Halon in the U.S. The European Union has mandated the decommissioning of nearly all Halon extinguishers and suppression systems, such as those over grills and stoves in commercial kitchens, by December 31, 2003. Our current stocks of Halon consist of product recycled from other extinguishing systems. Sooner or later, those stocks will dry up. Replacements now coming on the market are far more environmentally friendly and without dangerous toxicity, but they have their own drawbacks. Here’s a look at what’s out there, with some specific recommendations for extinguishers. The assumption here is that you should have one; this is basic safety equipment as important as seatbelts and back-up gyros. FAA Says... You may be surprised to learn that Part 91 of the FARs does not require that light-piston GA aircraft carry fire extinguishers, although they are required in commercial operations, for large (more than 12,500 pounds) and turbine-powered multiengine airplanes and in transport-category aircraft. In 1984, the FAA issued the current Advisory Circular on handheld fire extinguishers (AC 20-42C). Although it should be updated to cover the new extinguishing agents that replace Halon, the AC still provides good guidance and recommendations. It strongly encourages the use of Halon-filled handheld extinguishers in aircraft. Halon is a halogenated hydrocarbon, consisting of a potpourri of carbon, fluorine, chlorine and bromine atoms. Halon is a liquefied gas in the extinguisher itself and comes in several varieties denoted by four-digit names, such as Halon 1211 and Halon 1301. (For the curious, those numbers signify the number of carbon, fluorine, chlorine and bromine atoms present in each molecule of the agent.) These variants of Halon have different properties that we’ll cover later. They are all effective in interrupting the combustion process, as opposed to smothering the fire, as other agents do. They leave no residue to corrode avionics or airframes. The downside of Halon is that it, like CFCs which were used as propellants in aerosol cans, has been identified as contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer. While the 1987 United Nations Montreal protocol, signed by the U.S. and nearly 100 other nations dealt a death blow to Halon for nearly all purposes, aviation was permitted to continue its use “until further notice.” This is because no effective substitute agents for firefighting in aircraft had been found. At the time of the protocol, no other agent had been identified that could meet the volume, weight, effectiveness and toxicity demands of aviation. Indeed, Halon substantially reduces the high cost of refurbishing engines exposed to foams or chemical powders during fires. Halon-charged systems protect engine, lavatory and cargo compartments in nearly every transport-category aircraft used in the world. With this much economic push toward finding a new agent, the FAA in 1993 started a program to find a Halon replacement. After a slow start and years of dawdling, the process has preliminarily qualified several new agents, including Halotron I, for aviation use. With this development, it’s quite likely that the UN will remove the aviation exception permitting Halon use in the coming years. This will eventually force the market to use one of the replacement agents. GA Options Halon extinguishers suitable for GA use cost about $130 for a 2.5-pound model—the smallest size the FAA recommends— while 2.5-pound dry chemical extinguishers sell for about $20. Because with few exceptions, private GA aircraft aren’t required by the regulations to carry a fire extinguisher on board, we can choose to ignore the FAA recommendations and buy an extinguisher that makes sense and, possibly, saves some cash. Is cheaper better? In this case, probably not. We recommend without equivocation that every aircraft should have a properly maintained extinguisher on board. Even beyond the specter of inflight fires, why be helpless and pitiful watching your machine melt to puddles of molten aluminum on the ramp when a shot from a handheld extinguisher could have put out a fire caused by poor starting procedures or an electrical short? Few ramps are equipped with sufficient extinguishers that you could find in a hurry, so carry your own. In deciding what type of device to buy, the best advice is to purchase either a Halon extinguisher while they are still available (and they are) or a replacement bottle filled with a Halon replacement such as Halotron I. Even Greens shouldn’t blanche at the prospect of using a Halon extinguisher in a pinch, because the marginal detriment to the environment through occasional emergency discharge of a 2.5-pound bottle is utterly insignificant compared to the large-scale discharges of Halon that used to occur in military exercises. Halon has been and remains the gold-standard for fire suppression, both in terms of its efficiency in snuffing out fires as well as its tolerable effects on humans in closed quarters, with the Halon replacements that recently passed FAA testing also being acceptable in this regard. That’s not to say that Halon and its combustion products can’t be toxic. The AC recognizes that high levels of exposure may result in dizziness, impaired coordination and reduced mental sharpness. But other agents, such as dry chemicals and CO2, have more serious adverse effects on humans and equipment. Extinguisher Ratings, Agents The fire threat in an aircraft is a mixed bag of ordinary combustible materials. Burning fabrics, headliners, rubber and plastic are known as Class A fires. Fires fueled by flammable liquids are called Class B fires and fires involving energized electrical equipment where the non-conductivity of the extinguishing agent is critical are considered Class C fires. Any fire extinguishing agent for aircraft needs to be effective on all of these types of fires, relatively light in weight and of low toxicity to humans in the closed cabin environment. Remember, a standard part of most in-flight fire checklists is to cut off ventilation, but check your AFM. H3R’s RT A400, a 14-ounce mini-bottle, is sold by many aviation supply houses. It’s intended as a flight bag accessory. Extinguishers are rated by Underwriters Laboratories on the effectiveness on different classes of fires. For example, 5B:C means that the extinguisher is appropriate for flammable liquid or electrical fires, with the numbers indicating relative effectiveness on a benchmark size fire. Extinguishers rated as 4B should be twice as effective on flammable liquid fires as ones rated 2B. (Note that numerical ratings are not assigned to extinguishers rated for Class C fires.) You can buy carbon dioxide extinguishers that are appropriate for Class B and C fires and you may think that since CO2 is an inert gas, it would be ideal for closed-cabin use. That’s not quite right, for several reasons. CO2 extinguishers are heavy. To get the same firefighting potential out of a CO2 extinguisher for B and C class fires as a 3-pound bottle of Halon, the CO2 extinguisher will tip the scales at 14 pounds and cost around $200. More important, discharged into a closed cabin and in concentrations necessary to put out a fire, CO2 won’t leave enough oxygen to sustain life. You need about a 34 percent concentration of CO2 to snuff out a fire, but at concentrations above 9 percent, loss of consciousness will occur. Death follows for concentrations above 20 percent for more than 20 minutes. CO2 is also hard on avionics, because on discharge, the expansion of the gas results in a rapid, deep cooling that will cold-shock components. So, CO2 is a good choice for the hangar or the ramp, but it’s a non-starter for the cockpit. It is, in fact, a hazard in the cockpit. Dry chemical extinguishers are ubiquitous around hardware stores; small wonder since they are effective at home on a wide range of fires and they’re cheap. Less than $20 will get you about 2.5 pounds of monoammonium phosphate, a common dry chemical agent. Blow a bottle in the cabin, however, and you’ll likely be scraping a layer of it off the windows in order to maneuver the aircraft to a safe off-airport emergency landing. That is, assuming that you survive the experience in good enough shape to land. The powder is a fine, white material that will create dense, choking clouds of white dust. Some years ago, when we researched our first article on fire extinguishers, we discharged some dry powder extinguishers into a simulated cabin. The results were ugly. The powder is dense enough to cause temporary breathing problems. It will also corrode the avionics and wiring to the point where thousands of dollars in unnecessary damage may be done by the extinguisher itself. Advice: if you have a dry powder extinguisher in the cockpit, get rid of it. It’s not even suitable for hangar use. Halon Halon is superior to these alternatives in that it’s several times more effective as an extinguishing agent per unit of weight than CO2, it leaves no residue, doesn’t corrode avionics and other aircraft parts, doesn’t impair vision and it doesn’t freeze surfaces, as CO2 does. However, some decomposition products of Halon in a fire may result in dizziness, impaired coordination and reduced mental acuity. In balancing these risks against the risk posed by the fire itself, the FAA says that the decomposition products of the fire, carbon monoxide, heat, smoke and oxygen depletion, are more immediate dangers to pilots and cabin occupants than are the decomposition products of Halon. That makes sense. Halon is available on the market in two variants of interest to pilots: Halon 1211 and Halon 1301. Both are excellent and non-corrosive fire-fighting agents, although their qualities differ. Halon 1211 is what’s known as a “streaming agent,” because the agent shoots out in what is mostly a stream of liquid. Halon 1301 is a “flooding agent” and discharges mostly as a gas, giving better penetration into compact areas such as under the panel. Halon 1301 is less prone than Halon 1211 to making undesirable decomposition products, as reflected in FAA’s suggestion that the concentration of Halon 1211 agent should not exceed 4 percent by volume of the enclosed space if the occupants can escape within 1 minute, while the comparable upper-end percentage for Halon 1301 is 10 percent. Various combinations of these two forms of Halon are marketed, which provide both streaming and flooding capability. Halon experts recommend, by the way, that the material be directed into closed spaces rather than opening them up to expose the fire. For example, if you had an engine fire on the ground, don’t try to open the cowl to extinguish it but direct the Halon through the cowl openings. We performed a limited, non-scientific practical test of CO2, Halon and dry chemical extinguishers. With a piece of FAR-compliant interior fabric mounted on a foam backing board not unlike what you’d find inside many GA aircraft and some gasoline applied, we had our flaming testbed. As shown in the photos, Halon put out the fire, once and for all, with a minimum of fuss, muss and time. There was no re-ignition after only part of a 2 1/2 pound bottle was used. But we were still glad that there was more material in the extinguisher if needed. CO2, on the other hand, took about twice as long as Halon to put out the blaze. More worrisome, once the fire appeared to be out, it flamed back and needed to be smothered again with the CO2. The several types of dry chemicals we tested were each nearly as effective as Halon in extinguishing the fire. They emerge from the nozzle in a robust, focused stream. But the resulting mess was a sight to behold, with powder swirling in the light breeze and coating the entire area. One can only imagine trying to fly after one of these bottles was discharged in a closed cabin: parachutes would probably be preferable. Recommendations In August 2002, the FAA published a new standard for handheld aviation fire extinguishers, specifically to evaluate the performance of the Halon replacement products. Seven agents passed the FAA tests, with final certification yet to come after UL testing of how the agents perform in the specific bottle/nozzle configurations that manufacturers want to put on the market. The agent dispersal characteristics and performance can vary significantly depending on the bottle nozzle. The RT A1200 from H3R is a 2.5-pound bottle of 1211/1301 Halon and is, in our view, the best overall choice for a cockpit fire extinguisher. Only some of these agents are easily available today—Halotron I and FM-200—while others may be more widely marketed in coming months, including DuPont’s FE-36, POWSUS’s Envirogel products and the North American Fire Guardian P IV agent. While all of these easily passed toxicity tests, they are not as effective in putting out fires as Halon by weight, meaning that more agent and a heavier extinguisher is needed to do the same job as Halon. Fortunately and for a change, aviation lucked out. The industry is both allowed and encouraged to continue using Halon agents, which are cheaper and more effective than the replacements. When buying, there are a few things to look for. Check the UL fire rating if you buy a Halon replacement extinguisher. We recommend that you don’t purchase an extinguisher with less than a 5B:C rating. Note, too, that the larger bottles may require assistance from an A&P to install a larger bracket to hold the extinguisher. For aviation use, there appear to be about a half dozen size/volume choices to pick from, ranging from 14-ounce small bottles to 3.5 pound bottles that will squirt a stream up to 10 feet. Aircraft Spruce sells two designs in three sizes each, all made by the same manufacturer, H3R, of Larkspur, California, one of the leading suppliers of Halon. The more expensive products contain only Halon 1301 and use nitrogen as propellant. These also have gauges which monitor the bottle pressure but once used, the entire bottle is exhausted and must be refilled. Also, according to H3R, the nitrogen-type bottles tend to leak over time. The less expensive line uses a blend of 1211 and 1301 Halon, with the 1301 acting as a propellant. H3R tells us that for aviation use, the blend is more effective because the propellant also acts as a firefighter, which isn’t true with the nitrogen-type bottles. Second, the 1211/1301 blend bottles tend to leak less and have a longer shelf life. They can also be discharged incrementally, although H3R recommends downgrading them for household use only if any of the bottle is discharged. Most of the aviation discount houses carry Halon extinguishers and street prices for an extinguisher charged with 2.5 pounds of a Halon 1211/1301 blend are currently between $120 and $130. But shop around; Sporty’s charges $179.95 for its 2.5-pound bottle while Aircraft Spruce wants $126.95 for the same product. Chief charges $125. What size? H3R tells us that the 14-ounce size is recommended for flight bag use while the 2.5-pound product is considered ideal for GA cockpits and cabins. We discharged both sizes into a roaring avgas-fed fire either on our test panel or in a drain pan and although the smaller unit did the job, there was no surplus material for a larger fire. For a few extra bucks, the larger size is worth having, in our view. Extinguishers filled with the Halon replacement product FM-200 cost approximately $140 for a 5B:C extinguisher, holding 5.75 pounds of agent. We’ve seen Halotron I extinguishers of similar rating for about $130 at West Marine. Few of these have a directable hose, which we would prefer, although the fixed nozzle should be sufficient, based upon our trials. However, Halon is considered twice as effective as the replacement agents and weighs half as much, so we can’t see any compelling reason not to favor it. If you have a Halon extinguisher now and you’ve either used it or the gauge says that it needs to be refilled due to leaking, take it to the nearest fire extinguisher service shop. Chances are good that one with a metal valve/trigger assembly can be refilled with recycled agent and overhauled with replacement of the rings and seals for significantly less than the cost of a new extinguisher. Many shops won’t try to recharge similar units with plastic valves/triggers, but some will, and there isn’t any harm in asking. These shops are good sources of fire-safety knowledge. The current supply of recycled Halon should be sufficient for some time, as European systems get taken out of service through the end of 2003 and the agent becomes available for import into the U.S. for aviation use. Although we haven’t seen a reduction in the price of Halon extinguishers, the bulk price of recycled Halon has fallen roughly 60 percent since late 2000. The unknown factor, however, is when the U.S. will prohibit even aviation use of Halon given the recent availability and imminent certification of new replacement agents. Also With This Article Click here to view "Checklist." Click here to view "Fire in Number 1! Pull the Bottle!" Click here to view "Test Photos." Contacts Aircraft Spruce 225 Airport Circle Corona, CA 92880 877-477-7823 www.aircraftspruce.com Chief Aircraft Inc. 1301 Brookside Boulevard Grants Pass, OR 97526 800-447-3408 www.chiefaircraft.com H3R, Inc. 483 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, CA 94939 800-249-4289 www.h3r.com Nautical Fire Suppression Ltd. R.R. 1 Angus, Ontario Canada L0M 1B3 705-424-7519 www.nauticalfire.com West Marine, Inc. P.O. Box 50070 Watsonville, CA 95077 800-262-8464 www.westmarine.com

Sierra / Hayward check www.myplaneonline.com . Look for 1975 Sierra HarryRoussard

You really want to "boil off" the water in the crankcase if you can. That means driving it for some considerable time, maybe at least 1/2 hour with a HOT engine. This is something that will prevent to forming of rust inside your engine. This "boiling-off" is a requirement for reciprocing engines for aircraft in order to keep the engine in good shape for instance and merely starting the engine and run it for a few minutes to "circulate the oil" does not do the trick. Now, Lycoming and Continental engines are flat -4 of flat -6 cylinder engines and I would not be surprised that this would make sense for our flat sixes too. HarryR C2 1999 + Beech

The handbook states that a charge between 12 an 16 volts is acceptable. What do you all see as a normal reading? I am driving my car almost daily and as such I believe the battery is well charged, immediately after start-up I see just over 14 Volts ( I guess to replace the juice from the starting effort), then I see a downward trend to about 13 to 13.5 Volts where it seems to stabilize but I notice some visible small slow movements of the needle between 13V and 13.5V sometimes even going up close to 14 volts. It this what I can expect.? Do you see movements and if so is that a tell tale sign of something going wrong such as a battery or a voltage overload protector/relay ?? Appreciate some input.. HarryR C2 1999

I had Kumho's on my Nissan TTurbo two years ago and I did not like them at all. They also wore out in less than 10k miles.. HarryR C2 1999

