993tt ECU maps - who has what?
11-30-2005, 07:24 PM
#46
Drifting
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: WEST SIDE OF MPLS, MN
Posts: 2,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several of you guys (Kevin, Jean, Toby, and Tom K-24) have very impressive knowlege levels
which truly benefits all of us (if we listen). I have limited knowledge but plan on at least
reading the book, and trying to learn. I stand by my previous statement that most people
will be disappointed in performance gains by only doing programming (which means staying
with the "wheezy" K-16's). You have to pay to play and with the 993tt's it is expensive to get
"substantial" performance gains. (much easier in my "softly sprung, water cooled turbo car")
Marty
which truly benefits all of us (if we listen). I have limited knowledge but plan on at least
reading the book, and trying to learn. I stand by my previous statement that most people
will be disappointed in performance gains by only doing programming (which means staying
with the "wheezy" K-16's). You have to pay to play and with the 993tt's it is expensive to get
"substantial" performance gains. (much easier in my "softly sprung, water cooled turbo car")
Marty
12-01-2005, 09:19 AM
#47
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right - i just went out and did 60mph to 130mph (on private roads). Did several one handed runs, and pressed start and stop on the stop watch with other hand whilst watching the speedo.
I did this both ways down one stretch of road, and then both ways down another strecth of road (that runs perpendicular).
All four runs came in at between 12.5 and 13 seconds.
This is a stock 72k miles 993tt apart from fresh K16's, 100 cell techart cats, and techart sports exhausts, 3/4 tank of fuel, 10 degrees C, wet, engine at normal operating temperature, all in 5th gear.
Now from what i could gather from the 60-130 thread, stock through the gears for a 993tt should be 13.5 seconds, right? Has anyone else done a 5th gear run rather than through the gears? I will head back out later and try and do some through-the-gears runs.
I should have the RS ecu tomorrow, hopefully i will get out and do some more runs tomorrow afternoon (if it really does plug'n'play).
I did this both ways down one stretch of road, and then both ways down another strecth of road (that runs perpendicular).
All four runs came in at between 12.5 and 13 seconds.
This is a stock 72k miles 993tt apart from fresh K16's, 100 cell techart cats, and techart sports exhausts, 3/4 tank of fuel, 10 degrees C, wet, engine at normal operating temperature, all in 5th gear.
Now from what i could gather from the 60-130 thread, stock through the gears for a 993tt should be 13.5 seconds, right? Has anyone else done a 5th gear run rather than through the gears? I will head back out later and try and do some through-the-gears runs.
I should have the RS ecu tomorrow, hopefully i will get out and do some more runs tomorrow afternoon (if it really does plug'n'play).
12-01-2005, 09:45 AM
#48
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I cannot blame K24 for saying things like the ones he does, many people seem to understand tuning from a very narrow perspective as proven by the implied dismissal of what some of the best builders in the world can achieve with K16 stock turbos, and always assuming that people around them can do better. 
Just to correct what was previously said, the 448PS that RS Tuning is getting have more modifications than straight ECU program, as Stummel has just corrected in his post, among others, are modifications done to the turbos, so they could not get 450PS with stock turbos, neither did Porsche it seems, strange..
K24, I have tried several times to explain that it is not about fuel, nor maps, nor...nor.. it is only about air, breathing capacity!!
, the talk about air density, AFRs , timing, has gotten very boring, we have discussed it sooo many times, there is so much more to it. 
Of course if you only go by Corky Bell's book, you will not know what I am talking about, as if you did, you would not have answered as you did, mentioning turbos again and AFRs, when I was talking BSAC (Brake Specific Air Consumption). These engines have a BSAC of around 8.5, and you, nor anyone cannot do much about it unless you go all the way out (and pay a lot of money) to improve them like I did, you might then get to 9 or so. Now check out BSAC in some other book and see if you can broaden a bit your understanding of how engines operate.
Sorry, but you are so wrong 
I was trying to avoid sounding like I will, but I ran out of words to explain it, so forgive me if I sound like a teacher. If you want to know exactly how much HP a turbo can give you with a certain engine, it is a simple calculation that even someone like me, living in ignorance 
can , just multiply that BSAC X the air capacity of the compressor in lbs.
So, to make it simpler, if your compressors are 25lbs each (around 330cfms), that will give you a total of 50lbs.. BSAC X 50= HP => 8.5 X 50 = 425HP. This is the maximum you will flow with stock K16s if you have a stock engine. Do some improvements and if you know better than RS Tuning, you will get to a better BSAC, and pray to get to 450HP that they did not get (without touching the turbos).
