Any differences in track with non-vram and vram 993's?
05-21-2002, 11:16 AM
#31
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Now with regards with some saying that 95 models via chipping can be similar or equal to the varioram models. Is it that easy or there's more to the equation then just chipping it? Also I know hp looks pretty neglible but the midrange torque seems pretty significant (199 vs 243 ft/lbs) so is that trq value true and would just only chipping the 95 model will give that kind of torque value? Regards. Mike
05-21-2002, 11:50 AM
#32
Rennlist Member
[quote]Originally posted by Martin Schacht:
<strong>See the post below...I read the intro question and responded...then I read the post. The question in the post is about M cars, the question in the heading is about Varioram and non-Varioram cars at the track. I don't know one thing about Bimmers, except that they come from the Carolinas, or is it Munich? Not really certain..but I do know that Varioram provides 12 incremental HP over non Varioram cars, and some mid-range torque. I doubt that you'd feel this at the track...but only you would know by driving identically prepared cars, one with and one without Varioram. Of course you would have to drive the identical line and track conditions would have to remain constant over the time of the test (Not likely).
Hey I'll take 12 HP any way I can get it...it came with the car, and it is on the 993RS so it must be good!!! Look at what you have to spend to get an additional 12HP over and above Varioram...such a deal!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>See the post below...I read the intro question and responded...then I read the post. The question in the post is about M cars, the question in the heading is about Varioram and non-Varioram cars at the track. I don't know one thing about Bimmers, except that they come from the Carolinas, or is it Munich? Not really certain..but I do know that Varioram provides 12 incremental HP over non Varioram cars, and some mid-range torque. I doubt that you'd feel this at the track...but only you would know by driving identically prepared cars, one with and one without Varioram. Of course you would have to drive the identical line and track conditions would have to remain constant over the time of the test (Not likely).
Hey I'll take 12 HP any way I can get it...it came with the car, and it is on the 993RS so it must be good!!! Look at what you have to spend to get an additional 12HP over and above Varioram...such a deal!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
05-22-2002, 07:09 AM
#33
Rennlist Member
Hey Guys,
Wasnt the Supercup 993 non varioram. I heard that gear adds a few pounds - and those cars were around 300+hp. Ive tracked against them and can attest to their ability to beat virtually all other naturaly aspirated models Ive seen go up against them. Obviously weight helps.
Cheers
Wasnt the Supercup 993 non varioram. I heard that gear adds a few pounds - and those cars were around 300+hp. Ive tracked against them and can attest to their ability to beat virtually all other naturaly aspirated models Ive seen go up against them. Obviously weight helps.
Cheers
05-22-2002, 09:09 AM
#34
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Macca:
The 993 Supercup’s intake was similar to the 94-95 993’s two stage system. The difference being a 200 cc engine displacement increase, racing cams, larger valves and ports and, as you mentioned, different gearing and significantly reduced weight. There were plenty of other race parts liberally sprinkled throughout the suspension and chassis. Power was rated at 310 HP for ’95 and 315 for the ’96-’98 models. Slicks and an aerodynamics package help get the car around the track pretty quickly too.
Hank
The 993 Supercup’s intake was similar to the 94-95 993’s two stage system. The difference being a 200 cc engine displacement increase, racing cams, larger valves and ports and, as you mentioned, different gearing and significantly reduced weight. There were plenty of other race parts liberally sprinkled throughout the suspension and chassis. Power was rated at 310 HP for ’95 and 315 for the ’96-’98 models. Slicks and an aerodynamics package help get the car around the track pretty quickly too.
Hank
05-22-2002, 10:02 AM
#35
Rennlist Member
[quote]Originally posted by Hank Cohn:
<strong>Macca:
The 993 Supercup’s intake was similar to the 94-95 993’s two stage system.....
Hank</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very interesting - a two stage intake system, sort of a baby varioram! As I understand it, there is a butterfly valve that opens at a certain rpm. I think it positively affects the hp curve at higher rpms, but I have no idea how it does this, or even if this is the real purpose of this. I wonder if 964's have this?
<strong>Macca:
The 993 Supercup’s intake was similar to the 94-95 993’s two stage system.....
Hank</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very interesting - a two stage intake system, sort of a baby varioram! As I understand it, there is a butterfly valve that opens at a certain rpm. I think it positively affects the hp curve at higher rpms, but I have no idea how it does this, or even if this is the real purpose of this. I wonder if 964's have this?
05-22-2002, 10:09 AM
#36
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Oleg:
I know that 95 993s (street cars) have it (two stage intake) and I think that 964s used the same system although I am not sure. I actually don't know very much about the 993 Supercup intake. It is probably not a two stage system as it only needs to work well above 5000 RPMs, but I don't know. There are a few 993 Supercup owners on this board who can probably answer the question.
Hank
I know that 95 993s (street cars) have it (two stage intake) and I think that 964s used the same system although I am not sure. I actually don't know very much about the 993 Supercup intake. It is probably not a two stage system as it only needs to work well above 5000 RPMs, but I don't know. There are a few 993 Supercup owners on this board who can probably answer the question.
Hank
05-22-2002, 10:51 AM
#37
Guys:
As far as I know, the '95 Cup cars used the same plastic intake runners as the street cars. The Varioram was deemed too heavy and finicky to be worth much on an all-out race car. The Super Cup cars also dispensed with the Mass-Air Sensor and, as a result, had a pretty lumpy idle. Since the cars came in at a svelte 2,400 lbs., they were quick. And it wasn't too hard to tweak the Motronics to get 300-315 h.p.
Lee in D.C.
'95 RSCS
As far as I know, the '95 Cup cars used the same plastic intake runners as the street cars. The Varioram was deemed too heavy and finicky to be worth much on an all-out race car. The Super Cup cars also dispensed with the Mass-Air Sensor and, as a result, had a pretty lumpy idle. Since the cars came in at a svelte 2,400 lbs., they were quick. And it wasn't too hard to tweak the Motronics to get 300-315 h.p.
Lee in D.C.
'95 RSCS
05-22-2002, 11:28 AM
#38
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Back to the original question about Varioram vs. Non-Varioram. I did some crude conversions from Newton-Meters to Foot-Pounds and KW to HP to create an Excel spreadsheet. The conversions are not exact, but I used the same formula on both Varioram and Non Varioram, so any errors should at least be comparable. I was surprised to see just how big the difference really is – especially in the midrange!
Varioram Advantage
RPM HP Torque
1000 0 0
1500 0 4
2000 1 9
2500 9 9
3000 20 20
3500 27 31
4000 24 36
4500 12 14
5000 8 4
5500 10 8
6000 14 4
6500 22 10
Varioram Advantage
RPM HP Torque
1000 0 0
1500 0 4
2000 1 9
2500 9 9
3000 20 20
3500 27 31
4000 24 36
4500 12 14
5000 8 4
5500 10 8
6000 14 4
6500 22 10
05-22-2002, 05:15 PM
#41
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Wow, long thread.
Unfortunately, no one really answers the question...
Well, I will solve that.
Last week I instructed at a drivers ed event, and low & behold, my student had a very nice 1996 varioram 993. I had my car there (1995 non-varioram) so I got to do a direct comparison.
Now how is that for "on topic?"
Here ya go:
Car run down: My 1995 993 coupe: Basically stock, 17 inch street tires (stock size), H&R springs though, and RSR mufflers from Robin. Full street equipped. Left spare tire in place even!
Student car: 1996 coupe. Basic & stock, 17 inch street tires (again stock size), as factory equipped, spare tire in place also.
I drove them both with equal gusto. I did not get abusive w/ either.
The nod would have to go to the 1995.
Now before you discount that because of the H&R springs, or bias because I own the 1995, keep in mind that I took that into consideration before this comparison / rating.
The '95 was a better lapper, period. Its simple. The '95 is lighter, it did run cooler, it passed a heck of a lot of varioram cars, and could pull on or away from them all down the straight (I may have had better exit speed then some though).
Essentially, it still rings true that the whole lot of 993's are very fine machines. It is also true that the '95 would be a great pick for anyone. I don't think you could go wrong with the choices in anyway - anyhow.
Not bad.
Unfortunately, no one really answers the question...
Well, I will solve that.
Last week I instructed at a drivers ed event, and low & behold, my student had a very nice 1996 varioram 993. I had my car there (1995 non-varioram) so I got to do a direct comparison.
Now how is that for "on topic?"
Here ya go:
Car run down: My 1995 993 coupe: Basically stock, 17 inch street tires (stock size), H&R springs though, and RSR mufflers from Robin. Full street equipped. Left spare tire in place even!
Student car: 1996 coupe. Basic & stock, 17 inch street tires (again stock size), as factory equipped, spare tire in place also.
I drove them both with equal gusto. I did not get abusive w/ either.
The nod would have to go to the 1995.
Now before you discount that because of the H&R springs, or bias because I own the 1995, keep in mind that I took that into consideration before this comparison / rating.
The '95 was a better lapper, period. Its simple. The '95 is lighter, it did run cooler, it passed a heck of a lot of varioram cars, and could pull on or away from them all down the straight (I may have had better exit speed then some though).
Essentially, it still rings true that the whole lot of 993's are very fine machines. It is also true that the '95 would be a great pick for anyone. I don't think you could go wrong with the choices in anyway - anyhow.
Not bad.
05-22-2002, 05:38 PM
#42
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Do you think that your 1.5 seconds had something to do with the suspension setup on the 95 vs. the stock suspension on the 96? You said you took that into consideration so did you allow for some time on the laps then? For instance I bet the 96 was at least 1" higher than the 95. Could make the difference right there.
Was there mileage differences between the cars? The could make a significant differences given shock/suspension wear and other factors? Do you do identical driving so the cars have the same amount of carbonization, etc? Lots of factors!
There is a significant difference between track and city drivablity in the city. For instance a great car on the track with a peak power band at high rpms could be great on the track but not in the city. Have you also driven and compared the cars during normal driving to see if the fatter torque curve makes a difference?
Pulling away from cars on the straight does not make much sense and certainly are not supported by the claimed HP numbers given identical cars and very little difference in weight. Given there is a human behind the wheel did you not push your friends car as hard? I know I would if I was comparing cars and taking my friends 96 out on the track...I would not push it as hard.
Interestingly enough I actually don't care either way...I wanted a Targa so there was no choice anyways... But its always fun to discuss!
<img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />
Was there mileage differences between the cars? The could make a significant differences given shock/suspension wear and other factors? Do you do identical driving so the cars have the same amount of carbonization, etc? Lots of factors!
There is a significant difference between track and city drivablity in the city. For instance a great car on the track with a peak power band at high rpms could be great on the track but not in the city. Have you also driven and compared the cars during normal driving to see if the fatter torque curve makes a difference?
Pulling away from cars on the straight does not make much sense and certainly are not supported by the claimed HP numbers given identical cars and very little difference in weight. Given there is a human behind the wheel did you not push your friends car as hard? I know I would if I was comparing cars and taking my friends 96 out on the track...I would not push it as hard.
Interestingly enough I actually don't care either way...I wanted a Targa so there was no choice anyways... But its always fun to discuss!
<img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />
05-22-2002, 05:53 PM
#43
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I think that maybe you didn't want to push your student's car as much as yours. If I was driving someone else's car I would have reservations about pushing it for fear of damage. Also I do think with the springs it does make a big difference in handling and track times as well so it would be a hard comparison betwen the two cars. I think if you compared a stock 993 suspension car(whichever year but the same year model for both) to one with a modified suspension-I think hands down in the track the modded one will do better with same driver. Regards. Mike
05-22-2002, 06:14 PM
#44
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Michael B.:
I have to agree with some of the other guys. You say that they both had street tires, but we all know what a huge difference tires can make. If they were the same brand and similar from a wear point of view, that would be different, but street tire to street tire doesn’t mean much. Also, like someone else wrote, a lowered car with a lower center of gravity can pay huge dividends in cornering. Additionally, how similar were the alignment settings and tire pressures? Lastly, I posted an analysis this morning showing the difference between the two cars (power and torque) and I am not aware of a significant weight difference between the two model years. There are just too many variables to call your informal test conclusive. It is, however, interesting to read your analysis.
Hank
I have to agree with some of the other guys. You say that they both had street tires, but we all know what a huge difference tires can make. If they were the same brand and similar from a wear point of view, that would be different, but street tire to street tire doesn’t mean much. Also, like someone else wrote, a lowered car with a lower center of gravity can pay huge dividends in cornering. Additionally, how similar were the alignment settings and tire pressures? Lastly, I posted an analysis this morning showing the difference between the two cars (power and torque) and I am not aware of a significant weight difference between the two model years. There are just too many variables to call your informal test conclusive. It is, however, interesting to read your analysis.
Hank