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.
I dyno'd my car a while back, but haven't posted up because I was waiting for a good time so I could collect the data in a single thread.
As it turns out this forum seems more like a drama series than group of enthusiasts sharing their collective knowledge, so perhaps a little actual data to stimulate conversation?!
I do not have a baseline unfortunately, but the dyno was collected on my 2017 C2S (PDK). There are a few baselines floating around though, I will use the COBB one for comparision.
The only mod was elimination of the cats with Fabspeed bypass pipes. I used the universal o2 spacers to stop the CEL and they worked perfectly for me for about 1500 miles until I removed the pipes.
I decided go ahead and make the jump to the more capable GTS platform instead of going nuts with "S". Unfortunately this was after I purchased all the mods, including the HRE's which are now sitting in the garage unable to be fitted to the CL setup on the GTS
Slightly off topic, but I can also CONFIRM that the KW HAS kit, although the US site doesn't confirm this, will fit on the 991.2's. I have spoken with the engineers in Germany to confirm the fitment as well as looked at all the Porsche parts diagrams.
Dyno was done at TopSpeed Motorsports in Alpharetta, GA. These guys are amazing tuners and possibly the top shop in the GT-R scene.
Mods: Fabspeed Bypass Pipes, o2 Spacers (catted) on 93oct.
Baseline (provided by COBB, in the following thread, different dyno.. but you get the idea)
I think you'll find those runs are inaccurate. See below for a current GTS run on a MAHA dyno.
See below for a TTS on a MAHA dyno.
You will notice the towing or run down losses.
A GTS makes ~ 370RWHP, S ~ 350RWHP, base ~300RWHP
Porsche do not under rate their engines - in fact the replacement crate engines for GT3s have the engine torque and HP provided with the paper work . The german magazine Sport Auto looked into the "under rated" issue about two years ago. They concluded that tuners were applying inappropriate correction factors for current generation tubocharged Porsche sports. To date - I have not seen anything that indicates the US tuning houses have picked up on this.
I think you'll find those runs are inaccurate. See below for a current GTS run on a MAHA dyno.
See below for a TTS on a MAHA dyno.
You will notice the towing or run down losses.
A GTS makes ~ 370RWHP, S ~ 350RWHP, base ~300RWHP
Porsche do not under rate their engines - in fact the replacement crate engines for GT3s have the engine torque and HP provided with the paper work
Thanks for posting. I am admittedly not that familiar with MAHA dynos. I don't know any shops that run them.
Thats a 18% loss, that just seems high to me. We have several baseline and they are all in line with these numbers (93 oct).
Ive always been told to assume 15% at the conservative high end, with newer cars actually being closer to 12% losses. Again, this is just what Ive always gone by.
There are a lot of variables at play - but its worth noting run down losses are non-linear. If you look at the green lower lines you will see they are curves
Higher HP cars and those with higher red lines tend to generate greater overall losses. In a simplistic sense they generate more heat more quickly.
I think you'll find those runs are inaccurate. See below for a current GTS run on a MAHA dyno.
See below for a TTS on a MAHA dyno.
You will notice the towing or run down losses.
A GTS makes ~ 370RWHP, S ~ 350RWHP, base ~300RWHP
Porsche do not under rate their engines - in fact the replacement crate engines for GT3s have the engine torque and HP provided with the paper work . The german magazine Sport Auto looked into the "under rated" issue about two years ago. They concluded that tuners were applying inappropriate correction factors for current generation tubocharged Porsche sports. To date - I have not seen anything that indicates the US tuning houses have picked up on this.
Dude he posted HIS dyno numbers. Wow please post yours for comparison and QUIT posting your MAHA nonsense.
Dude he posted HIS dyno numbers. Wow please post yours for comparison and QUIT posting your MAHA nonsense.
The point was to share some information on the realistic starting point of these cars and the reason why there are spurious results.
MAHA dynos are regarded as the best in the world.
They are known to be highly reliable and are able to provide both accurate and precise results. The electronic control of the rollers to ensure wheel speed matching is far in advance of anything else.
