951and944S

LOL, that's 406 bhp for a 3.4 where earlier most of you disagreed that this was attainable..!?!?!

T

special tool

No.

The question was and is:

Gomes claimed 400 HP AT THE WHEELS WAS POSSIBLE

THAT EQUALS 475 BHP

WAYNE CLAIMS 400 BHP MAX.

THAT EQUALS 330 RWHP

Jeff Lamb

Yes, and the PCA assigned the water cooled 911 engines to a design output of 135 hp/liter which means the PCA thinks a 3.8 liter water cooled 911 engine should be producing 513 bhp!! What point were you trying to make?????

Jeff

951and944S

Here's what Gomes said -"2.) As I have said before, and I will say again. If you choose to believe that greater than 330HP is not possible from a 3.4L, then there is little I can do, or choose to do to convince you. In fact, how about we do it this way... I concede, you win, there is no way you can make more power from your 3.4L, so don't bother trying, it just can't be done. There, does that make you feel better? BTW. I asked this in a past post, but it went ignored - Just for the historical value, when exactly did all the 3.4L engine builders declare that they had all reached the limit of what is possible from the engine?"

Post # 136

T

Jeff Lamb

Did I ever say the changes were needed urgently?? No, I was the FIRST ONE in this debate to suggest that the rules changes should have been announced with at least one year's advance notice.

All I have said all along is that no set of rules can be expected to remain unchanged forever. And, the rules changes implemented by PCA seem reasonable to me. However, I don't think nearly enough advance notice was given.

Jeff

Jeff Lamb

Just to be clear, Scott wrote the following in Post #56:

More from Scott's post #56:

Generally what I have said about what Scott wrote is that "If a reliable and PCA legal 400 rwhp is possible from a 3.4 liter, normally aspirated, 2 valve, air cooled 911 engine, then that is incredible!! I would like to meet the owners of these cars and their engine builders because I want one of those engines for my car!!"

Jeff

951and944S

Taken with the context of the PCA race results Jeff. I'm aware of what you said or said first, I've followed the entire thread. I'm not debating or fighting (though I'm game for either), this is a discussion thread, I'm "discussing".

Tell me about it, I'm an avid F1 fan, have been to 10 races in the past eight years and I follow every nuance of the sport. I didn't think the single tire rule or the reformation of driver's WDC points scale was legit either.

If you took a question worded in the context as you copied and pasted it from my original post as "provocation", then....., erm, I apologize.

T

951and944S

If I'm not mistaken, he corrected that error between rwhp and bhp in a later post.

Is that not correct.....?

T

Jeff Lamb

You will notice that I edited my post and I backed my "testosterone" out of it. Your reply hit me the wrong way at first. But I thought about it, calmed down and properly edited my original post.

Jeff

Jeff Lamb

I'm not sure. If you can find that one, please indicate the number of the post or the quote so Scott's words are properly referenced.

Jeff

951and944S

Ha ha, I'll edit it away from the quote if you like.

I only asked you personally because you have remained level headed and even keeled throughout the "discussion" Jeff since nobody seemed to comment on the PCA results of Sebring-race 5 of the 2007 season except for A. Wayne chastising Scott for omitting a ghost driver from a qualifying session that I happened to know enough about to call BS on the lap time.

So....., do you care to answer....or...?

T

951and944S

Awe....do I have to.....?



Post #154 - Under Pressure Performance - "By stating that I misquoted you "again" you imply that I misquoted you previously, which I do not feel as though I have, but to be on the safe side, I figured I would actually quote you post in my reply since it is primarily a response to your post.

That said, I admit, I responded to your post with an inaccuracy. You did write 475 BHP, and for some reason I responded as is you wrote 475 WHP - As such, please accept my sincerest apology."

T

Jeff Lamb

If I were going to peform a review, I would look at more than only five races and I would go back a few years to when Woody Weiss was running his 944 turbo. And, I haven't had the chance to complete that more thorough review. From a few write-ups over the years from the few owners of the highly developed 944 turbos running the PCA circuit, they generally went something like this -> "I was blowing away the entire GT3 field and most of the GT2 field and was ahead by xx seconds (usually a double digit number) when I suffered a mechanical failure <insert reason here - sometimes a small thing, sometimes a big thing>" And, something like this -> "I hold the track record at track xxx and yyy and zzz, etc."

At some point, I hope to be able to take some time to look back through the PCA race results for the past few years to see what turns up. Or, is there someone reading this debate who as already looked through all of the past club races for the past few years who is willing to share a factual summary?

I just won't comment on the past PCA club race records until a more thorough review is completed.

Jeff

Jeff Lamb

Unfortunately, that quote from Scott does not appear to specifically retract that Scott had written that a 3.4 liter 2 valve 911 engine can produce over 400 rwhp. Or, am I reading it wrong?

Jeff

A.Wayne

To clarify:
scott claims 400 whp from 3.4L, that is 475 BHP my: position not possible

3.8 L RSR engines make 400-425 BHP , that is what i have seen from experience.
3.4L engines i would say tops maybe 380 bhp out of a sprint engine on the avg 365 bhp or 310 whp again this is top tier, not the avg.

Scott original claim was 400 whp , he never retracted , but started to use BHP instead of WHP , hence the muddyness. this is what we are now working with.