///M3THOD

Although I can't prove it from my dyno, I can tell you from driving the car there is no power lost anywhere in the rpm band. The turbos spool faster and the power climbs much faster then stock.

Soapman72

Wow. Just WOW!

So is the takeaway here that the stock cooling is adequate for stage 1 tuning? I love the "easy" horsepower and torque, but I don't want issues with lots of power after running hard for several minutes on the track.

groundhog

PM sent

stephen k

Great Numbers. I bet it absolutely lights up the road now...

I have that speedtech still if you are interested. Let me know ..

Valvefloat991

Just thinking about theI don't doubt the power increase that you have documented, but how can a tune make the turbos spool more quickly? After all, there is only so much exhaust flow coming out of the engine.

Unless Porsche artificially introduced turbo lag, which I seriously doubt.

4 Point 0

Wastegate. Controlling how much exhaust escapes or spins the turbo's. For around town smoothness, manufacturers can delay when the power comes on. Parking a car, you don't want boost coming on LOL. An exaggeration, for you to get the idea.

///M3THOD

Yes, the stock cooling is absolutely adequate for the stage 1 map. Its also supposed to be adequate for stage 2. IC upgrades aren't required until stage 3.

If you look at COBB's support page, they recommend that you put 2 gallons of 100 oct in the car for all track days to keep temps down as well.

Exactly. Wastegate control. Look at the COBB graph. There much more additional torque available sooner around 2k.

spdracerut

OEMs have to tune for long term durability; i.e. the cat has to last 100k miles or 10 years, something like that. Otherwise, it's an expensive warranty item. If you sacrifice cat longevity, one can get more aggressive with the tune.

Valvefloat991

The Cobb graph starts at over 2000 rpm and the stock engine is already making maximum boost--and torque--by 1750, at least according to Porsche specs. So more torque at 2200 rpm doesn't mean faster spool, it just means that the tune is allowing the engine to develop more boost. If the tune made more torque at 1500 rpm, that would prove faster spool.

good2go

Several claims of who would beat who.

Are you talking 0 to 60? AMG c43 2017 states 4.1 sec. 2017 C4S is 3.2
Straight line 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile?AMG c43 2017 1/4 mile 12.8 2017 C4S is 11.5
Around a race track?

https://www.zeroto60times.com

I personally don't car bout 0 to 60, you are just shifting into 3 gear and you have 4 more to go.

I personally don't care about straight line.

How does it handle on the track, accelerating, braking, turning.

When you say the AMG C43 will see a GTS in its review, where is the AMG faster?

pfbz

Nice write up..

I'm on the hunt for a 991.2 base car thinking an X51 powerkit (GTS turbos), exhaust, and Cobb GTS maps would get me in this general power neighborhood and about a 150HP bump for around $10K plus ~$75K for the base car.

Realistic? I think this would be an interesting alternative to a 997.2 Turbo at around the same price point.

PTS-BRG

good2go: I have a C63S not a C43.

based on car and driver on a stock vehicle, here are the stats:
Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.3 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 14.0 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 19.6 sec
Zero to 170 mph: 29.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.0 sec @ 121 mph
Top speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 180 mph

My car is also tuned and is over 600hp.
So, I will stand behind my statement that my tuned 600HP AMG is still faster than a stock 911 GTS or even a tuned 911 GTS.
Thats because its a V8 and not a V6.

The comment was made in response to another poster stating the GTS would **** on my AMG and I have both and can assure you that is incorrect.
Even with the Cobb tune, my AMG is still faster than the GTS and I contribute it more to raw HP and displacement than weight or aerodynamics.

I would still prefer my GTS all day every day over the AMG, but in terms of straight line acceleration the AMG is a beast.
Problem would be from a dead start due to rear wheel only and hooking up, but once it hooks up it would reel in the GTS right quick..

Soapman72

Perhaps you've missed the tests of stock GTS PDK equipped cars posting 0-60 in 3.0 seconds and 1/4 mile in 11.1 at 125mph. Although most modern turbocharged cars respond incredibly well to tuning, there isn't always the expected improvement in acceleration due to difficulties managing traction. These cars (because of the rear weight bias) don't suffer from this issue nearly as much as most RWD front engine cars do. CONSISTENCY is another issue...rarely are other cars as easy to launch, and as consistent as these cars. Unless you are into roll racing, I wouldn't bother.

PTS-BRG

Soapman, I will let the chart speak for itself.. At the wheels, not the crank

Soapman72

Never said your car didn't make big power. You can't race a dyno sheet, though. These cars just plain put the power down like on other. Additionally, they have the PDK which seems toose less power (time) between shifts than most transmissions do, especially the Merc.