For now it’s bench flashing. ECU clone we’re discussing, OBD2 is possible as well. Not sure if Cobb is working on this iteration, but they do have the 991.2 Carrera and the 718 4banger turbo so maybe just a bit of time...

 

Thanks @Jamie@dundonmotorsports

Correct to assume dyno tuning using bench flashing is available at your shop?

 

M-engineering can handle all that so yup.

Also since the 991.1 GT3RS was rated at 500 crank hp, and the 991.1 GT3RS made 430whp on our dyno, does that mean since the 718 GT4 makes 434whp on the same dyno under the same conditions that it's now 500hp at the crank? discuss... lol

 

Good to know we're $6000 cheaper for the same power, and keeping cats...

 

Yep, and Dundon is higher quality, better engineering and has real world results to boot....!

 

appreciate that. Rennlist can be a grinder sometimes. These little bits of light help. So cheers to you!

 

Understand, too much negativity out there. Ignore the negative nancys and just keep providing the motorsports community with the best performance products on the market, please.

 

Plan to, it’s why we started Dundon in the first place.

 

I assume that in your solution the cats are located where the OPFs are usually to be found? Is it therefore possible in EU cars to connect the sensors for cats AND OPFs at this spot to avoid CEL? I think this is the approach capristo is using to make it work plug & play in the EU.

 

This is the question i have been pondering... starting to think we really ought to look to other performance data as well to help with other references towards standardised comparisons.

 

It is certainly a question worth discussion, but I do think real world results speak louder. 1/4 trap speeds, 60-130 just to name a couple.

 

. The OPF sensors are just differential pressure, so when the ECU senses pressure drop across the OPF it will know to do a cleaning cycle. We're working on a solution for the 991.3 GT3RS and Speedster (and soon to be 992 GT3). That ECU adds an EGT sensor.

This is honestly why we only worry with WHP on our own dyno. We know how it was controlled, we keep the cars in rolling road mode with a PIWIS so the car knows it's on a dyno (no all wheel drive dynos driving the front wheels etc...), we monitor the Intake Air Temps, atmospheric pressure etc... And as important we have a library of Porsche GT cars run on the same dyno under similarly controlled conditions going all the way back to the 996 GT3. It is interesting to see the SAE standards change over the years and how a 444hp 997.2 GT3RS and a 468 hp 991.1 GT3 both make the same power on our dyno...

Once the development is finished, I agree that getting 1/4mile traps or 60-130 is a good indicator of the power, just have to get a lot of them as there is definitely some technique required to make them consistent.

 

I think Dundon is providing the most cross referenceable data since theyre using the same Dyno with same conditions etc... 1/4 Times and 60-130 have way too many variables.

Good work Dundon!

 

Who's not giving real world results?

 

Seriously, what is going on here? How can Porsche be so much off with their official numbers? If these numbers are correct, then this is scandalous. Anyone has an explanation?