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.
30hp isn't much.... however - I'd be willing to bet it's a lot more noticeable than the bump in the 3.8 X51. Also - I scoffed initially at the cost of 2 turbos and tune for 7500.... but to sun coasts point - for a warrantied power boost from Porsche it's not bad. 12 hours is a laughable amount of labor though unless you're needing to add PSE and rear valence... I mean - I am at >5K for an exhaust so I could sound louder haha.
How do you expect to get over 500 naturally aspirated horses from 4.0 liters on a budget anyway?
But why would I limit myself to 4.0 liters if I wanted 500 naturally aspirated horses? That's puzzling. It's like saying, "Bob can only lift 500 pounds compared to that other guy's 650, but Bob does it while balancing a plate of Vienna sausage on his head and standing on one leg." Since there's no advantage to balancing plates on his head, why would a weight lifter hamper himself with that arbitrary performance restrictor?
Ahhh, you say, but the engineering elegance of specific output -- horsepower per liter -- that's what Porsche does best.
Well, unless there's an "Under 4-liter" racing class that I missed, or a government tax based on being under or over 4 liters -- both of which are artificial constructs that don't deliver real value to consumers in any way -- then hitting a target by keeping the size and number of the holes in your motor's block as small as possible is an arbitrary construct and one that adds zero value to the customer. Porsche might as well boast they make the most horsepower per tappet, or the most horsepower per spark plug, or the most horsepower per letter of the manufacturer's name.
You see, the implication we all sort of take from the old specific output business is that great efficiency is being gained by using small high-revving motors, and that translates into a "less is more" zen-and-the-art-of-sports-car-maintenance sort of elegance.
But again, less holes in the block is not really a value to anyone. The way Porsche's engines could be more efficient than Shiverlay's hoary small block V8 would be if they made 500 horsepower out of a package that weighed less than the SBC V8. Or if it was small and tidy and could fit into a smaller, narrower car. Or if it used fuel more efficiently, resulting in a car that got better gas mileage. Or finally, if by only delivering 3/4s of the Chevy motor's size Porsche could do so at 3/4s the price, while still getting us the same power, well then that would be another great measure of efficiency.
But the 9A1/9A2 don't manage that. They weigh more than a Corvette motor, are harder to fit in most cars because they're larger physically than the Chevy motor, are less fuel efficient (or at least the 911 gets poorer mileage than a Corvette), and cost 2.2 times as much to replace.
So it's hard to find a metric where the Porsche motor's "more from less" actually results in greater efficiency from the motor. We're not getting "more," and the thing that's "less" is actually immaterial.
How has the world become a place where I -- NoGaBiker -- am defending Chevys?
But why would I limit myself to 4.0 liters if I wanted 500 naturally aspirated horses? That's puzzling. It's like saying, "Bob can only lift 500 pounds compared to that other guy's 650, but Bob does it while balancing a plate of Vienna sausage on his head and standing on one leg." Since there's no advantage to balancing plates on his head, why would a weight lifter hamper himself with that arbitrary performance restrictor?
Ahhh, you say, but the engineering elegance of specific output -- horsepower per liter -- that's what Porsche does best.
Well, unless there's an "Under 4-liter" racing class that I missed, or a government tax based on being under or over 4 liters -- both of which are artificial constructs that don't deliver real value to consumers in any way -- then hitting a target by keeping the size and number of the holes in your motor's block as small as possible is an arbitrary construct and one that adds zero value to the customer. Porsche might as well boast they make the most horsepower per tappet, or the most horsepower per spark plug, or the most horsepower per letter of the manufacturer's name.
You see, the implication we all sort of take from the old specific output business is that great efficiency is being gained by using small high-revving motors, and that translates into a "less is more" zen-and-the-art-of-sports-car-maintenance sort of elegance.
But again, less holes in the block is not really a value to anyone. The way Porsche's engines could be more efficient than Shiverlay's hoary small block V8 would be if they made 500 horsepower out of a package that weighed less than the SBC V8. Or if it was small and tidy and could fit into a smaller, narrower car. Or if it used fuel more efficiently, resulting in a car that got better gas mileage. Or finally, if by only delivering 3/4s of the Chevy motor's size Porsche could do so at 3/4s the price, while still getting us the same power, well then that would be another great measure of efficiency.
