Supercharge,turbocharge, or build up a 964 engine for 400+ HP?
#31
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Quote from customer with 964RSL that has our Motec +1 package in the form of a text message from Germany last week:
"I know I rattle on about my engine an awful lot, but it is truly exceptional, powering me to an indicated 160mph lap after lap on the Flugplatz just before the hump on the Nurburgring, exactly the same speed as my pal in his new 997 Turbo !
In my lifetime of cars I've never experienced such a fantastic value for money conversion, just need to find that 6 speed transaxle !
Thanks so much, your engine is brilliant !
Right, so that's a 340-350bhp 964RS lightweight matching the speed of a brand new 997 turbo....
I rest my case.
"I know I rattle on about my engine an awful lot, but it is truly exceptional, powering me to an indicated 160mph lap after lap on the Flugplatz just before the hump on the Nurburgring, exactly the same speed as my pal in his new 997 Turbo !
In my lifetime of cars I've never experienced such a fantastic value for money conversion, just need to find that 6 speed transaxle !
Thanks so much, your engine is brilliant !
Right, so that's a 340-350bhp 964RS lightweight matching the speed of a brand new 997 turbo....
I rest my case.
#32
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Forgot to mention:
The 964RS ran for 13 laps (approx 13 miles per lap flat out) on one tank full of fuel.
The 997 Turbo managed 3.
Now there's eficient use of the Worlds resources!
The 964RS ran for 13 laps (approx 13 miles per lap flat out) on one tank full of fuel.
The 997 Turbo managed 3.
Now there's eficient use of the Worlds resources!
#33
Well Colin, it's a little unfair that one car, built as a GT sports carr, is compared to a lightweight race prepared car. If you want to compare, then test the emissions, drive 1000miles in it with your wife and kids and see if you live. Sure the Ring is the benchmark for GT and sports car alike, but apples and mangoes can't be compared for anything except they are fruit.
As for the 997 turbo consumption, I was at the Ring last month and my friend's 997 Turbo did 10 laps in 2 days(all under 9 mins which is pretty good with the amount of traffic we had) and managed to drive back to the hotel twice without a fillup. If I remember correctly, his avg consumption was 7mpg in a 17.7 gallon tank. The RS I believe has a 24gallon tank doing 10 laps for 13 miles is about 5.4mpg.
As for the 997 turbo consumption, I was at the Ring last month and my friend's 997 Turbo did 10 laps in 2 days(all under 9 mins which is pretty good with the amount of traffic we had) and managed to drive back to the hotel twice without a fillup. If I remember correctly, his avg consumption was 7mpg in a 17.7 gallon tank. The RS I believe has a 24gallon tank doing 10 laps for 13 miles is about 5.4mpg.
#34
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NineMeister
The simple reason is that even if you run a very sophisticated engine management system on a turbo engine you just do not get the same throttle response and sensitivity that the n/a engine delivers - when that turbo is boosting at 1.0 bar it does not matter if the throttle is at 90% or 100%, you get the same power. If you imagine that you are exiting a bend close to the limit of grip, you need to have control within a 10-20hp range else you are fighting oversteer, so even if you have a really well set up narrow bodied chassis like TonyT's the sheer driveability of the 400bhp n/a would allows you to keep everything in balance, whereas a turbo with similar would never have the finess to keep the car on the edge of grip.
And before we get into a big debate over this we need to look no further than the stock 996GT2 and GT3 as a perfect example, the GT2 is more refined and lag free than any 930/965/993 turbo could ever be yet the less powerful GT3 is a faster & safer car around the track. You always end up feeling like you have fought a tiger when you drive a turbo fast, yet with a powerful n/a you feel like you have been out for a dance.....
And before we get into a big debate over this we need to look no further than the stock 996GT2 and GT3 as a perfect example, the GT2 is more refined and lag free than any 930/965/993 turbo could ever be yet the less powerful GT3 is a faster & safer car around the track. You always end up feeling like you have fought a tiger when you drive a turbo fast, yet with a powerful n/a you feel like you have been out for a dance.....
Having said that, money no object, my ultimate 911 would probably be a 993 GT2 Clubsport!
#35
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
The standard RSL has a 78litre tank if I remember rightly which is 17 gallons, thus an average of 9. something to the mile. The 997 turbo has a 90 litre tank and its economy depends on how fast it is driven.
Look, I see where you are all coming from but I must refer everyone back to the original question: which engine is best for Tony's track car? , not what car can I buy that is faster/better/economical/comfortable/etc. In my opinion Tony has just two real choices for what to do with his 964 as I commented above.
Look, I see where you are all coming from but I must refer everyone back to the original question: which engine is best for Tony's track car? , not what car can I buy that is faster/better/economical/comfortable/etc. In my opinion Tony has just two real choices for what to do with his 964 as I commented above.
#36
Drifting
Colin,
What would you recomend for us poor sods with 93 cars that require cats, as I notice a lot of talk on your website refers to non catted cars......it kind of puts me at a disadvantage.
critera ....none except affordability..............................
kevin.
