BufordTJustice

Should I replace with OEM at premium prices or local auto parts store who sell the  18" blades are sufficient? 

Many thanks for the reply.
 
In general it occurs after a day or more between start ups.  Has occurred on the same day when very hot outside and after the engine cools for say 3-4 hours. 
 
Your view of using a heavier oil?
 
Your view of the 10 W 40 Mobile 1 High Mileage Oil?  It is A3 qualified.  I had a long conversation with a Mobil 1 Tech Rep in Texas and he did not advise against it.
 
I don't see a 5 W 40 on the Mobile1 list but there is a 5 W 50 on their list.
 
Would you try a heavier oil?  If so which one?
 
Thanks
 
bj 

Welcome to RennTech 
 
The claim that lack lubrication is the only cause for IMS failures is a best suspect.  With the early cars all carrying dual row bearings, lack of lubrication should have been more of a problem for them as they have twice the number of ball bearings in motion; yet just the opposite happened: The dual rows have proven to be vastly more durable than the single row bearings that came later.  IMS failures are a much more complicated issue, with a variety of factors ranging from shaft wobble to materials of construction coming into play.  
 
The ceramic hybrid bearings LN uses only need a very low volume of oil from the mist inside the engine to lubricate properly; this is one of the reasons they designed this bearing this way to preclude the need for an outside oil source.  Adding additional oil, particularly coming from the cylinder heads, is actually detrimental to the ceramic hybrid's survival.  With more than 25,000 installations currently running on the streets, they would appear to have proven the design.
 
Oil coming from the cylinder head is also one of the hottest and dirtiest sources for oil, making this is a bad idea.  There have been multiple reports (we have had two in my shop alone) of both cylinder head noise issues as well as VarioCam problems when drawing an oil feed off the cylinder heads, both of which were solved by disconnecting the oil feed from the cylinder head source.
 
There are now a variety of "me too" retrofit kits available in the market, ranging from cheap OEM type bearing replacements, to roller bearings, and oil fed kits; but only the LN systems have been both tested to destruction before they were taken to market and have proven themselves on the street with massive numbers of successfully performing installations.
 
If your decision is based upon durability and life span over costs, take a close look at the LN IMS Solution, which is a solid bearing (no moving parts) design similar to the one used in the legendary air cooled turbo engines Porsche used to make. It uses an oil feed coming from the oil filter, so the oil is both clean and cool.  Like other LN products, this system has been tested to destruction, including prolonged running without an oil supply, and survived every time.  It is also the only retrofit that is a permanent life of the engine design.

AGM batteries also accept current more easily when being charged than std lead acid batteries.

I have used them in many vehicles, including custom installations of large arrays. Despite their larger capacity, AGM batteries get to full charge faster than lead acid batteries of lesser reserve capacity, using the exact same chargers.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

Read the DIY, you can get at it from below with the bumper cover on, but there is limited room.

You would pretty much have to be a magician to do that:
 

UPDATE: it's the passenger side fan resistor. $115 for a friggin in line resistor!

Fan worked on high, not on low. Swapped the left and right relays and problem remained on the same fan. Part ordered.

Any way to replace the resistor without removing the front bumper?

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

Thermostat INSTALLED!

But, can't really comment on the before and after because one of my radiator fans (passenger side) stopped working TODAY. No lie.

So time to troubleshoot that. Lol

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

5 hours ago, creekman said:

Thanks Judgejon...  come take a drive...

 

Buford, after your reply I needed to go to the garage and make sure the back end of the car hadn't fallen off.  You're a purist and that's ok, you've exaggerated some of the install alterations.  I installed 4130 tubing mostly just to finish off the sheet metal.  I believe Porsche has pushed the flat 6 about as far as it can go.  It's a very complicated engine to get the HP.  The clutch, spark plugs, water pump are only good for 60,000 miles, and the list goes on. The V8 makes it breath taking to drive and It's a great road car, but still a grocery getter if that's your choice.

 

Just remember when you're at the Porsche Dealership changing spark plugs at $140/ hr.  I'll still be trucking long beyond the life of your engine.  What I will admit while the conversion will exceed all your expectations, it's expensive when done right and is not plug and play.

With 48k on mine, it's a shame I've only got another 12k before it dies. Guess I'll enjoy it well! If I'm ever dumb enough to pay somebody else to do my own spark plugs, then I guess I'm ready to put some caveman (pushrod) tech into my Porsche.

