Silverbullet951

You guys need to wake up. My cousin owns one, and I've been in it many times. All I can say it pulls so hard, I was very surprised. It pulls like a train all the way to redline. Not to mention the fact that with the limiter removed, it's already been clocked at over 200 mph. I have a 951, and I'm sorry, it will take a HELL of a lot of mods to beat that thing. I'm assuming over 400 at the wheels for a 951 to walk it. The shifting is instantaneous, it revs to 8500 rpms in no time, and how evenly the power is distributed is phenomenal, although it does make the most power up on top.

lart951

We will see, right now we are all asuming. Special tool has schedule a day to race one of the new 500hp M5's using pump gas.

check this thread.

https://rennlist.com/forums/off-topic/256436-87-911-v-new-bmw-m5.html

FSAEracer03

I retract all of my previous statements... I think it would take a 951 AT LEAST 600whp to beat one.













.....

lart951

I know what you mean, the perception of speed within a car is deceiving. Anybody ride in a old sedan Deville? Lol. I guess a hayabusa doesn’t have enough horsepower to stand against the M6, weight accounts for nothing, is all about # of cylinders and displacement.

Yes the 951 will lose.

600rwhp are you crazy? 1200rwhp at least.

What's the name of the city where you live Mr.Tony Pan is it neverland?

David Floyd

Well..... yesterday I spanked a custom painted Civic Si, big wing, fart pipe and all !!

Look on his face was priceless, so there !!

lart951

welcome to the fast & the dubious forum

danny951

I think Tony was asking why you were using a 9% drivetrain loss.

418hp at 10% loss would be 376whp
418hp at 15% loss would be 355whp

Just sayin...

lart951

why? I want to use the most conservative figure as possible. I don't like to be too optimistic as some that claim drivetrain loss to be greater than 15%.

Rock

All of these talks about horsepower makes me feel ****ty that my 951 doesnt even reach stock numbers.

SoloRacer

Not to be an *** but how is the 480 rwhp for $4000 coming along? Any progress on your car?

TonyG

>>>why? I want to use the most conservative figure as possible. I don't like to be too optimistic as some that claim drivetrain loss to be greater than 15%.<<<

The industry standard is 15%. It's fairly close on a 951.

Is is accurate no. Is any fixed percentage accurate at all rpms and power levels? No.

If you want to be conservative, you can use any number you want. It just won't mean anything to anybody since it can't be compared.

TonyG

Duke

Ahh there's so much BS in this thread..
First of all, NO, torque doesn't win races. I'm so sick of reading that crap...

Many of you are severely underestimating the E60 M5.

It makes 0-100 km/h in around 4.4 sec.
0-200 km/h in less than 14 sec.
100-200 in 8.8 sec
quartermile in mid to high 12's on it's stock tires etc.

So don't think you can beat it with a chipped 951.

And for you who think torque wins the race - just bring your diesel truck and I'm sure you'll win

Rock

not to be off topic, but silverbullet where did you get this quote

"To my family, the 944 is more than a new car. It is a new and true Porsche.
At Porsche, excellence is expected.

Dr. F. Porsche
Stuttgart"

I might be dumb, but I dont think that the quote is in any way true. I thought dr porsche died in like 1950's. How did he say that quote?

lart951

Lol, the way you talk with absolutes. Estimating drivetrain loss is a stab in the dark, many support the 15% loss for the 951, but dyno numbers differ and can only be usefull as a comparative yardstick to determine power at the flywheel. Why? Because as we know dyno results remain not entirely accurate due to factors like; ambient temp, load, barometric level etc, that need to be taken into consideration. According to some the 951 drive train is very efficient and 10-13% is the actual drivetrain loss. Other percentages are used just to blown flywheel figures out of proportion for tuners and vendors benefit.

