This is very wide of the mark and misleading.

All maps provided by aftermarket tuners for turbo cars increase boost pressure, fuelling and timing compared to stock.
OTS maps from all tuners are conservative and are not warranty friendly by the very nature that boost pressure (and other associated parameters) have been changed.

Stock OEM max boost pressure on the 992 GTS is 1.3 bar (18.8psi).

SOURCE

Cobb stage one increases boost to a max of 23 or 24 psi, fuel dependant

SOURCE

M-Engineering doesn't publish any calibration notes regarding boost changes that I can find but I am in no doubt that their maps do exactly the same.

Tuning turbo cars is a relatively simple concept: increase boost pressure means more air in, thus requires increased fuelling (increased injector duty cycle) to maintain the correct AFR, which in turn increases cylinder cooling that allows more timing to be run.

There is no such thing as a "fuel map." You can only increase fuelling if you are increasing the volume of air in otherwise the AFR is changed.

Finally the M-Engineering maps can be removed back to stock (just like COBB AP) with no evidence of a mapping having being undertaken other than any ECU stored data related to fuelling, boost pressure. If a dealer or Porsche themselves look for that if your engine goes pop, there'll be no warranty.

The only differences between COBB and M-Eng is the AP unit from COBB (rather than a laptop) and your own brand loyalty.

I've used COBB on my R35s before and M-Eng on my last 2 992s.

Personally I have found M-Eng excellent to deal with and the map I run has been solid and safe.

 

I’d be interested in seeing actual 0-60, 1/8mile and 1/4 mile run comparison results…from any or both aftermarket tunes…done by the manufacturers or better yet, from an independent/neutral 3rd party….for any/all of the 3 992 models: base, S or GTS.

We’ve all seen the HP and torque graphs listed on their web sites, but yet to see any actual published comparisons of run times…even a before and after lap time on a track would be nice? Surprised C&D or any of the other car outlets hasn’t done this?

 

that's why @Flat6Motorsports is our testing hero.

 

Maybe take the time and actually read thru some of the threads… like the one Flat6 did of their base992 build with the M-engineering tune, that has their published comparisons of 0-60, 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile times...

 

Nobody has taken one to the 1/4 track and posted a timeslip. There is a track close by.

 

Nice try, but if you had read Flat6 post above, they mention they haven’t tested COBB yet.

I have read through a LOT of the threads on tuning…haven’t seen a before and after comparison to 60, 1/8 and 1/4 mile for both the M and COBB tunes.

Is there a thread specifically labeled “before and after tuning comparisons”, that compare times of the M and COBB tunes? If so, haven’t seen it….maybe you can point it out instead of trying to be snarky? 🤔

 

Nicer try. You’re the one being snarky since you always come on here claiming there aren’t any numbers.

Your previous post READS “from any or both aftermarket tunes”

So keyword ANY, not BOTH or AND, which you’re conveniently changing your words to now. That is why I pointed to M-engineering numbers. Flat6 even has a lap time. I’m sure you couldn’t have missed it.

 

As I said, I haven’t seen any 60, 1/8 or 1/4 mile comparisons, per the topic of the thread, between M and COBB tunes for the 992 base, S, or GTS…

But rather than exchange snarky comments, feel free to link to where I can see such comparisons?



Key wording here, per what i asked, and is the topic of the thread, “comparisons”, ie, COBB vs M-Engineering. Can’t have a time comparison between the two different tunes, unless you have both (implied). That said, my statement was confusing. By “any” I meant test times from anyone, ie, any source…but to make the comparison, we need at least one from COBB and one from M, or “both”. The point being - I realize that there are a lot of owners that have tuned their cars….some with COBB and others with M-Engineering. Collectively, I assume that either the owners themselves, or the folks that sell the tune, have tested times. So, if that is the case, it would be nice to have a post, or thread, comparing the times…even if from different (ie, “any”) sources (not ideal, but better than having nothing). I’ve seen all the dyno graphs.



