JFP in PA

K: How many O-rings are needed for the conversion to the "S" oil cooler? Part numbers? Regards, Maurice. Seven (7) total parts ordered. I'll know more after I finish the install. 996-107-025-57-M6 - Oil Heat Exchanger - $ 151.75 999-707-409-40-M17 - Rubber o-ring - .75 each - 2 needed - $1.50 total 999-707-389-40-M100 - Rubber o-ring - $1.00 each - 4 needed - $4.00 total I hope this helps! I've seen some part guys do this in the past, what they have given you is every possible o-ring combination available. This way, you are guaranteed to have a set that will work (the very early cars had an adaptor plate that went between the cooler and the block, necessitating additional o-rings). As the o-rings sell for a few cents each at retail, giving you all of them is cheap insurance against not having the correct set, but the cooler itself only uses four o-rings........

"data loggers, which were left in the test cars for periods ranging from five days to two weeks in order to observe how the vehicle's baseline temperatures responded in "real world" driving conditions The issue with this test is that you are comparing the data collected with likely relevant differences (external temp, humidity, barometric pressure) in driving conditions. Additionally, it is a normal phenomenon for people with recently modded cars to drive differently to "test" out the mod and that itself skews results." Unfortunately, you and I totally disagree on one blatantly obvious contradiction to your position: If a car consistently demonstrates a baseline operational temperature of 175-177F with one type of thermostat, and 205-210F with the other; over multiple drivers, driving conditions, weather patterns and across a protracted time frame, one of the thermostats is letting the car run at a cooler baseline temperature. Somehow, I still find that point inescapable. "we employed a laboratory magnetic stirring hot plate and four liter glass beaker for our bench tests Ironically, this test fails to determine the truth almost for the opposite reason the first one does: by eliminating possibly relevant variables found in real-world testing you also invalidate the test results. Such relevant variables are difficult to predict but they could possibly include non-uniformity of heating of coolant or the part itself, other external forces, vibration, turbulence in the fluid flow, etc." You originally questioned the validity ("The rhetoric that suggests the stock thermostat doesn't actually open when it is supposed to is based on similarly uncontrolled experiments, whose results are worse than incorrect, they are misleading.") of how the opening points and full open temperatures were determined; yet when I provide you with a precisely controlled bench experiment, designed to remove any complicating outside influences, you question those results simply because they constitute the controlled environment you said was lacking. Stefan, you can't have it both way, unless of course your object is to create an endlessly circular argument that can never reach any conclusion……………. And, by-the-by, the method used exactly parallels the procedures that have been used for about 50 year to determine the opening temperatures for automotive thermostats………hardly what I would describe as "misleading". "the manufacture was asked about this observation, they confirmed that "It is a normal observation" for the 160F stat to be observed as warming up to running temps more quickly due to increased warm water flowing sooner I'd like to hear more about the theory of why it would warm up more quickly. Increasing the cooling capacity of the system earlier should dissipate more heat early, which should cause the temperature to rise more slowly." You misinterpret what was described. The perception is that the cars warm up more quickly, probably due to earlier observed movement of the dash gauge and greater heater output. But this is a perception, not an experimentally confirmed fact. The dash display is well known for its lack of accuracy and linearity, so even using two cars and stopwatches to try and measure the difference in gauge movement is questionable, which is why it was described as a perception, not a fact. Again, the thermostat does not alter the capacity of the cooling system; it alters the minimum baseline temperature at which the engine will return to under equivalent circumstances. "none of the cars, my own included, has demonstrated any problems passing state emissions testing State emissions tests are done at full operating temperature at which time the 160 deg thermostat performs identically to the stock thermostat. So this does not surprise me. It is during warm-up I am suggesting the emission will be higher." I have no idea what the emissions levels are during warm up for any vehicle, but then I do not believe the testing authorities do either, or would trust such data points as particularly meaningful. From my understanding of EPA and state testing methodology, which appear to mandate emissions testing under the conditions at which vehicle will spend most of its operational life span, namely full operating temperatures, I would say that comparing "sniffer" results is both appropriate and valid. "What this all amounts to is that it is really tricky business to design a test that gives meaningful results. Trained scientists make errors doing this all of the time. That is why we read that X causes cancer then later that X prevents cancer. While I appreciate carefully thought out experiments I just do not see the above as demonstrative of a benefit." Stefan, why don't we just agree that we disagree on this topic? At this juncture, I do not see any form of experimental testing or empirical observations that would dissuade you from your opinion………….