Dyno Services
Dynos Don't Lie. Or Do They?
By Shiv S. Pathak
"Dyno Proven"-"Dyno-Derived"-" Dyno-Tested"
All of these terms ring a familiar bell in the aftermarket performance industry. A comforting one, of course. After all, these terms imply that the product in question has proved its merit on the completely infallible, 100% dependable and absolutely repeatable dynamometer. Wouldn't you like to own an intake that has been "dyno proven" to yield 15 wheel horsepower gains versus one that has been "dyno proven" to produce a gain of a measly 10 wheel horsepower?
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation isn't so clear-cut. Like just about every other device known to man, the dynamometer is a tool. And like any tool, it can be misused or tweaked to yield the desired results. How is this possible? Read on and check out the following cheating techniques that run rampant in the performance aftermarket industry:
Wimpy Stock Technique
What better way to make a tuned car look more impressive than make the stock car less stout? That's right. It's easy to do. If a stock car dyno tests between 100 and 120 wheel horsepower, it's not unusual for a tuner to assign the lowest value to the stock baseline dyno run. Voila, an instant 20 horsepower gain with no extra work! This technique works exceptionally well on intercooled turbocharged cars as, depending on intake temperatures (which can be tweaked by either the amount of airflow over the intercooler or the cool-down time between each run), dyno results can be all over the place! Not all tuners take the time to stabilize intake, intercooler and coolant temperatures before each successive dyno pull. And those that don't are presented with many opportunities to skew the results in their favor. And even those that do are often presented with an uncomfortably wide range of power outputs that demands careful consideration before picking an accurate and fair baseline. This is especially true of the more modern turbocharged cars that have the ability, through their sophisticated engine management computers, to actively tune and de-tune themselves as it sees fit given the conditions (temperatures, ambient pressures, lunar placement, etc.)
Happy Correction Factor Trick
Just about every engine or chassis dynamometer has the ability to display the results with any number of applied "correction methods." SAE, DIN, STD, EEC, etc. Each correction method represents a way to equate (for the purpose of comparison) different dynamometer results that where taken under different conditions (barometric level, ambient temperature, altitude, etc.,) Even when used properly, these correction techniques don't always represent a realistic picture. This is because different types of engines react to conditions changes differently. In other words, there is no one-size-fits-all correction method.
Altitude
For example, let's consider a dynamometer located at 5000 feet above sea level. At such elevation, most cars suffer terribly due to the lack of air density. As a result, their power outputs fall noticeably compared to identical cars that operate at or near sea level. For this reason, just about every dynamometer applies a hefty altitude correction in the magnitude of 20% (SAE correction, in this case). This means that a car that put down an actual 100 wheel hp is "corrected" up to 120 wheel hp. While this correction amount is reasonably accurate in some cases, it is notoriously optimistic in the case of turbocharged engines. In such engines, power output rarely falls as dramatically in response to air density reduction. This is due to their turbo control systems that combat air density reductions by allowing for higher boost pressures. These increased boost pressures can almost completely offset the ambient pressure reduction and make the "altitude correction" almost completely unnecessary. However, I have yet to see a high-altitude tuner come forth and not apply the positive correction factor when displaying their grossly optimistic dyno results.
Humidity
Similar issues arise with changes in humidity. Standard dynamometer correction techniques apply an increasingly positive correction as humidity rises. The idea behind this is that air density reduces as moisture content increases. In other words, the more humid the day is, the less power the car will make. However, as with altitude, not all cars react to humidity changes the same way. For example, a naturally aspirated car may behave as predicted by the smarty-pants that derived the correction technique. But a heavily turbocharged may behave exactly opposite to the rule. Turbocharged cars, unlike naturally aspirated cars, often operate right up to their knock (also known as detonation) thresholds. When humidity rises, the extra water content in the air charge actually acts as a passive cooler of sorts, lowering in-cylinder temperatures just enough to allow for a few more degrees of ignition advance without the presence of detonation. In other words, whatever engine output is lost through the reduction in oxygen content is gained (and then some) through a significant bump in thermal efficiency (caused by operating with more ignition advance). Voila-another improperly applied correction factor!
Temperature
Unfortunately, that's not the only way to misuse correction factors. Case in point: Temperature correction. As with altitude, increases in ambient air temperatures almost always yield reductions in engine output. Conversely, reductions in ambient temperature just about always yield increases in engine output. One trick that is used by more than a few tuners is strategic placement of the dynamometer's air temperature sensor (which is used for correction factor calculation). When need for lower-than-normal dyno result arises, it's easy to place the air temperature sensor in a slightly colder environment (out of the engine bay, in a cool shadow, on some insulation, etc.). Similarly, when a higher-than-normal result is needed, all one has to do is to place the sensor in a hot environment (near the exhaust header, in a stagnant pocket of air, in direct sunlight, etc.). Complicating the matters further is that, yes, you guess it, not all cars respond to temperature changes the same way. Turbocharged cars may, in fact, make less power when ambient temperatures drop beyond a certain point. This is often caused by lean-run conditions induced by the increase in air density. Running with the leaner air/fuel ratios, a turbocharged car may run into detonation, which will result in spurious knock sensor activity. Before you know, it several degrees of ignition advance is yanked out and power suffers measurably. This situation is not uncommon in cars, like the WRX, that have their intake temperature sensors placed before the turbo (in the Mass Air Flow sensor) and not just before the throttle body. Latter placement provides a much more accurate indication of in-cylinder air temperatures, allowing the engine management computer to respond with proper fuel and timing compensations.

lart951

Duke, where on the thread does it say that a 951 with only chips can take a M5?

Show me please

Also we are not talking about racing from standing still but from a roll, since 951's are such poor performers at drag racing.