0-60 times
#91
A 992 turbo S is ridiculously quick and would still be noticeably quicker than a tuned 992 S/4S. That extra .8 liters of displacement and larger turbos makes a huge difference that a tune cannot make up. You’d need a turbo upgrade to get anywhere close to a stock Turbo S.
Here’s a video of a tuned 992 C4S w/ stage 1, downpipes and Akrapovic exhaust vs a stock 2014 991.1 Turbo S. Note that this 2 generation old Turbo S still walks the tuned C4S handily. A 992 Turbo S would demolish this tuned 992 C4S:
Tuned 992 C4S vs stock 991.1 Turbo S
Here’s a video of a tuned 992 C4S w/ stage 1, downpipes and Akrapovic exhaust vs a stock 2014 991.1 Turbo S. Note that this 2 generation old Turbo S still walks the tuned C4S handily. A 992 Turbo S would demolish this tuned 992 C4S:
Tuned 992 C4S vs stock 991.1 Turbo S
Saw it a week ago. Irrelevant to the discussion on 0-60. Oh, and already acknowledged that the TT-S will have a decided advantage at the higher speeds, 1/4 mile, etc….which this video showed, as it comes from behind after reaching > 100mph.. Nothing knew, and totally expected.
But do appreciate you posting. This was the ONLY post power bump flash I’ve seen on the 992….although not the flash I am interested in.
Last edited by CodyBigdog; 04-24-2022 at 06:55 PM.
#92
Where did I ever state that PSM has a 0.5s impact? My limited personal experimentation gave me 0.2s difference. From the CarWOW video you reference, IIRC, Matt achieved a 2.55s run without the one foot rollout. So deduct -0.2s for the rollout and another -0.2s for PSM interference and you’re right at that 2.1-2.2s bracket.
Yes, and he also has a 2.63 sec and a 2.61 sec run…so the average of 3 runs was, wait for it…LOL…2.596 sec…ummm, that’s pretty close to 2.6 sec, which I quoted. Oh, and where did he say without the 1 foot rollout. To the contrary, further into the video, he shows the face of the measurement box, and it CLEARLY shows “1 foot rollout: ON”. 😱
Sorry, not buying the 0.2 reduction by turning off the PSM. Oh, and let me save you a lot of time - you’ve been wrong in just about everything you’ve said…on this thread, and others. As such, I don’t believe anything you say. So, continue to knock yourself out.
What I will believe, however, are 0-60 times from people that have the M-engineering flash on their 992S with chrono+PDK.
I find it interesting that you discount the C&D TT-S times as being “unachievable by normal folks”, yet, you consider the best C&D C2S time as a reference. Confirmation bias maybe?
In truth, 0-60mph/0-100km/h times do not matter much to me. I just tested my car when I got it out of curiosity. I’d much rather be on a road course, that’s where my hobby resides. That being said, I might still go out and do some runs just to see the impact of the PSC2.
Last edited by CodyBigdog; 04-24-2022 at 06:59 PM.
#93
Three Wheelin'
Yes, and he also has a 2.63 sec and a 2.61 sec run…so the average of 3 runs was, wait for it…LOL…2.596 sec…ummm, that’s pretty close to 2.6 sec, which I quoted. Oh, and where did he say without the 1 foot rollout. To the contrary, further into the video, he shows the face of the measurement box, and it CLEARLY shows “1 foot rollout: ON”. 😱
Sorry, not buying the 0.2 reduction by turning off the PSM. Oh, and let me save you a lot of time - you’ve been wrong in just about everything you’ve said…on this thread, and others. As such, I don’t believe anything you say. So, continue to knock yourself out.
What I will believe, however, are 0-60 times from people that have the M-engineering flash on their 992S with chrono+PDK.
Again, work on your reading comprehension. really.
..and yet, here you are, again, and again…..arguing about something, to quote you, “do not mater much to you”. LOL. Priceless. 😂
Sorry, not buying the 0.2 reduction by turning off the PSM. Oh, and let me save you a lot of time - you’ve been wrong in just about everything you’ve said…on this thread, and others. As such, I don’t believe anything you say. So, continue to knock yourself out.
What I will believe, however, are 0-60 times from people that have the M-engineering flash on their 992S with chrono+PDK.
Again, work on your reading comprehension. really.
..and yet, here you are, again, and again…..arguing about something, to quote you, “do not mater much to you”. LOL. Priceless. 😂
confirmation bias, the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional and often results in ignoring inconsistent information. Existing beliefs can include one’s expectations in a given situation and predictions about a particular outcome. People are especially likely to process information to support their own beliefs when the issue is highly important or self-relevant.
#94
Well, the best I was able to do was a 3.09 - definitely a bit disappointed as that’s what I expected stock. I let off around 110 and hit a 11.2 1/4, so I think the main issue is traction. Might mess with the tire pressures and try again. This was on the 93-map.