But I'm not there yet. Keep your pushrods and your extra 80+ pounds and I'll keep my driving experience, 7200rpm redline, and my Porsche music. ;)

And, yes, I'm a purist.

In all seriousness, have a happy and safe Memorial Day.

Title says it all. I removed this from my engine yesterday. I just want to confirm what I've got before I order an IMS Solution 

29 minutes ago, creekman said:

Either way whether the LS motor is lighter or heavier, the difference compared to the HP increase is the big difference.  Just think how hard your M96 has to work to get 150 HP more...  Hey, it's all in the eyes of the beholder.  

The HP difference is huge, that is true. So is the apples-to-apples weight difference. Also, there is a zero percent chance that the CG of the LS is even within 5 inches of the M96's CG. The centerline of the mass of the M96 is slightly above the crank. The centerline of the mass of an LS is far above the crank. And since the crank must align with the transmission, the CG is forced further away from the ground.

Also A large part of the rear chassis has been removed, along with the rear crash substructure. That's a fairly decent weight savings right there. It is difficult to find what else has been discarded.

It seems that the Renegade build (and all others, from what i can see), requires substantial removal of metal from the rear of the chassis, and the rear crash structure. Couple that with removing the front diff, front halfshafts, front CV joints, and the front driveshaft (and all mounting hardware), and it seems logical that one could find a net weight loss of 160 pounds when transitioning from a C4 to a C2.

Glad you're happy with yours. To each his own. Reducing chassis rigidity while adding power just isn't my personal cup of tea.

Std 996 rear structure:

LS mod'd rear structure:

First of all the 996 weight depends on it's accessories so its total weight is a moving target.  However I don't know what all this leads up to if you want the extra horse power and a simple engine that produces a lot of grunt.  I installed a LS3 480 HP, some GM specs says it's 495 HP, I won't argue that point...

 

I put the car on aircraft scales and I'm 160 lb. lighter, however that is with the removal of the front diff.  Also all the accessories are attached on the bottom of the engine, not on top, lower CG.  The installation uses an electric water pump so no mechanical water pump.  I can tell you it's no quick substitute for replacing the IMS bearing, clutch, etc.  Making the Porsche and GM computers talk to one another was the biggest challenge.  It's not for the shade tree mechanic...  Now there's a lot of these conversions that throw used parts at the project, never deal with the blinking lights on the dash and only want to go 0-60 with their hair on fire, but to do it factory takes a lot of time and money.

 

I don't think debating about a few pounds either way is really the question, it's time, money, performance, engine longevity, something different that is breath taking to drive.  I took my car into the local Porsche dealership to put it on their OBD machine.  When the guy drove the car into the mechanics stall the entire shop stopped working, took pictures, got under the car and were all in awe of the installation.  Fortunately I didn't have to pay for the down time...

 

I removed the front differential in favor of putting a taller ring and pinion in the car.  At redline in 6th gear it pencils out at 206 MPH, not with me in it...  At 80 MPH it's turning 2750 RPM, it's a lot quieter that the Porsche engine that is turning more RPM's.  Bottom line, it's simple horse power and when you lift the deck lid you can see a real engine, not an air cleaner.  Sorry in advance if I offended anyone... 

Thanks for sharing. No offense in my part.

But the all-aluminum accessories of the 911 A) aren't that heavy and B) don't equal more mass than part of the block and all of the heads of an LS.

I don't know what else got discarded off of your car, obviously A LOT, but the wider body and suspension bits apparently weigh a bit more than a narrow body coupe. Having driven many LS powered machines (including several C6 Vette coupes around 3200 pounds), I just can't imagine losing the character of power delivery of my M96. I'm a huge fan of the LS, just not for me in a 911. I'm glad you're happy with your conversion.

However, my numbers (sourced from GM and this forum) stand. The LS2/3, with it's nodular iron crank, is simply heavier than the M96.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

I have seen several videos and posts across the forums recently about these LS engine swaps for 996 911's. I keep hearing that the LSX (LS2/LS3) is LIGHTER than the M96. You know who keeps saying this. It's all over youtube and other forums. But my research has determined this is false.

The M96 (3.4 and 3.6), with all accessories, and including the entire exhaust system (yes, cats too), is roughly 440 pounds, +/- 5 pounds. Subtract the weight of the exhaust system (and all LS swaps argue they use the factory Porsche exhaust system), and we arrive at a number much closer to 410-420 for the M96 engine minus exhaust. This is assuming roughly 20-30 pounds for the OEM exhaust, which I have not been able an accurate separate weight (feel free to add this if you know it).