Importantly - they always show towing/ run down losses and how they relate to both crank and wheel HP.
Critically, they act as a counterpoint to the endless "happy dyno" results which benefit no one. Unless the happy dyno is consistently inaccurate but precise e.g. it always runs about 50HP over and thus when a modification is added to the car you can see a meaningful or non-meaningful delta.
I have no need to dyno my car, for me its a pointless exercise.
They are known to be highly reliable and are able to provide both accurate and precise results. The electronic control of the rollers to ensure wheel speed matching is far in advance of anything else.
Importantly - they always show towing/ run down losses.
Critically, they act as a counterpoint to the endless "happy dyno" results which benefit no one. Unless the happy dyno is consistently inaccurate but precise e.g. it always runs about 50HP over.
I have no need to dyno my car, for me its a pointless exercise.
Unfortunately, I've never seen a dyno run on a MAHA here in the states.
When you say run down loss, I assume you are referring to heat soaking of the engine and cooling components? You cannot take a static car, regardless of how many fans you have directed through the cooling systems, and expect it lay down numbers as it would in a real scenario. On the road the cars would be moving far faster and there would be far more air moving through the cooling elements and IC's to prevent this. I believe these "curves" would be far more linear and less pronounced in general.
I dyno'd the car in optimal conditions, the engine was basically cool, well, it was 80F outside, 1000 ft above sea level, on 93 octane. Both tests were done on the same type of dyno, again, they could have been slightly calibrated different, in the same gear, on the same gas. Its shows a significant gain with the elimination of the cats.
Assuming a 10%-12% loss would be accurate with the numbers we are seeing on domestic dyno's. The dynos are only really serving as hp markers so we can see what performance impact the mods we've done to the car have, with a measurable number. Im not looking for a garage dyno queen.
Either way, the thread is a reference point for what I believe to be an established number from an extremely reputable tuner.
The point was to share some information on the realistic starting point of these cars and the reason why there are spurious results.
MAHA dynos are regarded as the best in the world.
They are known to be highly reliable and are able to provide both accurate and precise results. The electronic control of the rollers to ensure wheel speed matching is far in advance of anything else.
Importantly - they always show towing/ run down losses and how they relate to both crank and wheel HP.
Critically, they act as a counterpoint to the endless "happy dyno" results which benefit no one. Unless the happy dyno is consistently inaccurate but precise e.g. it always runs about 50HP over and thus when a modification is added to the car you can see a meaningful or non-meaningful delta.
I have no need to dyno my car, for me its a pointless exercise.
Until you throw yours on a dyno - I have confidence that his numbers are real. At this point I really DGAF.
A comparison of a different dyno in different parts of the world (IE Maha to Dynojet, Europe to US) is a rough comparison.
Dynojets are commonly regarded to read higher than Mustangs do. Maha dynos are not popular in the US so I can't comment how they would compare.
Nice numbers OP. It would have been great to compare them with stock as to obtain a baseline. Your graph atleast looks similar to the Cobb graph, in the curve is still similar and power comes on the same way.
Would be interesting to see a comparison of stock, tuned, and catless tuned / stock.
Now go get that GTS dyno'd and see what it does for a baseline!
When comparing across dynos, you always need a before and after comparison or a completely stock car stand-in to allow a proper delta to be calculated for the new change.
When I had my car dynoed at Cobb SoCal, I couldnt compare it to the same model run at Cobb's Austin site as their two dynos didnt match. I had to find a comparable car run at the SoCal site to provide a meaningful delta ( that i would believe in).
Should have run my car twice, before and after, but that costs more....
11-03-2017, 11:33 PM
991.2 C2S - Cat bypass Pipes - Dyno Results
. The german magazine Sport Auto looked into the "under rated" issue about two years ago. They concluded that tuners were applying inappropriate correction factors for current generation tubocharged Porsche sports. To date - I have not seen anything that indicates the US tuning houses have picked up on this.