OK Stefan, let's go take the "rhetoric" item by item.................... "I agree with the above commentary that suggests the 160 degree thermostat is ineffectual. It would be nearly impossible to perform a controlled experiment that demonstrates that it is effective as there are too many variables that cannot be controlled. I think everyone is in agreement that it won't prevent your car from overheating as the stock thermostat opens fully before that happens." We employed commercially available data loggers, which were left in the test cars for periods ranging from five days to two weeks in order to observe how the vehicle's baseline temperatures responded in "real world" driving conditions. And, no one ever implied that a cooler thermostat was going to prevent a vehicle from overheating; only that it would run at a cooler baseline temperature, which it does when using the 160F stat..................... "The rhetoric that suggests the stock thermostat doesn't actually open when it is supposed to is based on similarly uncontrolled experiments, whose results are worse than incorrect, they are misleading." Not really true. To collect information on when the stats begin to open and are fully open, we employed a laboratory magnetic stirring hot plate and four liter glass beaker for our bench tests. The hot plate has a calibrated rheostat to control the rate of heating, and an independent speed controller for the stirrer to assure constant water movement. The test thermostats (all brand new) were all suspended midway down by a wire to prevent any uneven heating effects. Each type of thermostat was tested four times, and allowed to cool to ambient temperature before subsequent tests. Each test was begun with fresh tap water that exhibited a temperature of 52-54F (measured by a digital read out thermometer with its sensor tip at the depth of the middle of the thermostat in the beaker). The stirrer was turned up to a setting of "50", and the heat was then turned on with the rheostat set to "60% power". Temperatures were observed when the thermostat first began to open, noted as a gap appearing between the center plunger section and the outer housing, and when the center plunger stopped moving and was fully open. Because of the experimental design, the rate of temperature rise allowed multiple observers to independently note the start and cessation of plunger movement, as well as the temperatures. These observations agreed within 1-2 degrees. The results are as previously summarized in early posts....................... "Additionally, note that the 160 degree thermostat makes the car take longer to warm up which decreases fuel economy and increases emissions." Interestingly, as far as warm up, just the opposite seems to occur. The M96 is factory equipped with some coolant by-pass flow capability, which helps provide of heater output well before the thermostat actually starts to open. Because the 160F stat starts to open, and is fully open at a low temperatures, several owners have commented that they feel the car is warming up "more quickly", most likely a perception triggered either by warmer air coming from the heater sooner, or because they see movement in the dash gauge earlier. When the manufacture was asked about this observation, they confirmed that "It is a normal observation" for the 160F stat to be observed as warming up to running temps more quickly due to increased warm water flowing sooner. Unfortunately, because the "warm up rate" perception rests with the car owner, it has not been independently or experimentally confirmed, but has been noted by multiple owners. As for emission, as mentioned previously, I operate in a state were "sniffer" emissions testing is common. To date, none of the cars, my own included, has demonstrated any problems passing state emissions testing. While I have only seen some of the actual test values (we are not licensed to provide emissions testing), but from what I have seen, there does not appear to be any significant change in the values (HC, CO, and NO in this state) before and after moving to the cooler stat, so there does not appear to be any detrimental impact on emissions. And, again as noted previously, owners (myself included) have observed slight (2-4MPG) increases in fuel economy durng longer trips; which have not been evaluated experimentally due to significant variances in driving styles, road types, weather differences, etc., etc Now, if you have either experimentally sound, or even significant empirical data that supports another perspective, I for one, am always open to listening and trying to learn something new...... But, in any case, have a nice Easter..................

K: How many O-rings are needed for the conversion to the "S" oil cooler? Part numbers? Regards, Maurice. There are four orings, two each of two sizes. Parts 999-707-409-40 and 999-707-389-40 come to mind, but you better check those with a the parts department as the very early cars also used one other number.

We normally do not replace the coolant mix unless it has become contaminated or have a specific need to drain the system. As long as the mix looks good (clear with no suspended crud) and passes tests such as freeze point, pH, etc., it should be fine. Just be sure to use the OEM coolant (yes, it cost a bit more than the auto parts store stuff, but it has proven to last a long time, which the cheap stuff doesn't always do), and only mix it with distilled water (about a buck a gallon at the supermarket) and you will be fine for many years................

