Notices

3.8 Upgrade?

 
Old 03-22-2014, 03:30 PM
  #61  
RS man
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
RS man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,290
Default

For those not in UK, Parr Motorsport is well-known and respected setup
RS man is offline  
Old 03-22-2014, 03:36 PM
  #62  
ToSi
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
ToSi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 655
Default

Originally Posted by NineMeister View Post
I'm hoping that this dyno curve will be an encouragement to your 4.0 project. This is the performance of a 9m built 3.82 litre Singer engine on 9m ITB intake compared to a stock 996GT3RS with its factory twin plenum intake. I'm not sure I see an advantage of using the GT3 intake - maybe I'm missing something?
Curious, your dyno shows peak of 440Nm for the 996 GT3 or ~325ft*lbs in the queen's units. Porsche rated this engine @ 284ft*lbs... is there a correction factor buried in the calculations somewhere & how was it derived?
ToSi is offline  
Old 03-22-2014, 04:00 PM
  #63  
trophy
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
trophy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary...Under my car... :)
Posts: 3,883
Default

Originally Posted by NineMeister View Post
Talk about pot half empty......?


All intake systems have a tuned (resonant) length which is dependent on the diameter, length and volume of the whole intake port & runner - i.e. the cylinder head, manifold, throttle body (if individual) & bellmouth (for ITB) or head, injector stack and runner (for plenum). Those dips in the torque curve that you are looking at are simply points of low VE (volumetric efficiency) which lie in between the harmonic tuned lengths of the runners. Most intake systems peak tune on the 3rd harmonic and have minor peaks on the 4th and 5th harmonics, hence the dip you mention on the 9m engine at 4700rpm is the gap between the 5th and 4th harmonics. Ironically I found it more intriguing that the GT3 intake had larger dips at 4000rpm & 5500rpm between 5th/4th & 4th/3rd harmonics than the 9m ITB system, pointing to the GT3 system relying on resonance for its VE whereas the 9m system relies more on a higher intake velocity and thus being less sensitive to the harmonic tuning.

Interestingly the first time I ever had a drive of a GT3 the first thing I noticed were the peaks and troughs in the torque curve going through the full rpm range at full throttle, whereas I never felt that with the 3.8 engine in my 993RS-R.

Of course, the next stage for 9m is to redesign the whole intake runner to achieve a still higher velocity with strong resonant tuning.....
Not pot half empty or full, just wanting to understand the peaks and troughs of both systems (I did mention that from 4000 to 5000 the situation reversed, in favour of the 9M itb's).

There are many ways of going about intakes on these cars, wanting to learn, and to actually understand the why behind it.

Your information is much appreciated. Also intrigued at how you are going to manage velocity and resonance, will be very interesting.
trophy is offline  
Old 03-22-2014, 06:38 PM
  #64  
[email protected]
Addict
Rennlist Member

Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
Joe@Fabspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 155 Commerce Drive | Fort Washington, PA 19034
Posts: 683
Default

Colin very well designed engineered Porsche engines and components. I would like to have 400 HP on a mixture of pump gas and racing fuel . On my engine what would I need to replace to get there. I am assuming replacing the entire plastic penguins and mad and swapping in your system and appropriate ecu
__________________
Fabspeed Motorsport USA
155 Commerce Drive
Fort Washington, PA. 19034
www.Fabspeed.com

P: 215-646-4945
F: 215-646-9828

Exotic Car Performance Experts
Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren, Maserati, Bentley, Aston Martin, BMW, Audi and Jaguar.

31 year PCA Club member supporter
14 year Ferrari Club member
1st ever financial supporter of Porsche Fans/ Rennlist
Joe@Fabspeed is offline  
Old 03-23-2014, 04:33 PM
  #65  
NineMeister
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
NineMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 4,344
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Colin very well designed engineered Porsche engines and components. I would like to have 400 HP on a mixture of pump gas and racing fuel . On my engine what would I need to replace to get there. I am assuming replacing the entire plastic penguins and mad and swapping in your system and appropriate ecu

The keyword to any successful engine build is synergy, Joe; the mixing and matching components is not the way forward unless you want to carry out your own 10,000 hour engine development program. The engines from the graphs above were run on UK 97 octane pump gas and I would say were pretty much as close to the limit that you could achieve with conventional tuning methods.

The specification of the 425hp 3.82 litre reads something like:
Stock 993 crank (with 7700rpm limit) or GT3 crank (8000+ limit)
9m 132mm centres conrods (or equivalent)
9m 103 pistons & cylinders
9m billet heads
9m Valves, spring kit, Ti retainers
9m Race cams (13mm lift)
9m billet rockers
9m ITB intake system
9m equal length header system (1.75", Burns collectors)
Motec M800 engine management, 9m wiring harness
NineMeister is offline  
Old 03-23-2014, 04:42 PM
  #66  
NineMeister
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
NineMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 4,344
Default

Originally Posted by ToSi View Post
Curious, your dyno shows peak of 440Nm for the 996 GT3 or ~325ft*lbs in the queen's units. Porsche rated this engine @ 284ft*lbs... is there a correction factor buried in the calculations somewhere & how was it derived?
It's a good point which is down to the calculation software of the Dynostar system and one which I have never really been bothered enough to address. All I can tell you is that the hp numbers that the 9m dyno measures has been compared to engine dyno & other chassis dyno results for the same engine are within less than 1% error, which is more than good enough to me. Putting it simply any chassis dyno is a comparative tool, hence I always focus on the differences in the shape of the power curves rather than getting hung up over the absolute numbers. That's why on these plots I'm comparing a championship winning 993RS engine with a known performance yardstick - the 996GT3RS - tested under the same test conditions.

