McChip
#17
RTx Plus
#18
How sure are you about those spring rates for the 991.2? Because 24/48 was the spring rate for a base 991.2 without PASM, but with PASM the rates were 27/46. And all 991.2s have PASM at least.
#19
Good pick up, Yes, you are correct, the 24/48 was without PASM (991) . But still even the GTS Sport PASM 33/108 is way too soft on the front end.
#20
Also, are you pretty sure that the 991.2 stock springs rates are the same as the 991.1 rates? I've found the 991.1 rates, but haven't seen a definitive chart for the newer model.
#21
Not to argue about the need for stiffness int he suspension, but what you really want to compare are the wheel rates. I think there is more leverage ont he rear springs so while the 33/108 spring rate suggests that the rear is more than three times stiffer than the front, the actual wheel rate difference is probably more like two to 1.
Also, are you pretty sure that the 991.2 stock springs rates are the same as the 991.1 rates? I've found the 991.1 rates, but haven't seen a definitive chart for the newer model.
Also, are you pretty sure that the 991.2 stock springs rates are the same as the 991.1 rates? I've found the 991.1 rates, but haven't seen a definitive chart for the newer model.
Regardless of that, the front end of my car collapses when you lean on it on the track.
The best Tarmac front spring rate for these cars is 70 N/mm. I went custom 75 as this is not a pure Tarmac car, I do lots of sprint sessions, but I don't want a pure track car like 100/180.
Most guys would go 70/130 for pure Tarmac. I want a little more stability for Track. But I still want street comfort.
33 plus 75 = 108 GTS. Whereas GT3 is 45 plus 75 = 120 Porsche did this 75 separation. Full track is 100/180 (Because 100/175 is too expensive. The 5's cost double for custom vs generic)
So to me anyway you look at it 75/150 is the perfect spring rate, as an all rounder application. (That just happens to be the only spring rate that rear is 2 times front but still 75 separation)
Or you could say GT3 is 45/120, 3 step ups each of 10 n/mm makes my 75/150 or three steps down from pure track, 100/180 is 70/150 (because cheaper)
I am right in the centre of GT3 stock and Pure track, which is basically a Strong Tarmac setup.
#23
450 HP Stock
525 HP Stage 1
540 HP Stage 2
575 HP Stage 3
So these numbers are at the motor. They are not very impressive at all. But I do understand they aren't American dyno numbers which read 15% higher than most of the rest of the world.
If we assume a 12.5% Power loss to the wheels, then these numbers look like this....
393 HP Stock
460 HP Stage 1 (480 for COBB Stage 1) Whilst COBB claimed 509 HP multiple members dynoed at 480 HP at the wheels.
472 HP Stage 2
503 HP Stage 3
12 HP gain to the wheels for Stage 2 is pathetic. (Headers alone would get you more than this) OH I see all they did was Capristo exhaust and 200 cell cat.
Just goes to show, you get what you pay for.
525 HP Stage 1
540 HP Stage 2
575 HP Stage 3
So these numbers are at the motor. They are not very impressive at all. But I do understand they aren't American dyno numbers which read 15% higher than most of the rest of the world.
If we assume a 12.5% Power loss to the wheels, then these numbers look like this....
393 HP Stock
460 HP Stage 1 (480 for COBB Stage 1) Whilst COBB claimed 509 HP multiple members dynoed at 480 HP at the wheels.
472 HP Stage 2
503 HP Stage 3
12 HP gain to the wheels for Stage 2 is pathetic. (Headers alone would get you more than this) OH I see all they did was Capristo exhaust and 200 cell cat.
Just goes to show, you get what you pay for.
Any other tried their stage 3? Or upgraded turbos on 991.2?