#95
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
A tuned C2S will never be as fast as a stock TTS.
Can't fight hardware advantages of larger turbos with software.
And even if a tune could theoretically make the C2S faster than the TTS, how durable would it be? I wouldn't want to be the owner to find out.
Can't fight hardware advantages of larger turbos with software.
And even if a tune could theoretically make the C2S faster than the TTS, how durable would it be? I wouldn't want to be the owner to find out.
#96
Having owned pro-tuned cars in the past, they’re as reliable as the tuner who tunes them. Stock maps are usually conservative and run unnecessarily rich to protect the car.
Last edited by RoughRider911; 04-25-2022 at 01:37 AM.
#97
For some questioning the real power difference of the M-Eng tune.. 0-60 isn’t the best way (tho I get that’s this thread but not quite sure how it evolved from talking about the base and getting into the S models); 60-130 is a better indicator of power imo
on my C2S pdk, stock 60-130 dragy was 9.5 which is close to the average.
Tuned on stage 2 with catless dowpipes, the best time I’ve gotten was 7.1… I know it can be slightly better in colder temps. Still a huge jump.
7’s to low 8’s is supercar territory. A stock Audi R8 v10 perf, for reference, is around 7.3
A stock TTS is already in the 6’s however…
on my C2S pdk, stock 60-130 dragy was 9.5 which is close to the average.
Tuned on stage 2 with catless dowpipes, the best time I’ve gotten was 7.1… I know it can be slightly better in colder temps. Still a huge jump.
7’s to low 8’s is supercar territory. A stock Audi R8 v10 perf, for reference, is around 7.3
A stock TTS is already in the 6’s however…
Last edited by reddsektor; 04-25-2022 at 01:39 AM.
The following 4 users liked this post by reddsektor:
#98
For some questioning the real power difference of the M-Eng tune.. 0-60 isn’t the best way (tho I get that’s this thread but not quite sure how it evolved from talking about the base and getting into the S models); 60-130 is a better indicator imo
on my C2S pdk, stock 60-130 dragy was 9.5 which is close to the average.
Tuned on stage 2 with catless dowpipes, the best time I’ve gotten was 7.1… I know it can be slightly better in colder temps. Still a huge jump.
7’s to low 8’s is supercar territory. A stock Audi R8 v10 perf, for reference, is around 7.3
A stock TTS is already in the 6’s however…
on my C2S pdk, stock 60-130 dragy was 9.5 which is close to the average.
Tuned on stage 2 with catless dowpipes, the best time I’ve gotten was 7.1… I know it can be slightly better in colder temps. Still a huge jump.
7’s to low 8’s is supercar territory. A stock Audi R8 v10 perf, for reference, is around 7.3
A stock TTS is already in the 6’s however…
I completely agree with you.
#99
I don't understand why so much comparison to a turbo S. It's just whishfull thinking. You can expect a tuned 4s to be equal or faster than a 640hp turboS
I am happy with my tune. it adds exactly the power the car was missing where it was missing it. I think it falls slightly short of the turbo and I am fine with that.
I like the way it pulls from 30 to 80, or on the highway 80 to 120. keeps the c7 and c8 guys in check. I don't even think 0 to 60 makes any more sense. That's one of the reasons that so many people are moving back to manuals. the faster you get fast the less time you enjoy getting fast.
I am happy with my tune. it adds exactly the power the car was missing where it was missing it. I think it falls slightly short of the turbo and I am fine with that.
I like the way it pulls from 30 to 80, or on the highway 80 to 120. keeps the c7 and c8 guys in check. I don't even think 0 to 60 makes any more sense. That's one of the reasons that so many people are moving back to manuals. the faster you get fast the less time you enjoy getting fast.
#100
That is with a tune on 992S, with chrono+PDK? Really? With roll out deduction? The best I’ve pulled was 3.09, but consistently in 3.1x…with the rollout deduction - stock car. 11.2 for 1/4 mile is pretty much stock time. By the way, the draggy has an error of 0.03 sec, so times of 3.09 and 3.1 are essentially the same. Many car sources only list times to the tenth decimal, so either they truncate the number in the hundredth, of they round up/down…
I’d check with M-Engineering to see what their comments are?
Last edited by CodyBigdog; 04-25-2022 at 10:29 AM.
#101
For some questioning the real power difference of the M-Eng tune.. 0-60 isn’t the best way (tho I get that’s this thread but not quite sure how it evolved from talking about the base and getting into the S models); 60-130 is a better indicator of power imo
on my C2S pdk, stock 60-130 dragy was 9.5 which is close to the average.
Tuned on stage 2 with catless dowpipes, the best time I’ve gotten was 7.1… I know it can be slightly better in colder temps. Still a huge jump.
7’s to low 8’s is supercar territory. A stock Audi R8 v10 perf, for reference, is around 7.3
A stock TTS is already in the 6’s however…
on my C2S pdk, stock 60-130 dragy was 9.5 which is close to the average.
