Why don't more folks do the x51 package?
01-07-2019, 06:38 PM
#1
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Why don't more folks do the x51 package?
Just thinking about the cost to gain for things done for a 991.1 to get more power/sound/performance.
Exhaust - goes from 2k - 6K depending on manufacture
Headers/Cat - 2-3K depending on manufacture
Tune - 2K or so
Intake filter - 200-300
How much added HP are you really able to get from Aftermarket bolt on's for 991.1 compared to 430HP and getting close to GTS power via Porsche factory parts.
After all of this what true gains are you getting and would these changes be legal for road/smog in your state ( For me it's harder since I'm in Cali ). X51 from Porsche is OEM and warrantied plus nets 430HP that also allows me to be road / smog legal in Cali? Compared to getting a mix of various go fast goodies to bolt on from different manufacturer's and potentially not be road legal compliant depending on your state? I already have PSE on my 2014 991.1 so no point spending on aftermarket exhaust IMHO.
https://www.suncoastparts.com/product/SKU991X51.html
And if your 991.2 it's slightly cheaper and gets you 450HP
https://www.suncoastparts.com/product/992X51.html
Thoughts?
Exhaust - goes from 2k - 6K depending on manufacture
Headers/Cat - 2-3K depending on manufacture
Tune - 2K or so
Intake filter - 200-300
How much added HP are you really able to get from Aftermarket bolt on's for 991.1 compared to 430HP and getting close to GTS power via Porsche factory parts.
After all of this what true gains are you getting and would these changes be legal for road/smog in your state ( For me it's harder since I'm in Cali ). X51 from Porsche is OEM and warrantied plus nets 430HP that also allows me to be road / smog legal in Cali? Compared to getting a mix of various go fast goodies to bolt on from different manufacturer's and potentially not be road legal compliant depending on your state? I already have PSE on my 2014 991.1 so no point spending on aftermarket exhaust IMHO.
https://www.suncoastparts.com/product/SKU991X51.html
- modified cylinder heads and camshafts
- newly developed variable resonance intake system featuring 6 plus 1 switchable valve
- center radiator
- Optional Sports Exhaust System with specially designed dual twin-tube tailpipes
- a revised engine control unit including new engine compartment styling with a titanium colored cover and carbon inserts
And if your 991.2 it's slightly cheaper and gets you 450HP
https://www.suncoastparts.com/product/992X51.html
Thoughts?
01-07-2019, 07:16 PM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicagoland Area
Posts: 26,142
Likes: 0
Received 5,388 Likes
on
2,509 Posts
When I ordered my 2014 car in October of 2013 with the PowerKit option it was about $18,600. I think that priced a lot of people away. I'm glad I ordered it. No regrets.
01-07-2019, 07:38 PM
#5
Rennlist Member
01-07-2019, 07:42 PM
#7
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The gains in HP come mostly at the top end (above 5K), and given the way the internals are setup with the X-51, the gains are primarily in power, not torque, which makes the difference (in real world terms, not on a graph or dyno), even more difficult to discern.
Trending Topics
01-07-2019, 07:43 PM
#8
Rennlist Member
2nd...especially for the cost + labor etc. I would consider it at time of order installed at the factory, but not post delivery. For that cost, you are better off selling the car and buying something faster IMO. Especially with Turbos and gt3's hitting the 110-120k price ranges. Some 991.1 turbos with higher miles are sub 100k.
01-07-2019, 07:44 PM
#9
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
To be fair to Porsche, those 30 horses are real, documented actual gains in power.
As opposed to exhaust manufacturers "claiming" x amount of power or torque increases from simply swapping out a bypass, which should be taken the same way I read horoscopes. For entertainment purposes only.
As opposed to exhaust manufacturers "claiming" x amount of power or torque increases from simply swapping out a bypass, which should be taken the same way I read horoscopes. For entertainment purposes only.
01-07-2019, 07:54 PM
#10
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
To be fair to Porsche, those 30 horses are real, documented actual gains in power.
As opposed to exhaust manufacturers "claiming" x amount of power or torque increases from simply swapping out a bypass, which should be taken the same way I read horoscopes. For entertainment purposes only.
As opposed to exhaust manufacturers "claiming" x amount of power or torque increases from simply swapping out a bypass, which should be taken the same way I read horoscopes. For entertainment purposes only.
01-07-2019, 08:06 PM
#11
I just had it done to my 991.2 Carrera S first part of December of last year. I shopped it some but was comfortable with 27-year-old veteran
"Gunter" service manager who is well versed in this stuff. It's where i traveled to buy my car and to have them take care of me.
The cost was 10K this included brake venting which is allot more than having a carbon fiber box shooting some air
down a tube..lol.
The engine has a more mechanical growl to it, the exhaust is the same. When you get into its pants I feel the torque and the ponies but when in said "pants"
your honking along pretty good. There is more early wheel spin coming out of my favorite turns, with a couple of "Oh Sugar" moments. Do i drive like that a lot no...but
knowing it has 450 HP on tap is a nice cup of coffee.
