pcar964

Agree. That's why I'm either doing the 9M heads, or biting the bullet and dropping a Turbocharged monster in my 993. My 993 will not be outclassed, by an measure

SinVancouver

So after reading the article.. I know there have been many discussions about how to perform these upgrades in NA. The article seems to state clearly that its all bolt on and not any different than a topend job just replacing parts.. the only catch is the live ecu remap.

So the question is.. as the parts are available now.. the wrenching is nothing out of standard.. how much of a diff does live remaping make over a more generic remap? I am assuming you could get 90% of the way there with a generic map for engines by type (year, VR, NVR etc) and forgoe live remap.

Does this sound right? If so then you could order all the parts, ship them here have a local wrench ( a good one like Rennsport ) do the top end rebuild with perhaps a chip from GIAC (I would think they would jump to remap a car once its done to help with the variances of local cars with gas quality etc compared with UK)

NineMeister answer my daydreams

Scott.

Robin 993 c2

I have not looked at rennlist for a month or more, due to work and life getting in the way. Anyway I think that i should give an update on my car, I am now on 110,000 miles, that is 12,000 or so on the 9M 4T head conversion, it is still going strong. I have let 4 993 owners who have been considering an upgrade have a drive, 2 of them have gone for the upgrade, the others said that it is great and when funds permit they would go for it..... so it can't be too bad. The car has been absolutely faultless, with the only problem being keeping my licence and tread on the rear tyres. It is so nicely mannered and takes the extra performance very well. I too love the stealth look of the standard 993 and for me AC is a must.
9M/4T are looking for good tuners in the USA who could do this excellent conversion. The first Turbo heads will be finished soon and they incorperate lots of features that will improve the life and the sealing. There is a SAI version. So come on lets get some out there.
Robin

Caveman

Hi Robin,

I'm glad to hear your car is going so well.

Next time I am over in Essex dropping the car off at Autostrasse I must pay you a visit... :-)

Cheers,

David

Jean

Colin, where are those TT cars that you offered for testing, we never saw any runs, and sooner rather than later they disappeared. Have you posted AX22 datalogs for other cars? Maybe I did not see them Your dyno figures are not accurate as long as you sustain getting 550HP from stock K24s on a TT engine!

Can anyone post the details of this test. I don't get the magazine where I live. I hope there is clear verified weight comparison and the gearboxes are stock. If someone can post all the times, it would be great for an assessment of HP gains over stock. I knwo they are there, how much is the question. Someone must have the datalogs he can share on or off line???

David in LA

Jean - if you page up the thread a bit you can order this issue of the mag from the publishers website, they will send worldwide.

Robin 993 c2

David you have a PM

Robin 993 c2

The cars did visit the scales at the test, all drivers/ owners did get to drive all other cars, sorry to dissapoint but no funny business, just extra ponies. I can't comment on the TT, but i do know that my car is MUCH faster now than it was before, and when it was stock it made stock power on the 9M dyno, as did the stock cars on the day of the test...... faster is faster, and more is more.
Robin

Jean

David, thanks. I am on the move, and was hoping to get some data in private or public to have fun with. By the time I can order and get a copy it will be 2-3 weeks, but no big deal, I will get my hands on one.

Robin

Being a bit defensive about 9M? I said I have not seen the magazine test and was hoping that weight and gearbox were clearly disclosed since this would make the comparison apples to apples , and maybe help establish that you have 120 HP more, not 60 or 90. I will be happy for you, you are not disappointing me if they work, you are in fact helping me decide maybe. If someone has the AX22 datalogs and can share them, an assessment would be even more accurate.

Faster? Well I hope so for you, what I would like to see is how much in real terms and whether it compares to the HP claims being made, no chassis dyno BS which has proved to be wrong in the past, and compare it to others. Does that go against anyone's principles or is it too much to ask before making an investment of this nature?

Robin 993 c2

Robin

Being a bit defensive about 9M? I said I have not seen the magazine test and was hoping that weight and gearbox were clearly disclosed since this would make the comparison apples to apples , and maybe help establish that you have 120 HP more, not 60 or 90. I will be happy for you, you are not disappointing me if they work, you are in fact helping me decide maybe. If someone has the AX22 datalogs and can share them, an assessment would be even more accurate.