I hope this kills the debate, because if it does not, I really suggest you spend more time doing research like I did and you will see that claims for anything more than 440-450 HP on stock turbos are wrong, which is why I was suggesting to Viperbob to check the calibration on his dyno. (where did his post go BTW?)
Just to correct what was previously said, the 448PS that RS Tuning is getting have more modifications than straight ECU program, as Stummel has just corrected in his post, among others, are modifications done to the turbos, so they could not get 450PS with stock turbos, neither did Porsche it seems, strange..
K24, I have tried several times to explain that it is not about fuel, nor maps, nor...nor.. it is only about air, breathing capacity!!
, the talk about air density, AFRs , timing, has gotten very boring, we have discussed it sooo many times, there is so much more to it. Of course if you only go by Corky Bell's book, you will not know what I am talking about, as if you did, you would not have answered as you did, mentioning turbos again and AFRs, when I was talking BSAC (Brake Specific Air Consumption). These engines have a BSAC of around 8.5, and you, nor anyone cannot do much about it unless you go all the way out (and pay a lot of money) to improve them like I did, you might then get to 9 or so. Now check out BSAC in some other book and see if you can broaden a bit your understanding of how engines operate.
Originally Posted by K24madness
To say the XX turbos are limited to XX HP is not possible. As you know there are many more variables that can either improve or detract from approx HP potential.
I was trying to avoid sounding like I will, but I ran out of words to explain it, so forgive me if I sound like a teacher. If you want to know exactly how much HP a turbo can give you with a certain engine, it is a simple calculation that even someone like me, living in ignorance can , just multiply that BSAC X the air capacity of the compressor in lbs. So, to make it simpler, if your compressors are 25lbs each (around 330cfms), that will give you a total of 50lbs.. BSAC X 50= HP => 8.5 X 50 = 425HP. This is the maximum you will flow with stock K16s if you have a stock engine. Do some improvements and if you know better than RS Tuning, you will get to a better BSAC, and pray to get to 450HP that they did not get (without touching the turbos).
I hope this kills the debate, because if it does not, I really suggest you spend more time doing research like I did and you will see that claims for anything more than 440-450 HP on stock turbos are wrong, which is why I was suggesting to Viperbob to check the calibration on his dyno. (where did his post go BTW?)
12-01-2005, 10:21 AM
#49
Originally Posted by VerySideways
Right - i just went out and did 60mph to 130mph (on private roads). Did several one handed runs, and pressed start and stop on the stop watch with other hand whilst watching the speedo.
I did this both ways down one stretch of road, and then both ways down another strecth of road (that runs perpendicular).
All four runs came in at between 12.5 and 13 seconds.
This is a stock 72k miles 993tt apart from fresh K16's, 100 cell techart cats, and techart sports exhausts, 3/4 tank of fuel, 10 degrees C, wet, engine at normal operating temperature, all in 5th gear.
Now from what i could gather from the 60-130 thread, stock through the gears for a 993tt should be 13.5 seconds, right? Has anyone else done a 5th gear run rather than through the gears? I will head back out later and try and do some through-the-gears runs.
I should have the RS ecu tomorrow, hopefully i will get out and do some more runs tomorrow afternoon (if it really does plug'n'play).
I did this both ways down one stretch of road, and then both ways down another strecth of road (that runs perpendicular).
All four runs came in at between 12.5 and 13 seconds.
This is a stock 72k miles 993tt apart from fresh K16's, 100 cell techart cats, and techart sports exhausts, 3/4 tank of fuel, 10 degrees C, wet, engine at normal operating temperature, all in 5th gear.
Now from what i could gather from the 60-130 thread, stock through the gears for a 993tt should be 13.5 seconds, right? Has anyone else done a 5th gear run rather than through the gears? I will head back out later and try and do some through-the-gears runs.
I should have the RS ecu tomorrow, hopefully i will get out and do some more runs tomorrow afternoon (if it really does plug'n'play).
FYI
I do 12.1
- Weight of 1660kg (two ppl in the car, dont remember how much gas)
- In the wet
- Poor rear tires
- Factory 450hp
- Non optimized shifting.
If you don't beat that time with the ECU, something is wrong.
12-01-2005, 10:23 AM
#50
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coincidence? I just did the same stupid thing 
3/4 fuel tank, 1 (heavy) driver, 6 Deg. Celsius, wet, muff bypass, stock cats, 50k mls
60-130 mph in 5th was 13.5 secs slightly uphill
60-130 mph in 3,4,5th gear was 11.5 secs
100-200 kph in 3,4,5th gear was 10.4 secs
With non-abusive shifting this sounds just right.
408PS 993tt did 12.1 secs for 100-200 kph (kind of slow)
http://www.einszweidrei.de/porsche/993t1995-1.htm
430PS did 9.7 secs for 100-200 kph (very fast car)
http://www.einszweidrei.de/porsche/993twlk1996-1.htm
3/4 fuel tank, 1 (heavy) driver, 6 Deg. Celsius, wet, muff bypass, stock cats, 50k mls
60-130 mph in 5th was 13.5 secs slightly uphill
60-130 mph in 3,4,5th gear was 11.5 secs
100-200 kph in 3,4,5th gear was 10.4 secs
With non-abusive shifting this sounds just right.
408PS 993tt did 12.1 secs for 100-200 kph (kind of slow)
http://www.einszweidrei.de/porsche/993t1995-1.htm
430PS did 9.7 secs for 100-200 kph (very fast car)
http://www.einszweidrei.de/porsche/993twlk1996-1.htm
Originally Posted by VerySideways
Right - i just went out and did 60mph to 130mph. All four runs came in at between 12.5 and 13 seconds.
12-01-2005, 10:26 AM
#51
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rassel,
VS did the 60-130 in 5th only. That drops the time ~2 secs.
VS did the 60-130 in 5th only. That drops the time ~2 secs.
Originally Posted by Rassel
FYI
I do 12.1
- Weight of 1660kg (two ppl in the car, dont remember how much gas)
- In the wet
- Poor rear tires
- Factory 450hp
- Non optimized shifting.
If you don't beat that time with the ECU, something is wrong.
I do 12.1
- Weight of 1660kg (two ppl in the car, dont remember how much gas)
- In the wet
- Poor rear tires
- Factory 450hp
- Non optimized shifting.
If you don't beat that time with the ECU, something is wrong.
12-01-2005, 11:01 AM
#52
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stummel
3/4 fuel tank, 1 (heavy) driver, 6 Deg. Celsius, wet, muff bypass, stock cats, 50k mls
60-130 mph in 5th was 13.5 secs slightly uphill
60-130 mph in 5th was 13.5 secs slightly uphill
I figure doing the whole stretch in one gear eliminates the variability of the gear changes.
My RS ecu is on it's way to me now...
What, borrowed from the Queen?!
12-01-2005, 05:15 PM
#54
Banned
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California, Bay Area
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jean,
We can agree to disagree.
I am going back to the dyno after changing my cat pipes and mufflers. I also change the injectors and drilled holes in the air cleaner cover. All else remained the same.
If you are correct there will be no change. If I am correct I should see 20-30 WHP.
After I have completed all of my desired upgrades you will see some 60-130 numbers (on video)
We can agree to disagree.
I am going back to the dyno after changing my cat pipes and mufflers. I also change the injectors and drilled holes in the air cleaner cover. All else remained the same.
If you are correct there will be no change. If I am correct I should see 20-30 WHP.
After I have completed all of my desired upgrades you will see some 60-130 numbers (on video)
12-01-2005, 05:27 PM
#55
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Tom
I don't really understand why you would not see any HP hike? I never said you would not. If I am not mistaken, you have modified K24s, so you still have not reached their peak output. If I may suggest that you just check what I was mentioning, we might agree to agree
and if not, no big deal, dynos and acceleration testing is the best part of owning one of these beasts.
Looking forward to see the video, regardless what the numbers turn out to be. I don't think I have seen pictures of your car yet.
I don't really understand why you would not see any HP hike? I never said you would not. If I am not mistaken, you have modified K24s, so you still have not reached their peak output. If I may suggest that you just check what I was mentioning, we might agree to agree
and if not, no big deal, dynos and acceleration testing is the best part of owning one of these beasts.Looking forward to see the video, regardless what the numbers turn out to be. I don't think I have seen pictures of your car yet.
12-01-2005, 05:36 PM
#56
Banned
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California, Bay Area
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jean
K24, it has nothing to do with turbos or tuners or fuel as I said earlier, I am talking about structural engine efficiency. This is not theory, it is physics. The engine is an air pump, whether you change the exhaust or air filter or cats, it won't do anything for its limits. Add fuel and boost as much as you like.