But the 9A1/9A2 don't manage that. They weigh more than a Corvette motor, are harder to fit in most cars because they're larger physically than the Chevy motor, are less fuel efficient (or at least the 911 gets poorer mileage than a Corvette), and cost 2.2 times as much to replace.
So it's hard to find a metric where the Porsche motor's "more from less" actually results in greater efficiency from the motor. We're not getting "more," and the thing that's "less" is actually immaterial.
How has the world become a place where I -- NoGaBiker -- am defending Chevys?
The reason you are limiting yourself to 4.0 liters is because that is what fits and what Porsche races with. That is the evolution of the Porsche flat-6. Classes were displacement limited for some time. You'll notice back in the ALMS days those going over displacement limits were forced to use air restrictors. That is how the Viper was allowed to race.
The physical dimensions are a bit different. A flat-6 will be wider but shorter. The V8 is going to be longer and taller. Yes, the Chevy aluminum blocks are fairly light. Weird that the ZL1 is such a porker then and every car using the motor is heavier than a 911. Throw that blower and the associated cooling on top and it's not going to be lighter any longer. 11 heat exchangers, remember?
If you're into the LS or LT motors so much I suggest you swap one in. Swap one into everything, what is stopping you? Going to be boring with everyone just having a big SOHC pushrod V8 though.
Nobody is asking you to defend Chevy's. I assure you, nobody with a 991.2 gives a crap about the Camaro ZL1. After spending considerable time with an LT4, no thanks. I'll take the 9A2 and the 911. Plenty of Camaros left for you!
Sticky, you need to move past the ad hominem attacks; whether I prefer a Chevy V8 or not (and I think I've been patently clear about that, as well as buying my sports cars from no one but Porsche for 20+ years) is immaterial to the points I make. I hate the Patriots, but if I were to say they were the best team in the NFL, and then support it with facts, that wouldn't mean I had to like them or be a fan. (And please forgive me if that's a bad example -- I'm not really an NFL guy.)
Yes, Porsche has saddled themselves with a motor that has historical roots in remaining small. That's all well and good. And there are "legacy" reasons for sticking with it. And I for one am happy they've done so. It doesn't matter to me if other cars are faster than mine. But if I weren't such a brainwashed Porsche *****, if I could approach the equation from a remotely rational and unemotional perspective, I'd probably be in something else.
Alas...
You do make a good point about physical size though. The 9A2 is clearly much smaller:
Sticky, you need to move past the ad hominem attacks; whether I prefer a Chevy V8 or not (and I think I've been patently clear about that, as well as buying my sports cars from no one but Porsche for 20+ years) is immaterial to the points I make. I hate the Patriots, but if I were to say they were the best team in the NFL, and then support it with facts, that wouldn't mean I had to like them or be a fan. (And please forgive me if that's a bad example -- I'm not really an NFL guy.)
Yes, Porsche has saddled themselves with a motor that has historical roots in remaining small. That's all well and good. And there are "legacy" reasons for sticking with it. And I for one am happy they've done so. It doesn't matter to me if other cars are faster than mine. But if I weren't such a brainwashed Porsche *****, if I could approach the equation from a remotely rational and unemotional perspective, I'd probably be in something else.
Alas...
What attack? If you like Camaros go buy one. Are you looking for a Camaro forum or something?
I don't think Porsche is saddled with any issue. Their flat six is making 700 horsepower from the factory which just happens to be more than anything GM offers. 500 without turbos. Examples are well over 1000 hp in the aftermarket.
I see no problem other than someone talking about Camaros in a thread about a factory turbo upgrade for Porsches.
I'm interested in this. Does anyone know what Porsche quotes as installation time and dealer labor rate? I know the rates will vary, but im just trying to get a general sense as to the full cost. Thanks.
The install, in total is 12 hours - this is official.