What would you recomend for us poor sods with 93 cars that require cats, as I notice a lot of talk on your website refers to non catted cars......it kind of puts me at a disadvantage.
critera ....none except affordability..............................
kevin.
#37
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by warmfuzzies
Colin,
What would you recomend for us poor sods with 93 cars that require cats, kevin.
What would you recomend for us poor sods with 93 cars that require cats, kevin.
Or (serious suggestion) a sports cat. I don't know enough about 964 cats but I would imagine that you can get either a 100 cell or 50 cell cat. 50 cell cats should flow almost as well as decat but i cannot be sure they pass MOT (think so). Only problem is £££££!
#38
Originally Posted by NineMeister
The standard RSL has a 78litre tank if I remember rightly which is 17 gallons, thus an average of 9. something to the mile. The 997 turbo has a 90 litre tank and its economy depends on how fast it is driven.
Look, I see where you are all coming from but I must refer everyone back to the original question: which engine is best for Tony's track car? , not what car can I buy that is faster/better/economical/comfortable/etc. In my opinion Tony has just two real choices for what to do with his 964 as I commented above.
Look, I see where you are all coming from but I must refer everyone back to the original question: which engine is best for Tony's track car? , not what car can I buy that is faster/better/economical/comfortable/etc. In my opinion Tony has just two real choices for what to do with his 964 as I commented above.
My reply about the 964 turbo was actually directed at ZIMPWH, who originally posted the topic, not TonyT.
I do not doubt your expertise and opinion, but when you say things that are not true(re tank size and consumption of the 997 Turbo), even if you are merely quoting your clients, then it should be corrected. I hope I'm not being overly pedantic with that.
#39
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Eggplant Cab
I think you are mistaken,Colin. The 997 Porsche Turbo has a 67 liter fuel tank. As for the 964 RS, all came with 92 liter tanks.
The long range tank was an option.......
#40
Originally Posted by SimonExtreme
Based on this post, and because I belive everything I read on the internet, I have just filled my car up with 92 litres. Who do I send the bill to for the 15 litres that has gone all over the floor, my cloths, the car etc? Or do I not have a real 964RS
The long range tank was an option.......
The long range tank was an option.......
#41
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Eggplant Cab
Well the one I was looking at way back in 93 brand new had it standard
However, your original poiunt was probably well made. If the RS had a small tank, the fuel consumption was good, if it was the large tank, it was bad.
Now, what was that about Mars..........
#43
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada
Posts: 1,400
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
7 Posts
Fuel tank sizes are interesting... But a little off topic regarding 400 reliable horsepower.
Shouldn't this discussion begin with where the car is going to be used? Is this a strictly track car, mixed use, or street only?
Looking at the TPC site they show a dyno run that peaks at 355 hp. And they say that with an intercooler you will gain another 40hp. So they are at 395ish.
I wish they had posted a dyno run of the 964 with the intercooler as well.
But the car in question is a modified to 3.8L, can the 7th injector add enough fuel to this setup? I believe colin mentioned in the past that the stock injectors are good for just over 300 hp, If the 7th injector is good for about 60hp, it looks like fuel delivery is going to be an issue.
How about using the TPC kit with intercooler $6995 USD + $3995 USD
Use Motec,with larger injectors, and keep the 7th injector for the added cooling. $6000??
I think colin has done some tpc installs with motec, so Im sure he can let us know what the costs and pitfalls of this plan would be. Geoffrey might have worked with this as well but I think he got rid of the 7th injector? (Cant remember for sure)
Does anyone know what type of intercooler the TPC one is?
??
Also as far as I know the rest of the stcok internals are more than capable of handling 400hp. Is this true? (aside from rod bolts which I am guessing were changed to arp or raceware when the 3.8 l conversion was done)
Kirk
Shouldn't this discussion begin with where the car is going to be used? Is this a strictly track car, mixed use, or street only?
Looking at the TPC site they show a dyno run that peaks at 355 hp. And they say that with an intercooler you will gain another 40hp. So they are at 395ish.
I wish they had posted a dyno run of the 964 with the intercooler as well.
But the car in question is a modified to 3.8L, can the 7th injector add enough fuel to this setup? I believe colin mentioned in the past that the stock injectors are good for just over 300 hp, If the 7th injector is good for about 60hp, it looks like fuel delivery is going to be an issue.
How about using the TPC kit with intercooler $6995 USD + $3995 USD
Use Motec,with larger injectors, and keep the 7th injector for the added cooling. $6000??
I think colin has done some tpc installs with motec, so Im sure he can let us know what the costs and pitfalls of this plan would be. Geoffrey might have worked with this as well but I think he got rid of the 7th injector? (Cant remember for sure)
Does anyone know what type of intercooler the TPC one is?
??
Also as far as I know the rest of the stcok internals are more than capable of handling 400hp. Is this true? (aside from rod bolts which I am guessing were changed to arp or raceware when the 3.8 l conversion was done)
Kirk
#45
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Newburgh, IN
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KirkF
Fuel tank sizes are interesting... But a little off topic regarding 400 reliable horsepower. Kirk