Interesting....I've been emailing Charles about the latest 2qt extended sump (incorporates the FVD/X51 vertical baffle + the Mantis horizontal windage tray), and he has quoted specifically that the track teams that are using this setup are saying that it's a better solution than the accusump. I asked Charles if these cars also had an accusump/other mods (tandem scavengers) and he assured me they didn't -
only the 2qt deep sump kit. They have just released a skid plate, which sounds like it's probably necessary on a car that is lowered (mine has PSS9's). I have to agree that the combination of design features from Mantis and FVD/X51 makes a lot of logical sense - unlike the Mantis design, the LN horizontal tray does not have a bunch of holes drilled in the top out, so with the addition of the vertical X51 baffles it makes it REALLY difficult for the oil trapped under that tray to get out meaning there's much more likelihood of oil at the pickup under the conditions that can cause the starvation issue. The Mantis design just doesn't seem to make logical sense as above the horizontal tray it's just the same old stock sump, and once the oil under the tray has been forced out, then it's back to stock issues.
With the LN (and Mantis for that matter) it's a concern without the skid guard on a lowered car. Even with the skid guard, a solid enough impact on solid tarmac during a bottom out is still going to transfer a lot of energy in an upwards direction into the sump, which isn't a good thing at all for the entire engine - the skid guard is a relatively thin piece of metal and thus will absolutely be flexible under loaded impact, transferring the energy to the sump pan/rest of engine (it just won't scratch it!!). However, I can see the skid guard's value for predominantly horizontal impact deflection.
As for your dual scavenge suggestion, here's a not so great advertisement of why it's likely no better at resolving the issue than the much less expensive options - this was using a custom LN built 3.8L with the TTP 2 scavenge option (very similar to LN's product) that was so highly touted as the "solution":
http://www.planet-9.com/987-cayman-...ump-accusump-vs-deep-sump-dual-tandem-scavenge-pumps-post762571.html#post762571
There are many people who have been tracking their early 987.1 cars regularly for several years with minimal updates (Mantis 2qt sump mod and AOS), like Bill here:
http://www.planet-9.com/987-cayman-...ump-accusump-vs-deep-sump-dual-tandem-scavenge-pumps-post762606.html#post762606 - 68 track days as of nearly a year ago to be exact.
Russell has the FVD X51 style pan and TPC stage 2 kit and has been tracking for over a year without issue:
http://www.planet-9.com/news-items/...25-off-introductory-special-cayman-boxster-motorsport-oil-pan-3.html#post854787
And there are literally hundreds of other 987.1 cars that see track work every year and have not had any serious problems - the failures are as Porsche guess, likely less than 5% of the total number of 987.1 cars out there. That's an interesting data point, as people who buy Porsche cars are much more likely to be the type that would go to the track than say a Toyota or Honda buyer. So given Porsche owners for the most part will be much more aggressive, speed driven drivers who will push the laws of physics more than most, maybe 5% isn't that bad? Not justifying Porsche's sloppy design in any way, but just something to chew on.
I still believe that the issue has been grossly exaggerated if you consider the number of people on this forum (not even including the 987.1 cars around the world that are tracked and are just fine), and that it's expected that if someone's engine blows up and they are stuck with a $20K repair bill, that they will make a lot of noise about it. The IMS is another issue that's been blown out of proportion. Granted, I bought into it and when my clutch needed changed at 80K miles, I opted to install the LN part just for peace of mind. The original IMS was rock solid and showed no signs of deterioration. Go figure.
I've driven my car hard from the day I bought it (the first 1000 miles I watched the revs), performed regular maintenance, and with PSS9's and RE-11's I've torn up super twisty roads (many long sweeping downhill left-hand turns) at speeds ((100mph+) far above the number on that sign they put next to road in WA, CA and CO. And she just keeps on going without issue (about to hit 90K miles). I believe that some cars are just lucky enough to come off the production line on a good day, and unfortunately like everything else that's built by man, some examples have imperceptible production flaws that show themselves over time and/or under certain circumstances.
There is one other thing going for my car (987.1 Boxster S) that is another issue that destroys 987.1 CS engines - the engine block on the 3.2L BS is different from the early gen 3.2L and 3.4L CS's, it's got more material and hence stronger than these CS engines. And unlike the CS's there hasn't been one documented dreaded "D-chunk" failure on a 987.1 BS - I've tried to find one and it's just not there (I got this info about the engine block from a thread I found somewhere and was confirmed by my local Porsche dealer who built there own GT3 cup car and have techs that are much savvier than other Porsche dealerships I've used).
All this being said, I think you have a point that these engines have flaws and one should consider all the options. But there also comes a point where the options become fiscally irresponsible for an 8 year old car that's worth less than the price of having a new engine put in it. And, I am not planning on tracking every weekend. Maybe 3-4 DE events a year max, the rest is just my own private high octane trips into the Rocky mountains with my trusty tools to jam/sniff out the government employees who like hiding in ditches with their speed gadgetry. I've done easily over 150 track days in my time in insanely modified STi's and M3's and although I haven't taken my BS to the track, I've likely put the car through environments that would surpass those seen on many tracks (RE-11's and PSS9 = Gokart).
So, where does that leave us?
It's really a crap shoot. I'm taking Charles at LN's recent advice as genuine, so if I go the 2qt extension route I just have to ensure the new bilt guard is installed to protect from bottoming out - about $1250-$1300 shipped. But is it excessive for 3-4 DE events per year on streets?
Or go with the tried and tested FVD design that adds about 3/4 qt for about $900 shipped and put the $400 towards the upgraded AOS?
And as a closing comment. Potentially the single best piece of advice is from a guy who knows engine failure all too well (Bruce - diverdog) - the #1 best protection is to keep the revs below 6700RPM as in his educated opinion it's the weak rods/bolts that are most likely the culprits in most engine failures attributed to the oiling issue. When an engine's inside is literally like a puke bucket, it's easy to say it's always the 'oiling' issue:
http://www.planet-9.com/987-cayman-...ump-accusump-vs-deep-sump-dual-tandem-scavenge-pumps-post761988.html#post761988
I'll let you all know what I end up choosing as my solution......it may just continue to be my fantastic days on remote mountain roads, with such range of conditions that no single track could ever come close to!!