In terms of times the 9A2 in X51/GTS configuration delivers some blistering outcomes - perhaps the most interesting are the results from Hockenheim Short (times by Chris Gebhardt - from Sport Auto)
918 1:06.3
991.2 GT3 1:07.9 991.2 GTS/X51 1:08.1(PDK - RAS)
991.1 GT3 RS 1:08.5
991.1 R 1:09.1
991.1 GT3 1:09.2
991.2 S 1:09.6
981 GT4 1:10.1
991.1 GTS 1:10.9
718 S 1:11.0
991.1 S 1:11.7
991.1 base 1:12.2
The X51 kit attached to the 9A2 delivers a huge amount of bang for buck - 150HP per litre Vs 991.2 GT3 132HP per litre. Yet there is still more headroom (I am not going to explore it further, but others will).
Thanks randr. Sounds like $9500-10,000 would get the job done. Porsche "cheap", but still a lot of shekels for 30-35 horse-torque in the non-Porsche world. Still considering.
The install, in total is 12 hours - this is official.
This is a bit baffling. If the car already has the Sport Package it appears the Powerkit is a matter swapping out 2 turbos and modified brake cooling, whatever that entails, plus ecu flash. Bottom line I don’t see how it could possibly be a 12 hour job. Remove the rear bumper, put the car on Jack Points, remove the rear wheels and you have excellent access. This looks like an easy install at a home garage. The only remaining thing would be for the Tech at the dealer to do the ecu flash. If someone has installation instructions I’d love to see a copy.
This is a bit baffling. If the car already has the Sport Package it appears the Powerkit is a matter swapping out 2 turbos and modified brake cooling, whatever that entails, plus ecu flash. Bottom line I donÂ’t see how it could possibly be a 12 hour job. Remove the rear bumper, put the car on Jack Points, remove the rear wheels and you have excellent access. This looks like an easy install at a home garage. The only remaining thing would be for the Tech at the dealer to do the ecu flash. If someone has installation instructions IÂ’d love to see a copy.
The hour charge is more of a currency then a reference of time. Saying 12 hours may take more or less but that gives a parameter for different dealers to charge similarly. One can imagine that the time it takes will vary a lot depending on the experience of the mechanic and how busy the shop is.
Paying from pocket, I would check different stealerships. It maybe 12 hours but the actual value can vary a lot, particularly considering if hardware is included or not (I.e buy the kit and VIN code elsewhere)
In terms of times the 9A2 in X51/GTS configuration delivers some blistering outcomes - perhaps the most interesting are the results from Hockenheim Short (times by Chris Gebhardt - from Sport Auto)
991.2 GTS/X51 1:08.1(PDK - RAS)
Ruh Roh. When NaGabiker (NGB) sees this, he's going to spring into action. Here's the scene as he picks up his flip phone -
NGB - "Hello Chevy Troll Control. This is troll number 69. I have a report".
CTC - "Go ahead with your report 69".
NGB - "Reports on Rennlist of GTS time at Hockenheim"
CTC - "That's in America right ? Wisconsin ? Or is it in China again, at that Ring thingy ?"
NGB - "No ! You idiot. Germany !"
CTC - "Ah yes. Hockenheim. The one near all of those weird word lines on my globe".
NGB - "Sigh. Just start building the car. When will it be ready ?"
CTC - "Two years. NASCAR is on TV, and we still need to figure out
why there are words on the map that don't say America.The car can only turn left at the moment."
NGB - "fine. I'll be waiting by the phone. Gotta go. Been trolling a dude called Sticky on Rennlist. Bye. Merica !"
ZL1 already ran Hockenheim Long course in 1:03.7 with 4 cylinders deactivated to save fuel.
Given there is Hockenheim Kurs (short) or Hockenheim GP or the power course which is shorter than Kurs.............guys don't derail the thread.
In terms of the install it will depend on what you have or don't have pre-installed on your car.
The whole point of this kit is it gives you flexibility - (a) significant improvement across the whole torque curve (b) brings you into line with the GTS (c) future proofs the car to some extent (d) retains full warranty (e) allows those of us that prefer the slim body to have the performance of the GTS without the width of the 4. (f) you have the performance of a GT3 in a far more liveable car (so long as you have RAS etc) - in fact at the wheels there will only 20WHP difference.
Nabiker - The C8 will be a fantastic car (shame we don't get them over here - but I would be interested). GM have really stepped up to the plate as have MB - however, McLaren have gone straight to the winners circle.
07-23-2017, 10:27 PM