Explained above.

 

“from any or both aftermarket tunes” can really only be interpreted as just that - any or either of these tunes. But your “intention” of meaning “anyone” in that sentence doesn’t really make sense.

Either way, there definitely aren’t any Cobb times posted yet so I agree we don’t have a comparison yet. But there are M-engineering times posted, like I have in many threads of 0-60 and 60-130 (others with 1/4 miles) pre and post tune... do you agree on that? Or are you saying you haven’t even seen those?

 

It’s been a while, but have seen a couple of YouTube M-Engineering time tests on the 992 Turbo, but since I don’t have the Turbo, were of little interest to me. If memory serves me, they were not a pre and post tune comparison….but with that said, there’s a lot of data available for run times on stock 992’s. The main value of having pre tune numbers, from the same person/car, under nearly identical conditions….makes the comparison more controlled. It’s like some dyno numbers I’ve seen…they can differ depending on the equipment, and how the test is performed.

That said, I do check in, from time to time, on various M-Engineering Rennlist threads regarding their tunes….but since most of these threads are about such issues as dyno results (for different stages), or warranty concerns, or ease of installation, or preserving the factory settings, triggered warning lights, etc…I usually don’t closely follow.

But it would not surprise me that there are pre and post tune time numbers on some of these threads…I just haven’t seen any….but admit I don’t closely follow.

It would be nice to have just one thread that is exclusive to times and trap speed (not dyno curves, or installation/warranty related things, etc), with a multitude of variables, including different tune stages from different tuners, model of 992, pre- and post tune comparisons would also be nice. A thread where people that have done these tunes can post their results. That’s more what i am looking for - as someone on the edge of getting a tune, as a consumer, I’m looking for one stop shopping for comparisons I can use to decide what tune is best for my interests.

As a side issue - one of my (and others I know from Rennlist) complaint is most threads on here often get side tracked on unrelated issues…I find myself “unsubscribing” on a lot of threads for that reason.

 

https://rennlist.com/forums/992/1327...torsports.html

Flat6’s M-eng thread that has 0-60, 1/8 and 1/4 as well as lap times for the base992 pre and post tune. They also then added GTS turbos and did the retune so essentially 992 S pre/post tune times were also added.

Myself for the 992 S pdk on M-eng tune, my 0-60 went from 3.3 stock to 3.0 (stage2 93 octane), and my 60-130 from 9.3 to 7.3 which is a significant jump. Others have reported similar times/deltas as well.

 

Thank you very much. The thread was about a year ago, so doubt I would have found it….especially given the title. I have a fully stock PDK 992S (no mods), and Draggy consistently shows about 3.2, and 3.0 (with standard rollout deduction). Note the 4% slope incline, so if perfectly flat, it might have been a tick faster? It’s 2WD, so get a tiny bit of wheel slippage off the line. Also, this is street time (so no surface prep). 1/8 mile is a tick below 7.3 @92mph. Unfortunately, the street where i test (an abandoned airport access road) is not long enough to do a 1/4 mile run. But I need to make a few 1/4 tests before I get a tune. Thx again.

I hope one day there’s a dedicated thread just on times, where people can easily access to see what others have been able to do with various tunes, or other mods? IMO, that would be a worthwhile thread to consolidate alll the different data.

 

those are great times. i was able to consistently hit ~ 3.6 using launch control at 4500 ft above sea level and a DA or 7000 feet in my 992 base. that makes sense you hitting 3.2.

i have wanted to see if i could get to 3.0s with a tune at my altitude. seems it will require more hardware.

 

Yes, definitely tougher at higher altitudes…but your numbers are still good.

With just a tune (no hardware mods), I was hoping to get below 3.0 (with no correction). But I’m beginning to think that won’t happen with 2WD …but major benefits once it gets rolling?

 

i think this is my best time. if anything people can see a good run on a stock s vs base on the 992. you will for sure get into the high 2s with just a stage 1 m-tune.