991.2 COBB tune - Impressions and Dyno
#31
This was a good pick up. I was interested to see that as well. As it was a Stage 1 Tune and ///Method has Sport cats, did he loose a little bit down low at 2,000? Stage 2 should pick that back up, "IF" that was the case. Not that my car is ever below 2,000 other than stopped at the lights.
#32
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.
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.
#35
Unless Porsche artificially introduced turbo lag, which I seriously doubt.
#36
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.
Unless Porsche artificially introduced turbo lag, which I seriously doubt.
#37
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.
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.
Unless Porsche artificially introduced turbo lag, which I seriously doubt.
Last edited by ///M3THOD; 07-01-2018 at 01:11 AM.
#38
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.
Unless Porsche artificially introduced turbo lag, which I seriously doubt.
#39
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.
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.
#40
Steve: My AMG was 605hp and I have a 991.2 GTS. The GTS wouldn't **** on my AMG, I would be watching you in my rearview.
No question that drag and rolling weight are a big part of it. Also, AWD vs 2 WD helps the GTS. But once a car is in motion, nothing beats pure Horsepower.
M3thod: I also saw that the boost on my Cobb tune was only up slightly. I think that with the stage 2 maps we will see another 10%+
I also only have cats and a filter, but I am always curious if a plenum or different muffler or even headers would improve the HP significantly.
Can't wait to see what the ideal setup is going to be
No question that drag and rolling weight are a big part of it. Also, AWD vs 2 WD helps the GTS. But once a car is in motion, nothing beats pure Horsepower.
M3thod: I also saw that the boost on my Cobb tune was only up slightly. I think that with the stage 2 maps we will see another 10%+
I also only have cats and a filter, but I am always curious if a plenum or different muffler or even headers would improve the HP significantly.
Can't wait to see what the ideal setup is going to be
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?
Last edited by good2go; 07-01-2018 at 01:38 PM. Reason: typo
#41
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.
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.
#42
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..
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..
#43
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..
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..
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.
#45
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.