Jean

Here are the times of Woodster (996TT) during his Texas mile run.

I will post as much info as I know:

I know he has a mild tune ($$$ ??) , with stock weight and 4WD and a car with camber and alignments setup for the track so not good for a high speed run.

I also know he has hybrid K24/18G turbos, ECU, exhaust and intake, not sure if he has stock ICs. Don't know the temperature on the track but apparently is was a quite hot day.

I have two runs made at different times and boost levels, quite consistent both. Most of the shifts in the faster run were made around 6700-6800 RPMs, the other were made at much lower RPMs.

Marty's car dyno'ed 623rwhp on one of the chassis dynos at 1.3+ bar (pls correct me if I am wrong)

In comparison, the RUF RT12 is a 3.8 Ltr (650HP) has lower weight, had better test temperatures and has better aerodynamics..

0-100kph (0-62mph): 4.8s ---> RT12: 3.4s
0-200kph (0-125mph): 11.7s --> RT 12: 9.8s
200-300 (125- 186mph): 15.3s --> RT12: 15.0s

0-300kph: 27.0 s
100-200kph:6.9 s
100-300kph: 22.2s

Quartermile: 12.43s
1/2 mile: 18.7s
1 mile: 28.9s

Any questions please ask.

TB993tt

So using our standardised "magazine" 0-100kph of ~3.8s this is a 0-300kph in 26s which looks like a solid 600 Porsche hp - These high boost engines certainly seem to deliver the acceleration numbers

Jean

My calculations show 640-650 "real" HP up to 4th and a bit less in 5th gear, which is consistent with the RT12, since it is faster than the 650 HP RUF RT12s tested by R&T (28.1s) and Nardo (27.6s), despite being circa 150-200lbs heavier and having worse drag coefficient.

However in 6th gear, heat soak takes over and HP drops, like for the Rt12 judging by the 200-300kph numbers. They also both run max. 1.3-1.4 Bar of boost, one with fixed boost and the other with Motronic controlled boost..

Guy R ran 200-300kph in 17.6s in his 600+ dynoed RUF Nardo GT2, whereas this car ran 15.3 seconds with the same aerodynamics.

On another hand, how many runs like these would it last on stock internals? Not many I think , 1.3 Bar is too much for stock internals despite the fact that many run it. It is fun for the occasional street stint, but don't try running it at the track at those boost levels.

Stummel

impressive results.

octane level?

Jean

A mix of 93 and 105 apparently (ca. 99 octane) as he was driving it on the way from somewhere. No change in programming vs the 93 octane file, but he switched the PSM off in his two fast runs, apparently it improves times.

Stummel

should not compare 99 octane runs with magazine tests (RT12..) and call it Porsche hp?

lower octane will make big difference in a 0-300kph run.

TB993tt

Recent comparable test with CGTs makes me question accleration data obtained from Bruntingthorpe airstrip.....
The combination of ultra rough surface and upward slope (5m in 1.2 miles) mean its not comparable with 100-300kph data obtained elsewhere.

Felix

Do you think 5m over that distance is significant? My guess is that head/tail winds would play a bigger role.

Jean

Stummel, how much do you expect the 99 ocatne to improve times with a non custom tune setup for it? european fuel is much better than US fuel from what I recall, I don't expect that to matter much to be honest, but I could be wrong.

We should not forget the aerodynamic, advantage of the Rt12 , the weight advantage and most importantly that these runs were made in 90F it seems, so we are still well within the numbers performance-wise, otherwise we would be saying that this car has 50HP or more over the Rt12 based on the data from the RT12 Texas Mile (same track I think).

TB, you might be more right than what you think!!! Not that the UK track impacts performance with its upward slope (Felix did a 183mph with a 430 HP 993TT afterall!) but that the Texas Mile track has a rather strong downward slope! Anyone out there who can confirm the Texas track slope???

Jean

TB993tt

I was hoping someone much cleverer than I (am) could do the math

My evidence is pretty flakey, it is comparing the accelration of the CGT at Bruntingthorpe with another CGT on a flat run - the other one accelerates much quicker than mine in the upslope phase and then a bit slower on the downslope see slope below...
Having said the above there are other unknown variables like you say, wind and of course that pesky rough surface...
Jean, can you not see the slope from Woodsters run file ?

Jean

TB, they were done on AX22 and I don't have the altitude option, however, my calculations show over 20 feet drop over 1 mile in Texas vs. flattish in the UK. Altitude on dataloggers is not an exact science I think. Google Earth shows close results as well.

Woodster

I am glad we can all use/discuss this info!

My gas on that day was 1/8 tank left over of 92 octane from local gas station
+ 10 gallons of VP Racing fuel MS109 (103 motor octane unleaded).
I run standard cats that are part of my standard Europipe Stg 2 quiet exhaust.
The car was in full street trim, we poured in the gas, folded in the mirrors and went.
The car was terribly heat soaked as I sat idling for 10 minutes prior to my run.
I ran with the air conditioning on as it was about 98 degrees f.
I also was running my standard street tire, Mich PS2 on my 19" champion wheels.
315/25/19, and 235/35/19.

Also, I belive Jean asked? I do have Protomotive's large Custom Intercoolers!!

Cheers,

Marty K.

Woodster

Also an unrelated but interesting side note:

Yesterday I ran an 11.03 sec @ 134.46 mph at a sanctioned 1/4 mile drag strip event.

My typical bad launch and slow shifts were part of this equation.

Same tune, boost, gas and tires as the Texas Mile. I drove 2 hours to get to the strip.

My buddies new 07 Z06 (which the infamous Ranger has run an 11.2 on streets),
struggled to get into the 12's as it was so slippery at the "slippery rock"
(Rock Falls Dragstrip, Rock Falls, Wi.)

MK

Felix

Seconded; conventional GPS is not great for altitude measurements. And units like the DL1 and AX22 only have accelerometers in two dimensions.

Stummel

from 997tt board "I met woodster on saturday and he ran 184 mph twice before adding some good gas I think, which made a big difference."

Do not know the difference in seconds but 190mph vs. 184mph seems like a couple of horses to me.