I should also mention that we due to air flow installation on the 9m dyno being specifically designed for air cooled 911 engine testing and mapping we usually see slightly more power when compared to other dyno installations. I see that as an engineering problem that the others need to address, not 9m.

Last edited by NineMeister; 03-23-2014 at 06:52 PM.
NineMeister is offline  
Old 03-23-2014, 06:32 PM
  #67  
callipygian 911
User
 
callipygian 911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 449
Default

So it would be a reasonable assumption that any of the horsepower or torque figures that 9m cites from their specially set up engine dyno are in the neighborhood of 12.6% greater relative to typical or officially published results for an identical engine ((1 - 284/325) x 100). I'm not sure if this correction factor would scale consistently or not across the whole RPM range, but it is still good to know that not all engine dynos yield comparable results and is certainly worth keeping in mind when comparing data between performance shops.

Kudos to 9m for including known reference engines in their charts. Very good to know!
callipygian 911 is offline  
Old 03-23-2014, 06:41 PM
  #68  
KaiB
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Deep Downtown Carrier, OK
Posts: 5,297
Default

One should be very careful comparing hp data from shop to shop.

As Colin mentions, dynos are tuning devices used for internal comparative data and are not the precise instrument we would all love to have to match engine builders.

There are precious few great air cooled shops on either side of the pond; if I lived and raced over on his side, Colin would certainly have my work. Here, I truck my cars halfway across the country to get to my guys.

I'll edit to add, at the Club race level, 25hp one way or the other means nothing as the driver is by far the greatest single variable.
KaiB is offline  
Old 03-23-2014, 07:04 PM
  #69  
NineMeister
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
NineMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 4,344
Default

Originally Posted by callipygian 911 View Post
So it would be a reasonable assumption that any of the horsepower or torque figures that 9m cites from their specially set up engine dyno are in the neighborhood of 12.6% greater relative to typical or officially published results for an identical engine ((1 - 284/325) x 100).
No, it is not a reasonable assumption. As I mentioned, the power numbers are correct within 1%, furthermore the dyno power comparison of a 9m engine to a stock Porsche engine of similar output stacks up with the performance of the same two cars on the road. Since we drive and race our 911s on roads & tracks, not dynos, that's more than good enough for me.
NineMeister is offline  
Old 03-23-2014, 07:53 PM
  #70  
callipygian 911
User
 
callipygian 911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 449
Default

Okay.
callipygian 911 is offline  
Old 03-23-2014, 09:57 PM
  #71  
ToSi
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
ToSi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 655
Default

Originally Posted by NineMeister View Post
It's a good point which is down to the calculation software of the Dynostar system and one which I have never really been bothered enough to address. All I can tell you is that the hp numbers that the 9m dyno measures has been compared to engine dyno & other chassis dyno results for the same engine are within less than 1% error, which is more than good enough to me. Putting it simply any chassis dyno is a comparative tool, hence I always focus on the differences in the shape of the power curves rather than getting hung up over the absolute numbers. That's why on these plots I'm comparing a championship winning 993RS engine with a known performance yardstick - the 996GT3RS - tested under the same test conditions.
But the engines weren't tested under the same conditions - the 9M run shows a temperature of 8.3C (47F!) while the GT3 was run @ 29C (85F). Accounting for that, the only reasonable conclusion is that the 3.82L makes about the same power & TQ as a 6GT3 - ~385hp / 284ft*lbs. Still impressive, but not quite 425/325.. would be good to sort out the calculations made by the dyno software.

Here's a plot from Fabspeed showing 6GT3 baseline vs the EVOMSit reflash they offer. Joe, is this typical of the various stock-ish GT3's you've tested?

ToSi is offline  
Old 03-24-2014, 01:02 AM
  #72  
il pirata
Moderator
Rennlist Member
 
il pirata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colorado canyons
Posts: 3,309
Default

Originally Posted by ToSi View Post
But the engines weren't tested under the same conditions - the 9M run shows a temperature of 8.3C (47F!) while the GT3 was run @ 29C (85F). Accounting for that, the only reasonable conclusion is that the 3.82L makes about the same power & TQ as a 6GT3 - ~385hp / 284ft*lbs. Still impressive, but not quite 425/325.. would be good to sort out the calculations made by the dyno software.

Interesting
il pirata is offline  
Old 03-24-2014, 01:08 AM
  #73  
KMASS993
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
KMASS993's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,306
Default

Originally Posted by ToSi View Post
But the engines weren't tested under the same conditions - the 9M run shows a temperature of 8.3C (47F!) while the GT3 was run @ 29C (85F). Accounting for that, the only reasonable conclusion is that the 3.82L makes about the same power & TQ as a 6GT3 - ~385hp / 284ft*lbs. Still impressive, but not quite 425/325.. would be good to sort out the calculations made by the dyno software. Here's a plot from Fabspeed showing 6GT3 baseline vs the EVOMSit reflash they offer. Joe, is this typical of the various stock-ish GT3's you've tested?
Accounting for that? The only reasonable conclusion? You are missing a whole lot of math to back up those statements so simply. Please share.
KMASS993 is offline  
Old 03-24-2014, 06:22 AM
  #74  
chsu74
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
chsu74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 7,869
Default

Originally Posted by Kmassed002 View Post
Accounting for that? The only reasonable conclusion? You are missing a whole lot of math to back up those statements so simply. Please share.
Cold air is dense. It is a fair assumption.
chsu74 is online now  
Old 03-24-2014, 08:56 AM
  #75  
KMASS993
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
KMASS993's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,306
Default

Originally Posted by chsu74 View Post
Cold air is dense. It is a fair assumption.
I think we all know that. My point is that if you are going to make a statement like that, especially when it comes to someone's business, back it up.
KMASS993 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 3.8 Upgrade?


Contact Us - About Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: