Notices
993 Turbo Forum 1995-1998
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

60-130 MPH: New performance measurement!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-10-2004, 12:04 AM
  #61  
LAT
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
LAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,280
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Kevin,
can't wait gotta ask, who was there what happened, we won't tell, honest.
Old 12-10-2004, 06:49 AM
  #62  
TB993tt
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
TB993tt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,441
Received 108 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

Rassel
I was not doubting that these people are serious engine builders and can make power - did you see the size of the exhaust tubing
I was just pointing out the intercooler issue which is close to my heart (pocket) since I blew good money on the same unit and I have proved to myself it doesn't work.
Geoffrey
No hurt meant. Its just when you posted that you can potentially make 550hp with just stage 2 turbos and a remapped ECU on the thread where I am spending $$$$ to get less than 550hp sort of winds me up a bit

Last edited by TB993tt; 12-10-2004 at 07:34 AM.
Old 12-10-2004, 07:51 AM
  #63  
Rassel
Drifting
 
Rassel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,277
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Actually, what you pointed out about the FVD/TTP/Cargraphics intercooler is horrible. Sounds like a complete waste of money.
Old 12-10-2004, 09:17 AM
  #64  
Jean
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member

 
Jean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,445
Received 167 Likes on 100 Posts
Default

I had several conversations with Micke Svens (the engine builder mentioned by Rassel) and long emails. The guy is outstanding and his knowledge is second to none, really great guy and real in-house engine building. TB gotta get yourself a CTR again, with those numbers posted, forget dyno curves and I/C s
Old 12-10-2004, 09:25 AM
  #65  
TB993tt
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
TB993tt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,441
Received 108 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jean
TB gotta get yourself a CTR again, with those numbers posted, forget dyno curves and I/C s
The CTR makes those numbers'cos of weight and gearing, if I shed 300kg and put in some longer gears those numbers would be no problem - but I like using the car everyday (hence the weight) and the longer gears arn't much fun unless you are a regular autobahn user - imagine only being able to rev your car to the limiter in first and second before you are well into license losing territory
Old 12-10-2004, 10:11 AM
  #66  
John H. in DC Area
Addict
Rennlist
Lifetime Member

 
John H. in DC Area's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chevy Chase, MD
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Rassel
Actually, what you pointed out about the FVD/TTP/Cargraphics intercooler is horrible. Sounds like a complete waste of money.
Boy am I glad I decided to drop the intercooler upgrade from my last round of mods. I did it because they kept blowing their delivery schedule and I got fed up, but in hindsight I see there was a more fundamental reason to forego this.
Old 12-10-2004, 10:31 AM
  #67  
Geoffrey
Nordschleife Master
 
Geoffrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

TB,

I'm not sure why you are wound up. I know the results that I've been able to get from Kevin's Stage 2 turbos using MoTeC and was exploring the possibility and interest for doing something similar with Motronics.

Consider that back in 1998 Andial produced a 3.8l RS camshaft twin ignition 993 turbo that produced 571hp and 522ft/lb at .95bar. What turbos did it use? 911 GT1 street turbos which are Kevin's Stage 1 turbos. The article is in Excellence #81, November 1998. This is consistent with my testing of the Stage 2 turbos and 540hp@.7 bar from the dyno sheet I posted in the other thread...

Last edited by Geoffrey; 12-10-2004 at 10:51 AM.
Old 12-10-2004, 10:58 AM
  #68  
Jean
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member

 
Jean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,445
Received 167 Likes on 100 Posts
Default

TB, I know, it was a joke The CTR weighs around 3000 lbs. What has me a bit puzzled is that I do not get anywhere near those numbers posted for the 60-130 with its stock gearing. And I am using the same calculation than when I guessed 13.5 s for a stock 993TT and was reconfirmed later on the thread. Could be that CTR my gearbox info is wrong.
Old 12-10-2004, 11:39 AM
  #69  
Bill S.
Addict
Rennlist Member

Thread Starter
 
Bill S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Jean
TB, I know, it was a joke The CTR weighs around 3000 lbs. What has me a bit puzzled is that I do not get anywhere near those numbers posted for the 60-130 with its stock gearing. And I am using the same calculation than when I guessed 13.5 s for a stock 993TT and was reconfirmed later on the thread. Could be that CTR my gearbox info is wrong.
If I recall, the Ruf CTR weighs closer to 2400 lbs. It's a narrow body 1980's style 911. It's weight to power (2400/500) is 4.8 (the lower the better). An OEM 993TT is about (3200/400), or 8. Almost double! That explains why the times are almost half! Even a Ruf Turbo R (3200/520) is 6.4.

It's no coincidence that when you compare two cars with the same HP, the ratio of the 60-130 times are nearly the same as the weight ratios! For example, with the Ruf Turbo R and Ruf CTR (both have nearly the same HP):

(8.7 sec/6.5 sec) = 1.33
(3200 lbs/2400 lbs) = 1.33

In any case, my whole point of this thread was to get HP/TQ out of the performance equation. Let's see the real numbers! No more HP/TQ talk!
Old 12-10-2004, 04:11 PM
  #70  
Jean
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member

 
Jean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,445
Received 167 Likes on 100 Posts
Default

Bill

Mea Culpa. It makes perfect sense and I apologize for misinforming the board. My database is showing both the CTR and CTR2 as having the same weight.

I will test my 965 tomorrow and report back. Actually we have polluted quite a bit this thread , maybe another one should be started with times only and less blablabla which could be used as future reference.
Old 12-10-2004, 04:28 PM
  #71  
TB993tt
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
TB993tt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,441
Received 108 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

In actual fact, my CTR with carbon fibre doors, bonnet and wings weighed 1226kg or 2702lbswith half a tank of fuel.
Old 12-10-2004, 07:22 PM
  #72  
ScottMellor
Drifting
 
ScottMellor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Westlake Village CA.
Posts: 2,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Is the 60-130 taken from a steady state 60 and then nailing it, or at WOT and you start the clock as you zip through 60 mph?
Old 12-10-2004, 08:40 PM
  #73  
Bill S.
Addict
Rennlist Member

Thread Starter
 
Bill S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ScottMellor
Is the 60-130 taken from a steady state 60 and then nailing it, or at WOT and you start the clock as you zip through 60 mph?
The latter. Steady-state 60 is too hard to record. Zipping through 60 is easy to record from a speedo video.

This test helps eliminate throttle response and gearing issues. It's only meant to measure acceleration.
Old 12-10-2004, 09:05 PM
  #74  
911/Q45
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
911/Q45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

In what gear?
Old 12-10-2004, 10:00 PM
  #75  
Bill S.
Addict
Rennlist Member

Thread Starter
 
Bill S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by 911/Q45
In what gear?
Start in first at a slow roll and take each gear to redline. Time the video when the speedo hits 60 and 130.


Quick Reply: 60-130 MPH: New performance measurement!



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 07:42 PM.