This looks " tasty" AND "chic".. the wood pieces looked as well designed as the butt of a new BMW. HarryR :notworthy:

And I promise this is the last one. Just to show this Black metallic exterior color. :clapping: HarryR C2 1999

Here is one more picture. HarryR

I have a 1999 C2 with sport seats and I love it. My interior is Boxter red, even the steering wheel , I have several parts in combination with Aluminum ( from the factory ) such as gear stick, hand brake and all the other parts such as vents, center console ( not armrest ) are in same color as the exterior which is Black Metallic ( sort of REAL dark grey). The back of my sport seats are also that same dark grey / black metallic color. Just looks fab ( it least that's what I think). HarryR

George, thanks for the private response. Should I decide to continue I will get back to you. HarryR

I have a quote for a clear bra installation ( including the materials) of 995 dollars. What do you guys think about spending that amount of money on a clear bra. Is there a better alternative such as a vinyl bra as sold by Porsche for about 200 dollars? Other options?? HarryR

Loren, I had the wheels off to get new Conti2's mounted in the rear . I checked the part number on the shocks. Here is what I could see: p# 996.333.055.20 Description: USA Coupe Schalt Sport Date 05/05/99 Number 1499472. Is this the shock for the M030 US or is it ROW 30? Appreciate insight. 1999 C2 coupe

Gang. Check this out : http://www.skoopy.com/ Look for the video showing the yellow Mini. We all can learn something... HarryR

Decision is made, 2 new Conti2 265 for the back. I should have them early next week. I noticed that this tire has a larger rubber "lip" on the outside compared with the originals. This will protect my rims better I hope. HarryR C2 1999.

Thanks Karl, yes the fronts are 7 1/2 inch.

Gang, here is the issue. I just found out that I have a nail in the side wall of one of my (almost new) rear tires. They are the original Conti , not the later 2 version ( if that is the correct number). Now the original tire is out of production and the Rector folks in Burlingame are telling me that they will have to replace both rear tires. So I have suggested I like to have 285's on the rear. They are telling me that is not an approved version , which I know, almost everybody has on the 10 inch rears ( 18 inch diameter- I have Sport design rims) and , the cost for the Conti 265 is a misery 325 dollars. That is about 100 bucks more than the Tire rack is showing in the catalogue but it seems they are out of stock on this type . I am pulling my car out of the garage because they let me wait 2 days before telling me / finding out after I create mayhem, that the original tires are not available. They have the new type ( 265 width) in stock which of course they did not tell me about on Monday - after all I am only a stupid customer. So now I am looking for the original Conti to I have a maching pair. The other option is the replace both of them. In that case I want to go for 285's. Now knowing that I still have almost brandnew Conti's on the front ( 225 on 7 1/2 inch width -18 inch diameter), what 285 width tire would reasonably match or should I care and just pick the right tire?. And in the latter case , what would that be.? I appreciate all the input I can get. HarryR C 2 1999

Yes, I saw that on Speed last night and I noticed that they had a special piece of equipment to "insert" the donut into the tire. It looked to me as if that could not be done manually. So until and unless the Tire Racks of the world buy this equipment we are SOL. BTW. On Speed, also last night, I also saw a nice piece of driving in the new Boxter, the guy spun it once , he smoked the tires so much I bet there was nothing left at the end of that driving test...Need to tell you that the Boxter was doing very nice. They also showed ( briefly) a yellow GT3 tearing around the track. Impressive. HarryR C2 1999

This might be an unusual question but I wonder why both exhaust systems ( C2 versus Turbo) are so different and why one could not make the turbo exhaust system work ( modify ) for use in a standard C2. The turbo systems seem to have the cats built in and potentially even Californian emissions could be met that way and I am wondering. I also would like to get rid of 40 pounds of heavy mufflers in the back which heat up my body work and maybe as a side benefit get a somewhat throatier sound as generally a turbo muffles the sound somewhat. My hunch would be that possibly the Turbo exhaust system could liven up the sound without having to go to a 2500 dollars new PPS system.. Just wondering. There must be someone out there who has tried this and either succeeded or failed. Ideas?? HarryR C2 1999