Flat four Porsche shocker!

"The new models will be introduced throughout the course of 2016, and while no details have been given on engine displacement or power output, Porsche has confirmed that it will use a flat-four “boxer” configuration. It is also likely that the cars will use the same 2.0-litre capacity as ..."

"A spokesman confirmed that these will bolt directly into VW's iconic transporter model using the original four bolts and..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/porsche/porsche-revamps-718-boxster/

Sod Subaru, I'm going to be waiting a few years until these start appearing at the breakers.

 

How old are you now?

 

In your 'Earth' years?

 

Will you rear corners hold out that long

 

The number came up, my corners were next, they were done.

 

dibs on the first write off from celebs who cant drive the cars they buy!

 

The power figures point towards these being the Eco/base models with the lowest power on tap....doubt Celebs will be driving them!!

 

Most likely! untalented wannabees = more backed through hedges..

 

Lots of tawts write off Porsches, there's a breaker within walking distance of my house. You can barely move for broken, baby boxters.
The cheapo 718 will be next.
In a decade, we'll all be running them...
...probably with the secret boxter brake upgrade too.
The one that replaces the current 944 brake upgrade and is known to only a handful of pepes.

 

Radial mount calipers?

I'll be doing that

 

I was thinking about the one where you swap your master cylinder for the bigger bore one from the Porsche and, as expected it bolts straight in using the original two bolts.

 

The og servo mc is about the same size as the Porsche one, so no need to go down that road

 

Well, it's up to you...

 

water cooled though so you'd still need to find somewhere to put a radiator.

thining about that.. is there any reason you could't put two small rad in the air intakes at the rear?

 

It's been done, seems an obvious thing to try to me. I'm guessing it doesn't work well or everyone would do it?

 

300HP is about 225kW. An engine is maybe 50% efficient so you need to lose about a quarter of a megawatt of heat..

Not likely in the little air ducts that go with 70HP engines or about 50kW cooling.

The ducts or radiators will need at least 5x the airflow and more because water will be at less than 100C while an aircooled engine is running at more like 200C.

 

You wouldn't get very big radiators behind the air intakes plus the hot air passing out of them would be going straight into the engine bay. Any air in the system would rise to the highest point, I.e. the radiators themselves, and would probably be a pain to bleed out. Also it would effectively require 2 lots of plumbing which frankly sounds a lot of hassle for little benefit. For a more scientific answer see Mike's above, I'm just guessing at mine!

 

Petrol engines are not 50% efficient, that level of efficiency is reserved for big marine diesels running at constant rpm, more like 25 - 30%. The airflow comparison is a difficult one, as a water filled radiator is a much more efficient means of transferring heat to the air than the surface of the engine, because the contact area is a lot greater. Getting the air to flow through the radiator would be the problem when using the vents.

 

A series of metal ducting junctions connected with leaky cardboard duct seems the most efficent way of losing heat on a van, maybe thats the way forward! on the flip side the heating might work.

 

Fair enough. It was quick back of envelope stuff and just really confirmed the need for much more air flow than stock, and why any serious watercooled conversion used at sustained high power output needs a big radiator. How many Scooby conversions can really go faster than 70 mph or lets say 60-70HP cruising for long periods before hitting problems? Quite a few seem to have radiator layouts tweaked a few times before success.