/// EVOMS [S-351] 1000 HP Monster Build Begins - Project Name to be Determined \\\
#61
11-01-2009, 09:34 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: MPLS, MN USA
Age: 63
Posts: 5,710
Rep Power: 464 
LOL
#62
11-01-2009, 09:36 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: MPLS, MN USA
Age: 63
Posts: 5,710
Rep Power: 464 David ,I seem to remember that when you had tested your Sledgehammer and determined that the stock rods were capable of handling 850+whp and subsequently had the car for sale on this forum with 900 miles total
.I would think this is hardly enough time or testing to determine whether or not you had reached any type of failure due to the power level.How many miles are on your car now?The point is this car gave no indication of the definite pending failure.The owner is not new to anything mechanical or fast ,this I can tell you,and is pretty knowledgable when it comes to motors of any kind.This being said i think you can get away with more than 700 -800hp on these motors for a little while depending on the situation and type of use/user.The problem arises when you start the thinking that everyone can tune their cars this way and it be bulletproof.Then some unlucky soul winds up paying the consequences because his motor is completely unrepairable.That unlucky soul ends up having to sell the car for parts because it doesn't pay to replace the motor with a core due to the fact that the motor and labor to install is worth more than half of the cars value and this only gets him back to square one.M.y 2 cents.
.I would think this is hardly enough time or testing to determine whether or not you had reached any type of failure due to the power level.How many miles are on your car now?The point is this car gave no indication of the definite pending failure.The owner is not new to anything mechanical or fast ,this I can tell you,and is pretty knowledgable when it comes to motors of any kind.This being said i think you can get away with more than 700 -800hp on these motors for a little while depending on the situation and type of use/user.The problem arises when you start the thinking that everyone can tune their cars this way and it be bulletproof.Then some unlucky soul winds up paying the consequences because his motor is completely unrepairable.That unlucky soul ends up having to sell the car for parts because it doesn't pay to replace the motor with a core due to the fact that the motor and labor to install is worth more than half of the cars value and this only gets him back to square one.M.y 2 cents.mickey mouse fuel system.
I absolutely pounded my motor but it always has had good fuel and good afr's (as far as I know).
MK
#63
11-01-2009, 09:37 AM
Originally Posted by S-351
The car currently has 14,601 miles on it, I bought it with about 9100 miles and was nearly stock when I purchased it. Very shortly after I purchased the car (about 100 miles) I started my build....Did some shopping and decided to buy a "EVOMS" knock off 700 kit with GIAC tuning. Well....Being a know off kit they for forgot a few critical components, A GOOD FUEL SYSTEM. I found this out about a year after the build. The car made 621 rwhp / 637 rwtq on race fuel at a 12.9 AFR, 1.55bar.
For all we know, the damage to the rod could have easily occurred during this timeframe.
Let me go one step further. Once Bryant finally installed a quality package with a good fuel system and tune from EVOMS; the damaged rod, even while being permanently compromised from trying to survive in a lean environment for over 1 year, may have actually been strong enough to resist further damage this entire time.
My point is that instead of this being an example of the weakness of the stock rod’s, this may actually be a testament to not only the stock rod’s strength and durability, but also to the quality of EVOMS’ bolt-on kits and tuning!
Anyway, I just think their are a lot of variables specific to this car and it’s past modifications that make it extremely difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to exactly what happened. Also, I think it would be reasonably inaccurate to use Bryant's bent/cracked rod as a litmus test for determining how much actual power and boost the stock rods can handle when you are using a proper fuel system along with a proper tune.
EDIT: I just noticed after I posted this that I am basically reiterating what a few others have already said. Sorry, guys. Wasn't trying to plagerize. Should have the read in full before I posted.
One last point. When I had my motor built at Proto, Todd said my stock rods were in perfect condition. And that was after running the crap out of the car at 600 rwhp for quite a while.
Last edited by Divexxtreme; 11-01-2009 at 09:45 AM.