The dealer also picks my car and delivers as a service for any service situations, 300 miles round trip with loaners. I guess everyone does that but feels special when i have a local dealer 25 miles away that i'am not locked into.
This reminds me to see if their is a market for 991.2 Turbos...
Also if I were buying a used car I would love to find an X51 Factory Kitted car, so in my noggin its a good resale tool.
Happy yes...Too much coin probably but so was the gas cap....
"Gunter" service manager who is well versed in this stuff. It's where i traveled to buy my car and to have them take care of me.
The cost was 10K this included brake venting which is allot more than having a carbon fiber box shooting some air
down a tube..lol.
The engine has a more mechanical growl to it, the exhaust is the same. When you get into its pants I feel the torque and the ponies but when in said "pants"
your honking along pretty good. There is more early wheel spin coming out of my favorite turns, with a couple of "Oh Sugar" moments. Do i drive like that a lot no...but
knowing it has 450 HP on tap is a nice cup of coffee.
The dealer also picks my car and delivers as a service for any service situations, 300 miles round trip with loaners. I guess everyone does that but feels special when i have a local dealer 25 miles away that i'am not locked into.
This reminds me to see if their is a market for 991.2 Turbos...
Also if I were buying a used car I would love to find an X51 Factory Kitted car, so in my noggin its a good resale tool.
Happy yes...Too much coin probably but so was the gas cap....
01-07-2019, 08:11 PM
#12
Race Car
I had the same question as the OP so I traded rides with a friend: my 2012.5 C2S SPASM RWD.and his 2013 C4S Cab with X-51.
The result:
- I could definitely feel that his car zing faster to the the redline than mine.
- He could feel that my car was quicker than his (up to about 100 mph).
Thats why you need to consider pounds/HP when torque is equal, and compare equivalent cars when making decisions/conclusions.
PS the equivalent 991.2s are all faster to 100.
The result:
- I could definitely feel that his car zing faster to the the redline than mine.
- He could feel that my car was quicker than his (up to about 100 mph).
Thats why you need to consider pounds/HP when torque is equal, and compare equivalent cars when making decisions/conclusions.
PS the equivalent 991.2s are all faster to 100.
01-07-2019, 08:33 PM
#13
Rennlist Member
AB 1824, Committee on Budget. State government.
(1) The Voting Modernization Bond Act of 2002 authorizes a county to apply to the Voting Modernization Board for money from the proceeds of the sale of bonds (1) to pay for or purchase new voting systems that are certified or conditionally approved by the Secretary of State, (2) to research and develop new voting systems, or (3) to manufacture the minimum number of voting system units reasonably necessary to test and seek certification or conditional approval of the voting system, or test and demonstrate the capabilities of a voting system in a pilot program.
This bill would require the Secretary of State to use funds appropriated to him or her in the Budget Act of 2018 for voting system replacement to award contracts to counties that would reimburse the counties for funds spent by the counties on activities similar to those described above, as specified. The bill would require the Secretary of State to allocate funds for those contracts based on specified criteria, and would require that the reimbursement match funds spent by a county on a dollar-for-dollar basis, up to the allocated amount.
(2) Existing law provides for the compensation of victims and derivative victims of specified types of crimes by the California Victim Compensation Board from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, for specified losses suffered as a result of those crimes. Existing law requires an application for compensation to be filed within certain time periods, as specified. Existing law authorizes the board to grant an extension of time based on certain criteria, and requires the board, in making this determination, to consider, among other factors, whether the victim or derivative victim incurs emotional harm or a pecuniary loss while testifying during the prosecution or in the punishment of the person accused or convicted of the crime.
This bill would also require the board to consider, until December 31, 2019, whether the victim or derivative victim incurs emotional harm or a pecuniary loss as a result of the identification of the “East Area Rapist,” also known as the “Golden State Killer,” a person suspected of committing certain homicide and sexual assault crimes. The bill would specify, for purposes of this provision, that “emotional harm” includes, but is not limited to, harm incurred while preparing to testify. By expanding the scope of provisions authorizing certain uses of continuously appropriated funds, the bill would make an appropriation.
(3) Existing law requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a master plan for the overall operations of the veterans’ home system, as specified, by no later than July 1, 2019. Existing law specifies that the development of the master plan should include a stakeholder process that includes, among other things, an assessment of the current and projected long-term care needs of California’s veterans and a discussion of how veterans with complex mental and behavioral health needs will be accommodated.
This bill would instead require the master plan to be prepared by December 31, 2019. The bill would require the master plan to be revised and updated every 5 years thereafter. The bill would additionally require the master plan to include consideration and discussion of certain specified elements.