Tuned on stage 2 with catless dowpipes, the best time I’ve gotten was 7.1… I know it can be slightly better in colder temps. Still a huge jump.
7’s to low 8’s is supercar territory. A stock Audi R8 v10 perf, for reference, is around 7.3
A stock TTS is already in the 6’s however…
Yes, I agree that 30-70, 40-80, etc are far more relevant on the street…eg, entrance ramp acceleration, etc. With 60-130 maybe a relevant metric for the track.
The 0-60 is just a metric that every car manufacturer and car magazine have listed for decades Porsche, for example, only gives the 0-60 times. As cars have gotten more powerful and faster, maybe 0-60mph has become irrelevant?
Last edited by CodyBigdog; 04-25-2022 at 10:34 AM.
#102
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
For some questioning the real power difference of the M-Eng tune.. 0-60 isn’t the best way (tho I get that’s this thread but not quite sure how it evolved from talking about the base and getting into the S models); 60-130 is a better indicator of power imo
on my C2S pdk, stock 60-130 dragy was 9.5 which is close to the average.
Tuned on stage 2 with catless dowpipes, the best time I’ve gotten was 7.1… I know it can be slightly better in colder temps. Still a huge jump.
7’s to low 8’s is supercar territory. A stock Audi R8 v10 perf, for reference, is around 7.3
A stock TTS is already in the 6’s however…
on my C2S pdk, stock 60-130 dragy was 9.5 which is close to the average.
Tuned on stage 2 with catless dowpipes, the best time I’ve gotten was 7.1… I know it can be slightly better in colder temps. Still a huge jump.
7’s to low 8’s is supercar territory. A stock Audi R8 v10 perf, for reference, is around 7.3
A stock TTS is already in the 6’s however…
Once you start going through the gears you really feel it pull way harder. I would agree that I suspect a 60-130 time would be far more illustrative of the difference that the tune makes than the 0-60 time
#103
I don't understand why so much comparison to a turbo S. It's just whishfull thinking. You can expect a tuned 4s to be equal or faster than a 640hp turboS
I am happy with my tune. it adds exactly the power the car was missing where it was missing it. I think it falls slightly short of the turbo and I am fine with that.
I like the way it pulls from 30 to 80, or on the highway 80 to 120. keeps the c7 and c8 guys in check. I don't even think 0 to 60 makes any more sense. That's one of the reasons that so many people are moving back to manuals. the faster you get fast the less time you enjoy getting fast.
I am happy with my tune. it adds exactly the power the car was missing where it was missing it. I think it falls slightly short of the turbo and I am fine with that.
I like the way it pulls from 30 to 80, or on the highway 80 to 120. keeps the c7 and c8 guys in check. I don't even think 0 to 60 makes any more sense. That's one of the reasons that so many people are moving back to manuals. the faster you get fast the less time you enjoy getting fast.
Oh, and why the comparison to the TT-S?…well, in straight line acceleration, the TT-S is the gold standard in the Porsche lineup (for all practical purpose).
Have you measured any times, say, 30-70, 40-80 or 80-120? The sensation of more HP is one thing, quantifying, is quite another. I’d be interested to hear what those times are?
Last edited by CodyBigdog; 04-25-2022 at 11:03 AM.
#104
Exactly. Until the turbos fully kick in and you are well north of 4K RPM, the car with the M Engineering tune only feels slightly different than stock.
Once you start going through the gears you really feel it pull way harder. I would agree that I suspect a 60-130 time would be far more illustrative of the difference that the tune makes than the 0-60 time
Once you start going through the gears you really feel it pull way harder. I would agree that I suspect a 60-130 time would be far more illustrative of the difference that the tune makes than the 0-60 time
Then, per your comment, the 30 HP tune on the GTS has better performance/torque off the line, than does the M-Engineering tune? Interesting.
Unless I’m tracking, I doubt I will routinely ever be able to use/test 80-130mph. Roads are way too crowded where I live to go much above 20-30mph above the posted limit…lest I get charged with reckless driving. 40-80mph is a more realistic, highway on-ramp range…and 0-60 is something I can try every time I go out for a drive.
Fior me - this discussion has been very useful, and saved me $2,400. I’m not interested in the power bump, if the only improvements I see on the clock, are from 80-130mph. Appreciate the discussion folks. Out.
Last edited by CodyBigdog; 04-25-2022 at 10:59 AM.
#105
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
^ No, I never said that. I have no idea how the GTS performs.
What I do know is that with 93 octane my boost hits 18 PSI below 4000 RPM (higher than Carrera S stock) and peaks at 25-28 psi after that based on datalogs I've looked at and based also on barometric pressures at my altitude
What I do know is that with 93 octane my boost hits 18 PSI below 4000 RPM (higher than Carrera S stock) and peaks at 25-28 psi after that based on datalogs I've looked at and based also on barometric pressures at my altitude