My previous comments were directed at your above statements. In that you imply there are no gains to be made by changing exhaust, intake, fueling extra.
12-01-2005, 05:44 PM
#57
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
K24
I am speechless. I still feel that I am not able to explain myself. I owe it to the board to be very clear about what I mean so as not misinform anyone.
You are taking this out of context, what this statement meant is that no matter what you do, you will not get more than 450hp on K16s, even if you take your boost to 2 Bar, or run straight pipes.
Why would I be "catless", "mufflerless", have a Greddy EBC if I did not believe there is something to be gained, as long as I have not reached the turbos maximum output based on BSAC calculations. For your K24s, if you have 30lbs there, you can reach 540hp max, anything that you do beyond that, will not take you anywhere. The dyno can show you 600hp, it will not be true
I am speechless. I still feel that I am not able to explain myself. I owe it to the board to be very clear about what I mean so as not misinform anyone.
You are taking this out of context, what this statement meant is that no matter what you do, you will not get more than 450hp on K16s, even if you take your boost to 2 Bar, or run straight pipes.
Why would I be "catless", "mufflerless", have a Greddy EBC if I did not believe there is something to be gained, as long as I have not reached the turbos maximum output based on BSAC calculations. For your K24s, if you have 30lbs there, you can reach 540hp max, anything that you do beyond that, will not take you anywhere. The dyno can show you 600hp, it will not be true
12-01-2005, 06:02 PM
#58
Burning Brakes
I find this very interesting and thanks Jean for making it easy for me. Basically if everything is at optimum with K16 stock turbos we can get to 440-450hp.No matter what the dyno says....with K24's optimum hp is 540...What would be the optimum hp for the modified k16's?? as these should have less lag than k24's.... 
12-01-2005, 06:23 PM
#59
Banned
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: California, Bay Area
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jean
K24
For your K24s, if you have 30lbs there, you can reach 540hp max, anything that you do beyond that, will not take you anywhere. The dyno can show you 600hp, it will not be true
For your K24s, if you have 30lbs there, you can reach 540hp max, anything that you do beyond that, will not take you anywhere. The dyno can show you 600hp, it will not be true
I got 533 whp on one 2wd dyno and 502 whp on another mustang AWD dyno. Although you math says I should max out at 540 flywheel HP. Clearly both dynos say otherwise.
I find it hard to believe two different dynos would record numbers much higher and not give me some resonable sence of accuracy. That was the main reason for going to another place. I feel the reason I can produce numbers higher than what theory dictates is because of the type of fuel used (VP103) This increses the BMEP of the motor without increasing airflow.
I have seen major performance gains due to race gas on many other vehicles as well.
I do not know the limits of K16's. I only know that if you apply the same circumstances to K16's that I have the numbers would come out much higher than theroy suggests.
12-01-2005, 06:28 PM
#60
Intermediate
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Stockholm,Sweden
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jean
K24
I am speechless. I still feel that I am not able to explain myself. I owe it to the board to be very clear about what I mean so as not misinform anyone.
You are taking this out of context, what this statement meant is that no matter what you do, you will not get more than 450hp on K16s, even if you take your boost to 2 Bar, or run straight pipes.
Why would I be "catless", "mufflerless", have a Greddy EBC if I did not believe there is something to be gained, as long as I have not reached the turbos maximum output based on BSAC calculations. For your K24s, if you have 30lbs there, you can reach 540hp max, anything that you do beyond that, will not take you anywhere. The dyno can show you 600hp, it will not be true
I am speechless. I still feel that I am not able to explain myself. I owe it to the board to be very clear about what I mean so as not misinform anyone.
You are taking this out of context, what this statement meant is that no matter what you do, you will not get more than 450hp on K16s, even if you take your boost to 2 Bar, or run straight pipes.
Why would I be "catless", "mufflerless", have a Greddy EBC if I did not believe there is something to be gained, as long as I have not reached the turbos maximum output based on BSAC calculations. For your K24s, if you have 30lbs there, you can reach 540hp max, anything that you do beyond that, will not take you anywhere. The dyno can show you 600hp, it will not be true
Interesting debate you have here but as you say: Every turbo has its maximum airflow. You can never get higher than that (when the speed of airflow reaches the speed of sound), but you can of course limit the airflow by cats, mufflers, airintakes, valves etc etc. You can of course also limit your output by poor calibration. So there is always a theoretical max output with every turbo (which you will never reach, but you can come closer or further away from this max by doing more or less mistakes with the things around).