(4) Existing law provides that whenever any person is arrested for certain offenses, including, among other things, an infraction involving vehicle equipment, the arresting officer is required to permit the arrested person to execute a notice, prepared by the officer in triplicate, containing a promise to correct the violation and to deliver proof of correction to the issuing agency, unless the arresting officer finds that a disqualifying condition exists.
Existing law requires every motor vehicle subject to registration to be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise and prohibits a muffler or exhaust system from being equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device. Existing law further prohibits the modification of an exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner that will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle exceeds existing noise limits.
This bill would include, among those conditions that are disqualifying, a violation of the above-described requirements related to mufflers and exhaust systems.
(5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: yes Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no
(1) The Voting Modernization Bond Act of 2002 authorizes a county to apply to the Voting Modernization Board for money from the proceeds of the sale of bonds (1) to pay for or purchase new voting systems that are certified or conditionally approved by the Secretary of State, (2) to research and develop new voting systems, or (3) to manufacture the minimum number of voting system units reasonably necessary to test and seek certification or conditional approval of the voting system, or test and demonstrate the capabilities of a voting system in a pilot program.
This bill would require the Secretary of State to use funds appropriated to him or her in the Budget Act of 2018 for voting system replacement to award contracts to counties that would reimburse the counties for funds spent by the counties on activities similar to those described above, as specified. The bill would require the Secretary of State to allocate funds for those contracts based on specified criteria, and would require that the reimbursement match funds spent by a county on a dollar-for-dollar basis, up to the allocated amount.
(2) Existing law provides for the compensation of victims and derivative victims of specified types of crimes by the California Victim Compensation Board from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, for specified losses suffered as a result of those crimes. Existing law requires an application for compensation to be filed within certain time periods, as specified. Existing law authorizes the board to grant an extension of time based on certain criteria, and requires the board, in making this determination, to consider, among other factors, whether the victim or derivative victim incurs emotional harm or a pecuniary loss while testifying during the prosecution or in the punishment of the person accused or convicted of the crime.
This bill would also require the board to consider, until December 31, 2019, whether the victim or derivative victim incurs emotional harm or a pecuniary loss as a result of the identification of the “East Area Rapist,” also known as the “Golden State Killer,” a person suspected of committing certain homicide and sexual assault crimes. The bill would specify, for purposes of this provision, that “emotional harm” includes, but is not limited to, harm incurred while preparing to testify. By expanding the scope of provisions authorizing certain uses of continuously appropriated funds, the bill would make an appropriation.
(3) Existing law requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a master plan for the overall operations of the veterans’ home system, as specified, by no later than July 1, 2019. Existing law specifies that the development of the master plan should include a stakeholder process that includes, among other things, an assessment of the current and projected long-term care needs of California’s veterans and a discussion of how veterans with complex mental and behavioral health needs will be accommodated.
This bill would instead require the master plan to be prepared by December 31, 2019. The bill would require the master plan to be revised and updated every 5 years thereafter. The bill would additionally require the master plan to include consideration and discussion of certain specified elements.
(4) Existing law provides that whenever any person is arrested for certain offenses, including, among other things, an infraction involving vehicle equipment, the arresting officer is required to permit the arrested person to execute a notice, prepared by the officer in triplicate, containing a promise to correct the violation and to deliver proof of correction to the issuing agency, unless the arresting officer finds that a disqualifying condition exists.
Existing law requires every motor vehicle subject to registration to be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise and prohibits a muffler or exhaust system from being equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device. Existing law further prohibits the modification of an exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner that will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle exceeds existing noise limits.
This bill would include, among those conditions that are disqualifying, a violation of the above-described requirements related to mufflers and exhaust systems.
(5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: yes Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no
There oughtta be a law to outlaw tack-on laws—especially when one has nothing to do with the other(s). Either a law stands on its own merit, or it doesn't.
As for this law, it'd be nice if they'd start with the thing LE never seems to target: Open-pipe Harleys, which are by far the greatest noise nuisance on public roads. You can hear them for miiiiiiiles.
01-07-2019, 08:39 PM
#14
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
STOUT, trust me I totally agree with you on that. But you know money grabbing Kalifornia does anything to try to take money or tax you more. They gotta make money to put on their other PET projects and Robin Hood complex.
01-07-2019, 08:57 PM
#15
Rennlist Member
I am wondering where SEMA is on this? For R Gruppe members to track junkies to Rodders Journal readers to exhaust makers (many here in CA and LEGAL) to Harley fans to diesel truck modders, this law is anathema. Also, extremely poorly written and problematic in terms of probable cause. Officer can tell it's too loud how, and doesn't have to measure it before issuing a $1000 ticket? And if the exhaust is stock and 95+ db? How does one contest the ticket? Visiting a ref? I suspect a lawyer could have a field day with this, especially as $1,000 (potentially multiple times) should shift burden of proof to the state, no?
Be curious for someone more knowledgeable on legal matters to weigh in on this.