Faster? Well I hope so for you, what I would like to see is how much in real terms and whether it compares to the HP claims being made, no chassis dyno BS which has proved to be wrong in the past, and compare it to others. Does that go against anyone's principles or is it too much to ask before making an investment of this nature? [/QUOTE]

Sorry if I jumped the gun, and I am defensive of 9M, because. I work for 4Tech and set up the test. My background is in F1 and Indy car. I ran the Mercedes F1 engine test team for 6 years and as a consequence tend to take a scientific approach. The biggest variable as you would guess is the standing start, tyres, clutch and the surface do not repeat that well. All cars had standard gearboxs, other than the 9M race car. Rolling road absolute values are always a difficult subject, but then after 15 years working at the high end of motorsports engine development my experience suggests that engine dynos are as easy to fudge and can give misleading results. The 9M rolling road is a good comparison tool and the fact that standard cars give standard power means that the absolute values can't be too far off, unless Porsche are playng the power claim game as well? Anyway knowing that dyno results have little meaning was the motivation for setting up the test day. It was pleaseing to get the expected results on the day, and we had some fun when not testing.
Once more sorry for any offence.
Robin

SinVancouver

Jean you should grab the magazine has full tech detail (no raw data logs in the magazine) but show weights, acceleration times in intervals to 150MPH. No direct mention if gearboxes but as all mods were mentioned I would think any gearbox mods would have been mentioned so I assume they are all stock including the RS have stock RS gearing.

LAT

Robin, I posted this earlier in the thread, what are your thoughts on this subject.

The article claim 435 NM or 120.8 NM per liter. This number is the highest torque output I have ever seen for a normally aspirated engine including racing engines.

Here are some comparisons, according to these 9m/4T head combinations help the old 993 get more torque than the latest liquid cooled 997 GT3RS or the CGT.

9m/4T 993 435 NM or 120.8 NM per lt
Porsche 997 GT3RS 405 NM or 112.5 NM per lt
Porsche Carrera GT 590 NM or 102.9 NM per lt
Lamborghini Gallardo 510 NM or 94.2 NM per lt
Honda NSX-R 305 NM or 95.3 NM per lt
Vette Z06 637 NM or NM 90.9 per lt

Not criticisms just healthy skepticism.

NineMeister

LAT,
Rather than compare unit torque figures I think we should compare the BMEP which is pretty much the industry standard for comparing the overall efficiency of the engine. This is the Brake Mean Effective Pressure for those who have not heard of it, a good explaination of it can be found on this link:

http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-BMEP.htm

The formula given on the link is:

BMEP = 150.8 x Torque (lbft) / Displacement (cu in)

Thus the bmep of the 9m 4.0 litre engine calculates to:

BMEP (peak torque) = 150.8 * 360 / 244 = 222.5psi
BMEP (peak power) = 150.8 * 328 / 244 = 202.7psi

Now for comparison the writer of the link quotes the BMEP figures of two well developed pushrod V8 engines:
circle track = 223.5psi at peak torque, 211psi at peak power
drag race = 232.7psi at peak torque, 209psi at peak power

Hence for my money we are under-achieving but this should be resolved with the new valve train components. Unfortunately I cannot comment on the other engines you mention as We (9m/4T) have not got around to redesigning them yet.

'95 993

Jean,

I have sent you a pm re article (I have an electronic copy)

The cars (excepting Colin's the Race RS) all have std UK gearing

Mine has a LSD if that makes any difference - don't see how it can???

The weight of my car (non varioram) was 1297KG and Robins (Varioram) 1357 as measured on the day!


Hope that helps

John

LAT

Colin

Point of clarification, is the 435 NM a 3.6 or a 4.0 litre engine?

I did not realize from the article that yours was a 4.0 litre engine. I thought it was heads cams and other items but not cylinders and thus a 3.6 litre motor.

Therefore my calculations would be as follows for the BMEP o yoru engine

BMEP (peak torque) = 150.8 * 360 / 220 = 246.7psi
BMEP (peak power) = 150.8 * 328 / 220 = 224.8psi

Now I understand and accept your numbers and you can understand my skepticism on the 246.7 psi or 120 NM per litre.

My equation of NM per litre is exactly the same sort of multiple only metric.


All the best

LAT




LAT