911/Q45

Classy, errors are hardly ever admitted here.

uk trucks

Dude I "Cocked up" best to get it out in the open now as try to muddle through if/when it emerged later.


Allan

Jean

I have edited this post as a result of the previous post by Allan that I had not properly read. I do applaud his backing up and thanks.

The reason you see the flat HP curve is because of the limits of the turbos which on a watercooled engine will not flow more than 530-540HP max.

Also the MAF must have been tweaked as it peaks at around 490HP, and the fuel pressure regulator modified to 3.8 Bar.

To summarize, this car with stock GT2 turbos will give you a maximum of 760NM or so, still not close to the 800NM mentioned earlier, but I will leave it here, about 110 NM less than what the dyno showed..And in line with what other tuners can get with this setup. They all use around 1.2 Bar max since these cars have a TB shutdown feature beyond that.

Jean

Jean

Concerning the "shootout", I respect Allan for his decision to race and match the amount of money to a charity. The race should be done with the 996GT2 claiming this torque, which is what is (or was) being debated here. As TB rightfully said, the cars have similar aerodynamics.

As far as the run, it does not make any sense to have a 330km/h run, it would not be torque only playing, aerodynamics play a huge role there. The best run is certainly something like a 30-250km/h or so, and everyhthing in betwee.
FM9, at this stage you are definitely asked to post your interest in this, since you certainly have one. Care to share please.

I hope the car brought to the shootout is a car that has been worked on (tuned) by WM, one of those that have been posted to have 550HP on stock K24s (by the way on a 993 they give you maximum 450-460HP, not like the watercooled engines, even same size of turbo)... This is not about TB proving that his car is the fastest in the world, but rather debating that the 550HP claims by WM on stock K24s were not correct..

Cheers.

uk trucks

Jean
See my post on page 4 ref 800Nm

Allan

Jean

Allan, I just saw your post, sorry did not read properly earlier, I have edited my post above as a result.

As I said above 760NM maximum is more likely.
Jean

TB993tt

Not wanting to let this topic slope away and die, and not currently being in possession of my 993tt (don't ask, its being serviced ) I was very interested in how MOD's 1750kg bewinged 533PS/729NM 993tt got on against the Weltmiester dynoed 555PS/816NM 993tt stock body I believe, weight unknown ?

Did the hose coming off prevent any meaningful acceleration comparisons ?

816(WM chassis dyno)NM versus 729(RS Tuning engine dyno)NM - Did the WM measured motor put some big distance between them ?

Kevin

Toby, that's funny "don't ask, its being serviced"

Do tell, 3.8ltr, Ti rods, race K26's... With you we never know

Stummel

I guess he is going back to stock for a more comfortable ride.

MOD500

Myself and DeR did a 2nd gear run to 140 odd, and a 3rd gear to flat out run through the laser trap during a single lap.

The result of the first part of the above seems anomalous (when compared to the 2nd part), as starting from 2nd the banana pulled out a fair lead in a short time ...... maybe DeR missed a shift, or the engine was napping off boost (the fingered 3, 2, 1, go - start protocol is a bit rough n ready to say the least). The 2nd part of the lap saw a dead heat with both cars hitting the trap at 177.

It is truly liberating to be able to open these cars up and go flat out , without fear of the Police, tree huggers (plus other assorted work shy vagrants), and other anti-automotive parasites calling time on such euphoric activities.

Jean

Interesting outcome to say the least indeed.

MOD I am assuming the 1750Kgs is with driver and passenger. I saw in the pictures that it has a roll cage or rollbar and seems fully loaded. I am interested to find out the weight differential between both cars (yours and DeR).

Having myself GT2 bodywork and an aggressively set wing, I can confirm that the differential in drag is very substantial, and would for sure give you another 3-5 miles per hour at least. But this is speculation, I will do a more scientific check.

If this is the case, and assuming DeR's car does not have a GT2 wing, then it is obvious that the WM chassis dyno predicament in the beginning of this thread is well alive.

TB993TTs car would be a more level comparison to the WM car I would say (no GT2 wing and 540HP rating), if one keeps in mind that TB's 60-130mph run is substantially faster than yours, he would have probably put at least 10-15 MPH over the WM car. Something to think about.

ACEparts_com

Allan I have a little, slightly off topic question.... How did you manage to get 480bhp out of Kens 993TT that is running standard k16's and cats with just a boost controller? It certainly pulled away from me at Bedford (until the cam shaft left the party!)
From what I'd read this would seem impossible but a little knowledge (my part) is dangerous

TB993tt

Just to keep topic alive and kicking, the Poster above (unless I'm mistaken ) just posted some chassis dyno results on Piston Heads :

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing...88812&f=48&h=0

Once again we see some massively exaggerated torque numbers - 500lb/ft thats 680NM
RS Tuning see around 600NM on their engine dyno for the package on this motor (please correct me if I have the wrong engine configuration)

I will state MO again - for standard engines in particular non turbo engines, chassis dynos seem to be able to accurately mimic factory outputs.

With tuned Porsche turbo engines the torque numbers appear to go north and are not accurate and in particular if the motor is tuned using the chassis dyno to measure increases then the torque numbers seem to go even further away from reality.

The manufacturers of these dynos should be taken to task over this and provide some explanation.

ACEparts_com

I have to agree

I compared my torque figures to the RS tuning plots and they don't quite match up. I'll post some dyno graphs as soon as I can get to my scanner. The last time I used this dyno my car was up about 40lb/ft on everyone elses car. anyway, we'll analyse later

Jean

It is obvious by now that the numbers seen on most of these chassis dynos, any brand or make, are much higher than reality. However I would still say that it all depends on how the dyno was used, how the equipment is calibrated and the correction factors are applied. A well loaded dyno run with the right correction factors and cooling should give close enough results to Porsche HP. The same applies to engine dynos, only the variables and abberrations are more limited.

What is very clear is that all these claims of unreal torque and HP are not correct, proof is in the performance results. As stated earlier many times, some of the claims made on stock K16 or K24 turbos (ala 550HP) are just ridiculous and physically impossible, just as the torque figures being posted. Just saw on another forum a 996TT 500 RWHP dyno run on a Mustang on stock K16s!! There is *at least* a 75HP error there.

Funny enough I saw again sometime back the same claims on Pistonheads by the owner of this same 996GT2, the same numbers are still being repeated.

My question is , what is the use of claiming high numbers if performance does not follow.