However, the LS3 (all aluminum, 6.2, GM crate motor) weighs 465 pounds with ZERO accessories (not even the pulleys, brackets, or belt tensioner), and NO HEADERS (much less an entire exhaust system). Including accessories (PS pump, Alternator, Water Pump, but still no AC compressor), and headers, the engine assembly weighs about 500 pounds, not including the mounts.

As a data point, the ultra lightweight LS7 motor weighs 454 pounds completely naked.

So, a 996 with the M96 3.4/3.6 is going to be at least 80 pounds lighter than a 996 with an LS motor installed (possibly closer to 100 pounds lighter). Assuming one would pay the $22K+ for an LS7, and assuming that would fit and be compatible, the weight difference would drop to "only" 50-60 pounds.

As soon as we start talking about CG height, polar moment, etc.... things get even worse for the LS Swap. Not to mention it putting extra strain on the transmission mount.

I hope this sheds some light on the subject and puts to rest some of the absurd claims I see being made about LS Swaps. I got tired of hearing the ridiculous claims.

Long live the M96!!!!!!

consider Red Line 10-40.
this is fun reading for me, brings back memories of my old 911SC, sitting in traffic, watching the temp gauges climb.  The good old days....

 
Usually the best source for the Gibbs oil is on line, it pops up on sale from a number of vendors who also throw in free shipping.  Check out the usual suspects: Amazon, Jegs, etc.

M1 0W-40 is simply not the product that it once was.  If I were you, I would take a very close looks at Joe Gibbs DT40, which is a 5W-40 with good ZDDP levels and excellent film strength.
 
We are also not fans of Fram filters either for the same reasons; they are not as well made as they once were.  I would take a look at the XP version of the NAPA filter, very well made, and readily available [emoji3]

We have actually seen repeatable improvement in UOA's on cars going to the 160 stat along with the lower oil temps, demonstrating that the oil is happier running cooler.  On base Boxsters, the combination of the 160 stat and larger "S" oil cooler showed significant improvements in oil life.

 
Typically, we see 25-30F drop in oil temps with the low temp stats

Just remember that the thermostat sets the minimum temperature the car will see in a steady state (read moving at reasonable speeds on the open road).  Stuck in traffic, the car will slowly heat up from the steady state temps (usually around the low 170's F) to the temps where the fan kicks in, but will also cool back down to the steady state temps when the car gets moving again.

Can one of the mods edit the title so that "tedt" is test, please? My phone autoincorrected it to a word i never used.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

Purchased a Wahler 160 degree thermostat, housing, and gasket from pelican parts. Placed in a pot of distilled water and tested.

Plenty of pics with my infrared thermometer.

This will be getting installed in my 99 3.4 996 this coming Friday. Should be a huge benefit for the Florida summer. The pictures speak for themselves; I started with the thermostat heated up and ended with cool down; so they are in DECREASING order. Opening temp is accurate, no opening action is observed until ~156 degrees F. Stays partially open down to 148 F after it's been heated (flange is barely cracked open). I'm very pleased.

Being on the inlet for cooled coolant coming from the cold return side of the radiators, this will safely drop running temps.

I'll test the OEM t-stat after it's removed and report back. Car runs from 102-109 C when in traffic and creeping along.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

Porsche book time is 100 TU (or one hour).

That includes vacuum bleeding the system for coolant lost.

Thank you, Loren!

EDIT: a shop finally called back and Loren, you were right on the money.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

1999 996 C2 3.4 w/ 6 speed; what should total cost be for Indy shop labor to install a Wahler 160 degree thermostat which I am supplying?

Having a difficult time getting shops in my area to call me back with anything resembling a quote. One wanted me to bring it in but wouldn't estimate a price AT ALL. No thanks, lol.

Your collective knowledge and experience is very much appreciated.

Mods, if this isn't in the right place, I apologize and please move it to the correct forum location.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

Yes.  Push the microswitch on the latch when the top is down.  You need a pen or screwdriver.  Then you can raise the rear windows.

Is there a way in which the rear quarter windows could be permitted to be raised while the top is DOWN?

Two reasons.

1) it would greatly reduce drafts for my wife on cooler days.

2) it seems it would stabilize the door windows on the highway, which tend to move visibly as wind buffets them next to buffer trucks, etc.

I don't expect this to be a diy in any way. I just want to know if it's possible or if there's some type of interlock mechanism which prevents this in the top mechanism. From what peeking I have done, there doesn't appear to be any mechanical interference between the window and the top mechanism.

Any input is much appreciated.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk