When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yep. Agree. Like I said. The .1RS is capable of 7:12 or equivilent of the .2GT3 and this new RS should be around 7:00 or a nip under. New gen tires and 20 extra horses are huge on a long 7+ mile sweeping circuit.
I believe the increased spring rates front and rear are for the helper springs not the main springs which increases the preload to make it stiffer from the jump. Were the dampers revalved for this? I don't see where they would need to be if the main spring is the same. If this is true this is a easy upgrade to the .1RS.
There is no doubt in my mind a .1RS with an ECU flash, new gen tires and BBi or GMG suspension rose jointed arms could replicate the .2RS time. Same platform with incremental improvements that can be duplicated.
What you can't duplicate is that damn WP. I want that!
WP is even easier than the rest.
The hard part are all the software upgrades, from the rws, e-diff, steering, pdk (not that relevant), aero (that by the way, it's +400kg on the back, plus +200kg on the front) and weight reduction bits and bobs.
But yes, tractive coilovers, dundon headers, solid bushings, a good alignment and voilá a great fast car.
I believe the increased spring rates front and rear are for the helper springs not the main springs which increases the preload to make it stiffer from the jump. Were the dampers revalved for this? I don't see where they would need to be if the main spring is the same. If this is true this is a easy upgrade to the .1RS.
Amazing what some people are capable of convincing themselves of.
Porsche would disagree with you - in fact they worked with Sport Auto to investigate spurious HP claims in relation to the TTS.
I’ve given you data that shows one maha loss measurement being 2.4 times larger than another taken at the same rpm. If you want to interpret that as “accurate” then as usual you’re welcome to.
I’ve given you data that shows one maha loss measurement being 2.4 times larger than another taken at the same rpm. If you want to interpret that as “accurate” then as usual you’re welcome to.
If you want to believe in fairy tale numbers its entirely up to you - for every poor MAHA run, I can literally show you hundreds of runs from the US on non-MAHA dynos that are in effect fantasy.
The beauty of the MAHA is, all data is displayed for an educated person to make an assessment.
Once again, Porsche worked with Sport Auto and MAHA (this is a fact) to check why dynos were giving wildly inaccurate results in regard to the TTS. There is a technical article published in Sport Auto that goes through the process and conclusions. Three seperate MAHA dynos in three different locations yielded results within a few HP.
Explain this simple observation - recent testing of the 500PS Series II GT3 delivered trap speeds of 125MPH to 126MPH - the 450PS Series II GTS delivered a trap speed of 125MPH. The MAHA dyno results from both the GT3 and the GTS point to the reason why the difference in trap speeds is so small i.e. the difference in delivered WHP is ~ 20WHP.
For reference the article is called Von Der Rolle, written by Marcus Schurig (SportAuto, January 2016).
If you want to believe in fairy tale numbers its entirely up to you
Lol. Those results were from a technical pier reviewed paper published in the International Journal of Automotive Technology. Over 2.5x differences at the same RPM on the same maha dyno. You might look it up and learn that your understanding of rpm and losses is highly flawed.
Or you could simply change the subject and repeat your agenda again... but isn’t that approach what got you banned the first time?
LOL, Please explain this simple observation - recent testing of the 500PS Series II GT3 delivered trap speeds of 125MPH to 126MPH - the 450PS Series II GTS delivered a trap speed of 125MPH.
The MAHA dyno results from both the GT3 and the GTS point to the reason why the difference in trap speeds is so small i.e. the difference in delivered WHP is ~ 20WHP.
The Series II GTS, 450PS, 360-365WHP MAHA, 125MPH trap - The Series II GT3 - 500PS, 380-385WHP MAHA, 125-126MPH trap.
The losses are real, the independent dyno testing conducted by Sport Auto supports this as do the measured trap times.
Perhaps you believe Porsche "under - rate" their engines. I don't ascribe to this, neither do Porsche. Thats why they worked with Sport Auto and Maha to find some of the causes for spurious results.
To be frank non of this is even remotely controversial and any discussion of engine HP is irrelevant if losses aren't understood. It really is a case of rubber hitting the road (or rather WHP that counts).
Location: The way to hell is paved by good intentions “Wenn ich Purist höre...entsichere ich meinen Browning” "Myths are fuel for marketing (and nowadays for flippers too,,,)" time to time is not sufficient to be a saint, you must be also an Hero
LOL, Please explain this simple observation - recent testing of the 500PS Series II GT3 delivered trap speeds of 125MPH to 126MPH - the 450PS Series II GTS delivered a trap speed of 125MPH.
The MAHA dyno results from both the GT3 and the GTS point to the reason why the difference in trap speeds is so small i.e. the difference in delivered WHP is ~ 20WHP.
The Series II GTS, 450PS, 360-365WHP MAHA, 125MPH trap - The Series II GT3 - 500PS, 380-385WHP MAHA, 125-126MPH trap.
The losses are real, the independent dyno testing conducted by Sport Auto supports this as do the measured trap times.
Perhaps you believe Porsche "under - rate" their engines. I don't ascribe to this, neither do Porsche. Thats why they worked with Sport Auto and Maha to find some of the causes for spurious results.
To be frank non of this is even remotely controversial and any discussion of engine HP is irrelevant if losses aren't understood. It really is a case of rubber hitting the road (or rather WHP that counts).
GTS.2 MT or PDK, 2WD or 4WD?
GT3.2 PDK or MT ?
any link or picture of the SA article ?
Perhaps its as simple as that - inherent variation and miles on the clock before testing. I do know the documentation I received with my car after the retrofit indicated the engine would make maximum torque and HP at around 10,000kms - therefore a fresh engine may be tight relative to a slightly older engine the latter having optimal mileage in terms of testing for HP/torque/trap.
03-13-2018, 04:15 PM