There seems to be some significant misconceptions on how this works. The stat does control the minimum operation temp of the engine by controlling when full coolant flow commences (the OEM stat begins to open at 185-187F, but is not fully open until around 200F; the 160 stat begins to open at 160F and is fully open by around 170F or so), but it also controls the minimum temperature the system can return to by "throttling" the flow if the system tries to overcool (this happens most obviously in the winter, but also occurs at warmer temps as well were it controls the temperature to which the coolant will return to after becoming hotter due to being stuck in traffic, etc. ). The basic cooling system in M96 equipped cars has more heat transfer capacity (coolant to the ambient air) than the car actually needs; other wise the car would not cool back down after being stuck in traffic, or when the fans kick in. If the radiators controlled the minimum operating temperature of the system, there would simply be no need for any type of thermostatic control. The addition of a third radiator aid in the rate at which this cooling takes place by adding more capacity, but there is already more than enough capacity built into the car without the third radiator to accomplish it, albeit over a longer period of time. In a race car, because of the uneven demands being placed upon the engine and cooling systems, cooling rates are as critical as total capacity. On street cars using the LN stat, those with two radiators took longer to cool back down than those with the third unit, but both cooled back to the same baseline temps in the mid to upper 170's, while OEM stat cars came back to a 205-210 baseline. This is the "throttling" effect of the stat……

I was hoping you would pipe JPF, What's the exspensive fix? a reflash. This nags me, if an engine is running a 16o stat from the get go, I get can picture it. Hpwever, if a motor that has broken in at 219f for 50k ( worn to fit do a degree) is'nt dropping the temp 50 degrees all the sudden going to change all the tolerances due to a new coeifient of exspansion value. resulting in a refit of all internal components( I.E wear)? I suppose you have had the oil anayze before and after a "stat" change on a high-ish milage motor? Regards, PK To respond to your first question, the expensive fix would have been to re-engineer the engine, with 'minor' upgrades such as DFI, etc. Problem is that once all the tooling and casting molds were done, no OEM is going to throw them away and start over if an easier but potentially compromising solution is available, like keeping the engine running way to hot....... Unfortunately, in the large scale production world, bean counters will always trump the engineers. Yes, we have virgin oil analysis, UoA with the OEM stat, and UoA with the LN stat on the same brand and weight of oil and mileage used for multiple cars that began the sequence with more than 50 or 60,000 miles on them; and we have parallel data on low mileage cars as well. The oil definitely benefits from the lower coolant temps. None of the cars has demonstrated any issues (e.g.: increased oil consumption, etc.) as the result of the change. An interesting, but not fully documented change was that most owners noticed a small, but consistent improvement in gas mileage.

It appears to be silicone, but as I said, just about any lubricant will work as it is only used to help keep the o-rings in place while replacing the tubes. In a pinch, we have used use motor oil and have never had a problem. Warming the engine helps get stuck tubes out if they are really balky.......usually, they just pop right out.

Mike, those are for the outer panels, not the battery cover. The quarter turn plastic ones are a dealer item.

The dash temp display is nearly a bad joke; it is both non linear and grossly inaccurate as well. Most M96's showing around 180F on the dash are actually running 205-210F. LN has the only ones available in North America to my knowledge............

As will any OBDII scanner with PID capture capability (Actron, etc.)..............

The grease is just to protect the o-rings while the tube is being reinstalled. In reality, just about any lubricant will work. Unless the tube is damaged, all you need is new o-rings. To pull the tubes, Porsche makes a ridiculously expensive tool, or you can use a $1 expanding one inch (2.54cm) transom plug that you can find a any boat yard............ Works like a charm.......

