DJF1

well said...

William S

Colin,
You ought to send a set of your parts out to one of the well-known 993 motor builders here in the States (Jeff Gamroth, for example) and have them run an independent test. If you can conduct a true scientific test (controls, same motor, dyno, etc) that confirms your claims, you will have tons of customers here in the US.

stedge

And if you need a donor car....

DaveM993

pick me.

mgianzero

Colin,

I know you've been working on your modified heads for the SAI ports, but how does one get around the 100-cell cat problems here in States?

Anyone can correct me if I'm way off on this, but I thought the 100-cell cats can generate CEL on the OBDII cars. Also, EVEN if we can get them to run, would it be considered street legal in California? Anyone know of any 100-cell cats that are?

David in LA

IIRC the rule in California is that NO modifications are allowed for the intake, emmisions and exhaust sytem UNLESS the part is CARB approved - and hence why there is a visual check in addition to the test itself. So drilled airboxes, RSR mufflers, Supercups, etc can cause you to fail since none of these have a CARB number. The TPC supercharger is another example...it does not cause increased emmisions but will fail the visual check since it is not CARB approved.

Sorry but I don't know anything about a 100 cell cat, which IMHO adds little benefit to a NA motor with stock internals.

DaveM993

I read the Ninemeister article in Total 911 today. WOW!...

Colin...given the number of rebuilds is only going to increase, they sure make a case for this route when you do.

Excellent article...and nice mug shot!

Hope to see something in the US someday soon!!!

Caveman

David,

Try a car with sports cats and compare. I have them and the car is a lot less restricted. It definitely feels like it has gained a few horses. ;-)

Cheers,

David

pcar964

Colin is not familiar with our laws here in the States. For instance, when introducing a new product, you MUST test the product in Florida first because of the "Columbus clause" in our Constitution. I will offer my car as a donor.

Jean

Robin, no big deal at all, I did not know you worked for 4T, I understand, it might have been disclosed somewhere else on the forum I did not see it. So we are talking here about your own designed heads. Congratulations. Being a scientific person, I am sure you value questions and challenges on the product
I fully agree with you, and in fact I am very glad you raise this point which I always try to explain to quartermile fans. To compare true performance, gearbox and weight must be known, which they are here. Would you say 50-100mph should give a decent picture about performance to similar N/A cars g where Kg/HP and gears are known? I guess there is not much 150mph acceleration data out there to compare against and aerodynamics will also be a great uknown depending on the tests (head wind etc..).
Sorry I don't agree here based on what I have seen,mainly on turbocharged engines however, logic would say they do, but this is not scientifically correct. This is no dyno debate anyway, and I applaud the fact that you guys did a rolling test, which is the real way to look at performance.

I would have loved to have the AX22 datalogs as this would have given much more flexibility to conduct an analysis at different speeds. I will stick to 50-100mph if you believe it is good enough...
Thanks John, I appreciate it. I will take a look at the data. I am interested to know how much faster a car with these heads and 4.0 Ltrs can be, are we in turbo territory?

NineMeister

Thanks for everyone's words of encouragement.



Jean,
Unfortunately the first 4.0 litre engine is in a customers car and we have not had the chance to test it other than on the dyno.

Because of time constraints we only managed to record two runs in each car so the results were using the "best of" feature of the AX22 software although this was carefully checked for each car to ensure that gearchanges were included in the times. From the two runs and one extra standing start the theoretical best 60-130 time of the 3.8 in my RS CS (stock gearing) is 10.0 secs dead, but the best from one run was 10.22sec. Remenber that this was on a totally flat runway tested in one direction only against a slight headwind of around 10-15mph (according to the airfield controller). The weight of the car on the day was 1280kg with lardy driver onboard () - I will post a picture of the speed/time graph in my next post (data is on my laptop). How does this compare with your known turbo results??

In dyno testing the 4.0 litre showed 40-50Nm improvements right across the rev range compared to the best ever pull of my 3.8 when the engine was fresh last year, thus I would guess that the 4.0 could post a 60-130 in the low 9.0s given identical conditions.

NineMeister

Jean,

Here is the 60-130 run for my 3.8 as promised:

Dudley

SimonExtreme

I started to write a long, indignent response to the doubters but in the end, I really cannot be a##ed! I think most people on here are intelegent enough to make up their own minds. However, it does seem to me that some people would need a full vet's report on whether an animal that looks like a dog, smells like a dog, behaves like a dog and barks like a dog really is a dog. Maybe there is a chance its a cat

briefescape

That`s funny but sad at the same time because it is TRUE !!!!