#65
11-01-2009, 10:00 AM
Rebuilding a bottom end is expensive! So convincing folks who work hard for a paycheck to do it when their engines appear to run well is going to be understandably tough be it a Honda or a Porsche. If there was some process where this could be done with a little less pain and KNOWN pricing up front rather than the La Brea money pit adventure so many owners seem to experience then the process might be easier to enter into. It's been pointed out such a process exists - except I cannot find out anything about it except via word of mouth. I can buy a set of 4 rods for something like a Subbie for around a grand that will hold 900HP so getting a set of 6 rods for a Porsche to hold that much and likely more since it's across 2 more cylinders shouldn't cost 2x and 3x that should it? See where I'm coming from?
See where I'm coming from?
of labor to do the whole project from beginning to end. This puts you in easily in the mid $20k's for that piece of mind. I know how I drive my cars and believe me I run them hard. A beefed up bottom end will be a future mod on my car.
#66
11-01-2009, 10:28 AM
Honestly, this is the part that really concerns me. The car was running way lean for over a year, and unfortunately for Bryant, he never knew it.
For all we know, the damage to the rod could have easily occurred during this timeframe.
Let me go one step further. Once Bryant finally installed a quality package with a good fuel system and tune from EVOMS; the damaged rod, even while being permanently compromised from trying to survive in a lean environment for over 1 year, may have actually been strong enough to resist further damage this entire time.
My point is that instead of this being an example of the weakness of the stock rod’s, this may actually be a testament to not only the stock rod’s strength and durability, but also to the quality of EVOMS’ bolt-on kits and tuning!
Anyway, I just think their are a lot of variables specific to this car and it’s past modifications that make it extremely difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to exactly what happened. Also, I think it would be reasonably inaccurate to use Bryant's bent/cracked rod as a litmus test for determining how much actual power and boost the stock rods can handle when you are using a proper fuel system along with a proper tune.
EDIT: I just noticed after I posted this that I am basically reiterating what a few others have already said. Sorry, guys. Wasn't trying to plagerize. Should have the read in full before I posted.
One last point. When I had my motor built at Proto, Todd said my stock rods were in perfect condition. And that was after running the crap out of the car at 600 rwhp for quite a while.
For all we know, the damage to the rod could have easily occurred during this timeframe.
Let me go one step further. Once Bryant finally installed a quality package with a good fuel system and tune from EVOMS; the damaged rod, even while being permanently compromised from trying to survive in a lean environment for over 1 year, may have actually been strong enough to resist further damage this entire time.
My point is that instead of this being an example of the weakness of the stock rod’s, this may actually be a testament to not only the stock rod’s strength and durability, but also to the quality of EVOMS’ bolt-on kits and tuning!
Anyway, I just think their are a lot of variables specific to this car and it’s past modifications that make it extremely difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to exactly what happened. Also, I think it would be reasonably inaccurate to use Bryant's bent/cracked rod as a litmus test for determining how much actual power and boost the stock rods can handle when you are using a proper fuel system along with a proper tune.
EDIT: I just noticed after I posted this that I am basically reiterating what a few others have already said. Sorry, guys. Wasn't trying to plagerize. Should have the read in full before I posted.
One last point. When I had my motor built at Proto, Todd said my stock rods were in perfect condition. And that was after running the crap out of the car at 600 rwhp for quite a while.
blkmgk, I don't disagree with what you have said. Some of it can be propaganda, but these tuners, engine builders have probably seen enough engines come through their shop they many will have a fair idea as to how much these motors can take on a consistent basis.
#67
11-01-2009, 10:37 AM
this last part is excellent info(not that the previous isn't) and is more confirming info on how far this motors can go. There there are others at or slightly above this that have been fine as well, many others.
blkmgk, I don't disagree with what you have said. Some of it can be propaganda, but these tuners, engine builders have probably seen enough engines come through their shop they many will have a fair idea as to how much these motors can take on a consistent basis.
blkmgk, I don't disagree with what you have said. Some of it can be propaganda, but these tuners, engine builders have probably seen enough engines come through their shop they many will have a fair idea as to how much these motors can take on a consistent basis.
If I could swap in a built bottom end for a reasonable known documented cost aka not my first born, then maybe I'd go further sooner once I'd been able to budget for it. As it stands now it's looking like 50% of the purchase price of the car - sorry that's not going to fly. Those prices might have made more sense when these cars were $100K+, not when they're costing as little as $40K.