Under EPA rules, Porsche has to build a car that will continue to pass emissions standards (those in place at the time of construction) for at least 80,000 miles. Raising the coolant temps has been a cheap band-aid in this effort since the late 1960's, and is practiced by just about all the OEM's. Interestingly, Porsche does not use 185F stats in their most performance oriented engines; the GT2 and GT3's for example use a lower temp stat to maximize engine output and longevity. Dyno tests on an M96 before and after showed that the engine picked up a small, but measurable amount of HP and torque by using the lower temp stat (actual data was published on LN Engineering's website). As for emissions, were I live you can be subject to either "advanced" testing (I/M Readiness via the OBD II port), or a sniffer, depending upon the location. I have several customers running the 160F stat in M96 variants, some for a long time, and all continue to regularly pass emissions testing. The DME's in these cars are more than flexible enough to adapt to the engine running cooler. Perhaps of more interest is that cars with the 160 stat (and have oil temp readouts) also show lower oil temperatures, often 25-30F cooler, which is a big advantage. Comparisons of UoA's on the same M96 before and after switching to the 160F stat show the oil holds up better, as you would expect from the significant drop the oil's running temps. After monitoring several cars for a couple of years, I see no downsides to the 160F stat………..

Yes, I changed my serp belt myself at 62K . I might just do the waterpump and serp belt again while I'm at it. Anybody have any thoughts on changing the waterpump with 82,000 miles as preventative maintenance? Two thoughts: The pump isn't known to be a "survivor", and typically fails with little or no warning. Secondly, you will need to drain, refill and bleed the system a second time if the pump dies next week...........

The 160F stat is an excellent mod for any state; out here we see temps ranging from 0F to 105F, and the unit is just fine. And, yes, the car will pass emissions.............

There should be no flush needed, but you will need a new o-ring for the coolant drain plug (fifty cent item) and a dab of anti seize to put on the plug threads before you re torque it. Check the condition of your water pump; you will need to drain the system all over again if it craps out 5 min. after you do your upgrades. As you have a 5 speed car, you can also upgrade to the "S" oil cooler which is about twice the size of the base unit, and is a simple bolt in swap for about $200 or so (parts at retail). The larger cooler is one of the biggest bang for the buck mods you can do for a base car.....

With getting it scanned to see what the codes are, guessing would be a total crap shoot. Get it scanned................ and, by-the-by, it can be scanned by any simple $30 unit to get the codes, you do not need anything fancy.

The M96 runds a bit rich at start up, to comply with 50 state emissions standards, it uses a secondary air injection pump for a short period after starting.

You need to pull the lower panel and have a look with a good flashlight; it there are signs of seepage from the weep hole on the bottom of the pump, you are in the market to replace it before it strands you somewhere not so nice.................

HI, Its looks like I have a leak similar to this. Does anyone have any experience of changing the tensioner seal. How do you lock the cams? What tooling is needed thanks Jetbox $600-$800 depending upon the source…………

We have the LN stat is several customer cars; I also have it in my personal car as well. The car will run quite a bit cooler at any given ambient temp than it would with the OEM stat (which only begins to open in the 185-190F range, but is not fully open until 205-210F), and will cool back down to a lower temp if it gets hot, such as being stuck in traffic for a bit (be aware that the dash gauge is notoriously inaccurate). One of the biggest advantages it brings is that it lowers the oil temps as well, which is good for both the engine and the oil. I would ignore the Porsche dealership's comments; after all, Porsche uses a similar stat in their "performance oriented" models like the GT2 and GT3..........

Oil level reading comes from a sensor in the oil sump. Either the sensor has gone bad, or the wiring pigtail leading out from it has become disconnected...........

I doubt it, but it will create more oil leaks than you ever imagined could exist............... Suggest you give Jake Raby a call, he once described pulling one of these that went flying around the shop when it released; seems to take a lot of force to dislodge it.

I'm not sure you are going to be happy about this, but, if your cam timing is off too much, the computer will see an incongruity between the crankshaft position and the cam position, which will make the DME confused, throwing off the injector pulse and ignition systems. If the car was able to run, it would promptly throw multiple codes relating to the position sensors; without being able to start it, the DME may not be getting to that point yet. Do you have a scanner capable of reading "real time" data from the DME? That should capture the position sensors issues as well............ In any case, the computer "resets" by simply removing the + battery cable for about 2 min............

Both were customer's cars, both appeared to be IMS bearing failures that led to other destruction; very similar to the earlier cars. One was under warranty, the other was not. Basically, if your engine has an IMS, you are at some level of risk; I have no knowledge of if the later cars fail any less or more, but they do fail. There is a reason why the new 9A1 is a “shaft-less” design engine……………….