#68
11-01-2009, 10:45 AM
I don't disagree! However if the weak points are known and can be addressed then some sort of process for doing so at known cost points would be attractive. As it stands now I'll get my car back running where it should, somewhere around 600WHP, do some things to better increase intake efficiency and intake air cooling, and probably call it a day unless for some reason I suddenly decide it feels slow. At that power level I'll feel comfortable.
If I could swap in a built bottom end for a reasonable known documented cost aka not my first born, then maybe I'd go further sooner once I'd been able to budget for it. As it stands now it's looking like 50% of the purchase price of the car - sorry that's not going to fly. Those prices might have made more sense when these cars were $100K+, not when they're costing as little as $40K.
If I could swap in a built bottom end for a reasonable known documented cost aka not my first born, then maybe I'd go further sooner once I'd been able to budget for it. As it stands now it's looking like 50% of the purchase price of the car - sorry that's not going to fly. Those prices might have made more sense when these cars were $100K+, not when they're costing as little as $40K.
agreed. I am staying at 600 whp, until I decide I want to build a motor. However, I can say that just doing rods, studs, shuffle pin on a block isn't so costly, I was quoted somewhere around 4k in parts plus labor. So it can be done cheaper, I think most just decide to go with headwork, valvetrain work, etc and that ends up cost insanely more money.
#69
11-01-2009, 10:57 AM
My point is that instead of this being an example of the weakness of the stock rod’s, this may actually be a testament to not only the stock rod’s strength and durability, but also to the quality of EVOMS’ bolt-on kits and tuning!
Anyway, I just think their are a lot of variables specific to this car and it’s past modifications that make it extremely difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to exactly what happened. Also, I think it would be reasonably inaccurate to use Bryant's bent/cracked rod as a litmus test for determining how much actual power and boost the stock rods can handle when you are using a proper fuel system along with a proper tune.
David Kim is also pushing his own agenda as well since he sells 900+ rwhp kits on stock rods. That is all fine since we all spend our own money as we see fit. You are comfortable with your decisions and I am comfortable with mine. I just find it odd that every bent rod that has ever presented itself on this forum and many more that I know of that are not public has never been the fault of the rod.. always some other excuse. As far as Bryants rod being a litmus test I agree that one failure in isolatation cannot prove anything, but when will some of the failure data be taken on a collective basis.
Anyway, not trying to start a pissing contest but more frustrated that almost all of EVO threads degenerate into a tuner war/theory/philosophy battle
I dont recall the owner of EVO jumping in the Switzer thread about 900 on stock rods, his doing so here looks transparent to me..David, I have Switzer products on my car for the record and wouldnt swap it for anything....
#70
11-01-2009, 11:14 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minneapolis, Mn
Age: 48
Posts: 16,073
Rep Power: 1069 500 miles? 1000 miles? 2000 miles? it is just difficult for me to believe that since you went with the EVOMS GT30 package and drove it "not long enough", that all of a sudden the rods have seen so much stress due to the added hp and tq that the rods have bent, cracked, etc. That seems to be EVOMS "theory" in your particular case. If that is indeed still EVOMS position, then ALL rods should fail when driven "not long enough".
We are simply trying to get all the facts and entire story to see if there may have been another reason why the rods failed as opposed to what EVOMS theory is claiming that the 680 hp and 650 tq was just too much for the stock rods to handle. Any ways, good luck with your build.
We are simply trying to get all the facts and entire story to see if there may have been another reason why the rods failed as opposed to what EVOMS theory is claiming that the 680 hp and 650 tq was just too much for the stock rods to handle. Any ways, good luck with your build.
How many Porsche motors have you guys built over at Switzer?
#71
11-01-2009, 11:18 AM
At this point if you want to take a chance so be it! this debate can go on & on..., If you take that chance be ready to pay, you will pay eventually for playing 
. Either 6-7 or 800 hp be comfortable with your choice & be happy. IMO
, If you take that chance be ready to pay, you will pay eventually for playing . Either 6-7 or 800 hp be comfortable with your choice & be happy. IMO
#72
11-01-2009, 11:33 AM
If the price was right, I certainly wouldn't shy away from rods and head studs, but anything more is overkill IMO...unless you are going for maximum airflow, i.e., power.
David Kim is also pushing his own agenda as well since he sells 900+ rwhp kits on stock rods.
That is all fine since we all spend our own money as we see fit. You are comfortable with your decisions and I am comfortable with mine. I just find it odd that every bent rod that has ever presented itself on this forum and many more that I know of that are not public has never been the fault of the rod.. always some other excuse.
.. always some other excuse.
As far as Bryants rod being a litmus test I agree that one failure in isolatation cannot prove anything, but when will some of the failure data be taken on a collective basis.
Anyway, not trying to start a pissing contest but more frustrated that almost all of EVO threads degenerate into a tuner war/theory/philosophy battle I dont recall the owner of EVO jumping in the Switzer thread about 900 on stock rods, his doing so here looks transparent to me..
David, I have Switzer products on my car for the record and wouldnt swap it for anything....
I dont recall the owner of EVO jumping in the Switzer thread about 900 on stock rods, his doing so here looks transparent to me..David, I have Switzer products on my car for the record and wouldnt swap it for anything....
The fact is, if any tuner, or owner claimed to me (I'm only speaking for me) that Bryant's bent rod meant that the stock rods are inherently weak, especially considering the fact that his car was running in a lean condition for a over a year with a different tuning package, I would have posted the exact same thing I posted today.
If you set your emotions aside for a moment I believe you would see that.
Last edited by Divexxtreme; 11-01-2009 at 11:36 AM.
#74
11-01-2009, 11:38 AM
Hmmm, Lets forget about all the excuses that caused any of the catastrophic failures of our beloved 996 whether it be tuning, fueling, meth, tq, the bottom line is that the rods gave way...So they are the weak link period .
.
#75
11-01-2009, 11:43 AM
Not at all, Kevin. I believed this before I even started looking for another Porsche. I'm sure the post is still around if you care to find it, but I stated that my next car would be a bolt-on only car since I see no reason to build the motor unless you really want BIG power. I've been there and done that already.
If the price was right, I certainly wouldn't shy away from rods and head studs, but anything more is overkill IMO...unless you are going for maximum airflow, i.e., power.
I have no agenda. I'm not a tuner, nor am I financially affiliated with one. I'm surpised you would even imply that, by using the words "as well" in your above statement. Hell, I may even go to EVOMs for any future mods on my car. I want the best product, period.
I honestly can't speak to any of that.
I agree.
Kevin - I'm honestly 100% confused as to what you could possibly be frustated at, especially when it comes to me. I truly have no idea.
The fact is, if any tuner, or owner claimed to me (I'm only speaking for me) that Bryant's bent rod meant that the stock rods are inherently weak, especially considering the fact that his car was running in a lean condition for a over a year with a different tuning package, I would have posted the exact same thing I posted today.
If you set your emotions aside for a moment I believe you would see that.
If the price was right, I certainly wouldn't shy away from rods and head studs, but anything more is overkill IMO...unless you are going for maximum airflow, i.e., power.
I have no agenda. I'm not a tuner, nor am I financially affiliated with one. I'm surpised you would even imply that, by using the words "as well" in your above statement. Hell, I may even go to EVOMs for any future mods on my car. I want the best product, period.
I honestly can't speak to any of that.
I agree.
Kevin - I'm honestly 100% confused as to what you could possibly be frustated at, especially when it comes to me. I truly have no idea.
The fact is, if any tuner, or owner claimed to me (I'm only speaking for me) that Bryant's bent rod meant that the stock rods are inherently weak, especially considering the fact that his car was running in a lean condition for a over a year with a different tuning package, I would have posted the exact same thing I posted today.
If you set your emotions aside for a moment I believe you would see that.
As for emotions, I set them aside after my last fiasco.....
We all believe what we choose. I believe a rod that is a 13 year old design made for a 400 CRANK hp 993TT which is more like 330 wheel that is now being used in 900 whp applications, which is nearly 300% over design strength is a problem. Nothing more than my opinion...