993GT2EVO dyno report number two
03-20-2008, 08:42 AM
#76
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allan,
I of course remember that day in November very well, so do my ear drums.
Your efforts with the X50 cab was very impressive, it did run very well
My own best run that day was 189 I recall from my first and only full run, upon my 2nd attempt my sunroof came out and stopped any further play for me. Could I have gotten further up into the 190's that day with more practise ..... we will never know! It was a real shame the black cab was not there a few weeks back, to see how it would compare.
As I alluded to in some PM's between us, I was very interested in the acc data for the black cab, this would give a better idea of the true outputs it has over the (of course impressive) laser speed. I hope the owner may allow me to put the Performance Box in there for a run in the future
I also doubt it has 580 lb ft, remember the 996 has good aero (despite the soft top), and weight matters 'less' at uber speed, remember also the 996tt is geared for a higher top speed than say a 993. So laser speed is a little relative, hence the need for acc data.
As Jean said the car was running a good map, the Revo and Simtis stuff seems very, very good and great bang for buck as the Cab clearly showed. Although, wild dreams of axis altering torque are exactly that ... dreams! As usual (probably boring now to most) the yardstick of max reliable / sustainable power can be sought from RS, they quote 525 PS and 752 NM (555 lb ft) from ecu, exhaust, and air filter on the X50 engine:
http://www.cargraphic.com/index.php?...783,1288,1053/
I think for the £ spent : increase in performance ratio the re-flashes you peddle are awesome without any mechanical changes and the option to revert back to stock so easily. But I have doubts over how such companies’ abilities will fair when mapping post say 540 hp / 750 NM real outputs when 24 hybrids, cams, etc are added. Will they be able to manage the heat properly via good mapping with the stock intercolers / supposed better aftermarket ones (bar the Secan of course
) This is the real moot point for me
I am not casting aspersions on the numbers since know nothing about the details of the cars, but for example there were two cars at v-max this time gone both quoting 600 plus hp. These were a 996 GT2 and turbo, both got 197 laser speeds. At 196 was a reflashed X50 with exhaust from the Glorious North, and my old banger. Maybe someone with the means could comment on this and take the aero discrepancies into account to make some sense of the relative outputs?
I of course remember that day in November very well, so do my ear drums.
Your efforts with the X50 cab was very impressive, it did run very well
My own best run that day was 189 I recall from my first and only full run, upon my 2nd attempt my sunroof came out and stopped any further play for me. Could I have gotten further up into the 190's that day with more practise ..... we will never know! It was a real shame the black cab was not there a few weeks back, to see how it would compare.
As I alluded to in some PM's between us, I was very interested in the acc data for the black cab, this would give a better idea of the true outputs it has over the (of course impressive) laser speed. I hope the owner may allow me to put the Performance Box in there for a run in the future
I also doubt it has 580 lb ft, remember the 996 has good aero (despite the soft top), and weight matters 'less' at uber speed, remember also the 996tt is geared for a higher top speed than say a 993. So laser speed is a little relative, hence the need for acc data.
As Jean said the car was running a good map, the Revo and Simtis stuff seems very, very good and great bang for buck as the Cab clearly showed. Although, wild dreams of axis altering torque are exactly that ... dreams! As usual (probably boring now to most) the yardstick of max reliable / sustainable power can be sought from RS, they quote 525 PS and 752 NM (555 lb ft) from ecu, exhaust, and air filter on the X50 engine:
http://www.cargraphic.com/index.php?...783,1288,1053/
I think for the £ spent : increase in performance ratio the re-flashes you peddle are awesome without any mechanical changes and the option to revert back to stock so easily. But I have doubts over how such companies’ abilities will fair when mapping post say 540 hp / 750 NM real outputs when 24 hybrids, cams, etc are added. Will they be able to manage the heat properly via good mapping with the stock intercolers / supposed better aftermarket ones (bar the Secan of course
) This is the real moot point for me I am not casting aspersions on the numbers since know nothing about the details of the cars, but for example there were two cars at v-max this time gone both quoting 600 plus hp. These were a 996 GT2 and turbo, both got 197 laser speeds. At 196 was a reflashed X50 with exhaust from the Glorious North, and my old banger. Maybe someone with the means could comment on this and take the aero discrepancies into account to make some sense of the relative outputs?
03-20-2008, 09:05 AM
#77
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I am not casting aspersions on the numbers since know nothing about the details of the cars, but for example there were two cars at v-max this time gone both quoting 600 plus hp. These were a 996 GT2 and turbo, both got 197 laser speeds. At 196 was a reflashed X50 with exhaust from the Glorious North, and my old banger. Maybe someone with the means could comment on this and take the aero discrepancies into account to make some sense of the relative outputs?
At 197 mph, aerodynamic drag robs about 20HP more from a 993TT stock than a 996TT stock.
If your car has 533BHP and you have the same trap speed as a 996TT, then he most likely has around 510BHP. simple. This also assumes that you were not maxxed out on gearing,meaning you could have been going faster, which I don't know.
03-20-2008, 10:47 AM
#78
Not Forgotten
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 1,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some comparative data from chassis dyno's on my old engine, we can't trust the exact figures as has been debated over and over, but it certainly shows a massive gap between what 9m say they produce and what is closer to reality, this is simply to show the utter rubbish that comes out of that shop with regards to power claims, i can write an essay on the shoddy workmanship and crappy service but that's another subject
One of the dozens of runs i have from 9m, you may not be able to read the figures but it's showing 497bhp and 617nm, there are three consecutive runs overlaid of my car, the two lower lines are apparently a standard 930 with a 1.0bar spring that he used as a comparison for my benefit, this to me is evidence enough that he manipulates the machine to show whatever he wants it to
This is one from GForce, before the 7th injector was fitted
I've shown two graphs so you can see the fuel from the standard CIS and also one showing torque
Then this one is after the 7th injector was fitted, check out my smooth fuel delivery, there is also one showing torque
And this one is on a Maha, not one like Toby's was on though. He did a slow run, probably over 10 to 20 seconds, the tire was slipping and he didn't do a second run so it doesn't really show peak but you can see where it was going
All of the above runs were done so i could confirm what i had, between each one of them i took the car back to 9m to find my lost power, a new set of plugs and an oil change was all that was needed sometimes and it went straight back on their rollers and out pops 490 + BHP and as much as 620nm. I'm not going to insult anyones intelligence, make your own minds up
One of the dozens of runs i have from 9m, you may not be able to read the figures but it's showing 497bhp and 617nm, there are three consecutive runs overlaid of my car, the two lower lines are apparently a standard 930 with a 1.0bar spring that he used as a comparison for my benefit, this to me is evidence enough that he manipulates the machine to show whatever he wants it to
This is one from GForce, before the 7th injector was fitted
I've shown two graphs so you can see the fuel from the standard CIS and also one showing torque
Then this one is after the 7th injector was fitted, check out my smooth fuel delivery, there is also one showing torque
And this one is on a Maha, not one like Toby's was on though. He did a slow run, probably over 10 to 20 seconds, the tire was slipping and he didn't do a second run so it doesn't really show peak but you can see where it was going
All of the above runs were done so i could confirm what i had, between each one of them i took the car back to 9m to find my lost power, a new set of plugs and an oil change was all that was needed sometimes and it went straight back on their rollers and out pops 490 + BHP and as much as 620nm. I'm not going to insult anyones intelligence, make your own minds up
03-20-2008, 11:19 AM
#79
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
What is the most disturbing for me is the sort of indifference that I am seeing with Ninemeister. I can see three people coming here on Rennlist showing their indignation at how they have been cheated and then treated and not only no compensation seems to have been offered to them in private , but even after coming public, I still have not seen any interest in compensating them for their losses in whichever way.
God knows how many others are out there.
In the meantime, the guys on the Rennlist N/A boards are still being amazed at the dyno sheets being showed as a result of the wonder 4T heads and Motec tuning and the wonderfully well written GT Porsche and other magazine articles that are nothing more than lame advertising ..
Why are outfits like RUF and RS Tuning so expensive (to name Europeans only)? because the R&D is done at their own expense and not from the customers' pockets. Funny (or rather very sad) thing is that with the money that James spent on his 9M experiment, he could have had 2 Andial 3.8 twin plug engines.
This behaviour is so utterly disappointing Colin. Make it right.
God knows how many others are out there.
In the meantime, the guys on the Rennlist N/A boards are still being amazed at the dyno sheets being showed as a result of the wonder 4T heads and Motec tuning and the wonderfully well written GT Porsche and other magazine articles that are nothing more than lame advertising ..
Why are outfits like RUF and RS Tuning so expensive (to name Europeans only)? because the R&D is done at their own expense and not from the customers' pockets. Funny (or rather very sad) thing is that with the money that James spent on his 9M experiment, he could have had 2 Andial 3.8 twin plug engines.
This behaviour is so utterly disappointing Colin. Make it right.
I have tried the route you previously suggested of buying from recognised suppliers and have still been caught in the middle when problems occur. Aside from having to do a lot of development work on behalf of the supplier entirely at my own expense this has also included picking up the tab for rebuilding engines that have been damaged from things like casting sand left embedded inside inlet manifolds, incorrect valve springs supplied or wrongly manufactured camshafts. I have learnt my lesson well and as a policy unless the customer is willing to take the risk, we do not sell parts or conversions that we have not already proven.
Which then leads me on to your criticism of the 4T heads with respect to the "lame advertising". All the development work of these components and conversion has been done entirely at our own expense, in-house on our own cars. Stuff that does not work does not get sold. Yes, we test the conversion on our chassis dyno, but in keeping with the whole ethos of the 993TT board we have also carried out independent airfield acceleration tests which have proved our results in one way or another. This must have slipped your mind but I think I sent you copies of the acceleration data (which was publicised in Total 911 magazine) from the standard and modified 993's run at Elvington Airfield. The runs measured the 0-150mph of 5 cars, the two standard 993's did it in 42/44s, the "350hp" modified cars did it in 32s and my "400hp" 993RS did it in 20s. Would you like to send you another copy of the DL1 data so that you can verify it?
03-20-2008, 11:56 AM
#80
Not Forgotten
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 1,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-20-2008, 12:47 PM
#81
Not Forgotten
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 1,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing, why would anyone want to keep brining back a car to have you put it "wrong" for them and keep charging for the privilege. I did
Here you go Colin
Here you go Colin
03-20-2008, 03:54 PM
#84
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Colin
You seem to be blaming everyone except your tuning.
As for the tests, the magazine test was organized by your partner at 4T who also used to advertise in it if I am not mistaken. The weight of the cars was lighter than stock, yet they accelerated close to stock 993RS 300BHP territory, they are close to 310-320 maximum.
I will agree that you know about N.A engines quite a bit, however forget turbocharged engines. Still waiting for those 4T heads on a turbo engine BTW, you did not bother answering when asked on the forum about their status.
Finally, about the dyno thing, in case you still have any doubts about your dyno's MAJOR optimism issue, how would you like to know that based on your dyno claims your engine has the highest BMEP (efficiency) in the world of any Porsche EVER documented, including the brand new 997RSR?
For anyone wishing to see the comparison, just let me know and I will post it.
In the meantime, these three customers here still have not recovered their money.
You seem to be blaming everyone except your tuning.
As for the tests, the magazine test was organized by your partner at 4T who also used to advertise in it if I am not mistaken. The weight of the cars was lighter than stock, yet they accelerated close to stock 993RS 300BHP territory, they are close to 310-320 maximum.
I will agree that you know about N.A engines quite a bit, however forget turbocharged engines. Still waiting for those 4T heads on a turbo engine BTW, you did not bother answering when asked on the forum about their status.
Finally, about the dyno thing, in case you still have any doubts about your dyno's MAJOR optimism issue, how would you like to know that based on your dyno claims your engine has the highest BMEP (efficiency) in the world of any Porsche EVER documented, including the brand new 997RSR?
For anyone wishing to see the comparison, just let me know and I will post it.
In the meantime, these three customers here still have not recovered their money.
03-21-2008, 02:06 AM
#85
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: behind the Corn Curtain
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, about the dyno thing, in case you still have any doubts about your dyno's MAJOR optimism issue, how would you like to know that based on your dyno claims your engine has the highest BMEP (efficiency) in the world of any Porsche EVER documented, including the brand new 997RSR?
03-21-2008, 09:09 AM
#86
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: WhippetWorld, .........is it really only this many
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Colin
You seem to be blaming everyone except your tuning.
As for the tests, the magazine test was organized by your partner at 4T who also used to advertise in it if I am not mistaken. The weight of the cars was lighter than stock, yet they accelerated close to stock 993RS 300BHP territory, they are close to 310-320 maximum.
I will agree that you know about N.A engines quite a bit, however forget turbocharged engines. Still waiting for those 4T heads on a turbo engine BTW, you did not bother answering when asked on the forum about their status.
Finally, about the dyno thing, in case you still have any doubts about your dyno's MAJOR optimism issue, how would you like to know that based on your dyno claims your engine has the highest BMEP (efficiency) in the world of any Porsche EVER documented, including the brand new 997RSR?
For anyone wishing to see the comparison, just let me know and I will post it.
In the meantime, these three customers here still have not recovered their money.
You seem to be blaming everyone except your tuning.
As for the tests, the magazine test was organized by your partner at 4T who also used to advertise in it if I am not mistaken. The weight of the cars was lighter than stock, yet they accelerated close to stock 993RS 300BHP territory, they are close to 310-320 maximum.
I will agree that you know about N.A engines quite a bit, however forget turbocharged engines. Still waiting for those 4T heads on a turbo engine BTW, you did not bother answering when asked on the forum about their status.
Finally, about the dyno thing, in case you still have any doubts about your dyno's MAJOR optimism issue, how would you like to know that based on your dyno claims your engine has the highest BMEP (efficiency) in the world of any Porsche EVER documented, including the brand new 997RSR?
For anyone wishing to see the comparison, just let me know and I will post it.
In the meantime, these three customers here still have not recovered their money.
you appear to be blaming 9M for everything that has happened. Whislt apportioning blame on the evidence provided by others without giving equal weight to contrary submissions from 9M is one thing manipulating the facts you have knowledge of is unacceptable.
The tests on the NA car were at least as independant as any figures from any other car. Frankly the insinuation that because 4T advertise in Total 911 they would not be impartial is defamatory.
The weight of the cars was less than stock however not by much and not as light as a factory 993RS. I would be interested in any data you have that shows a stock 993RS can accelertate as fast as the modified cars because it would be at odds with all previous data from magazine and other tests I have read. Furthermore the 993RS uses a different transmission with better ratios and is still slower. The comparison between the stock 993s is valid and the difference far in excess of what could be attributable to other reasons. Whislt weight is an important factor in acceleration as speed increases wind resistance plays a far more significant role and at these higher speeds more power is more important than low weight and you have the AX22 data here. Whether the dyno at 9M over reads or not to suggest the modified cars were nearer 310hp is risible.
I would be interested in the data showing the relative BMEP figures.
As for the customers recovering their money; The UK is a fairly civilised country with a workable legal system. None of the customers have any exemption from use of the courts and perhaps that would be a better route to take than trial by kangaroo court on Rennlist. Whislt it seems unsubstantiated and hearsay "facts" are the order of the day they cut both ways. JBL930 and James E have legitimate grievences agaist 9M but even from the posts on here apportioning blame 100% to 9M is unreasonable. Blaming 9M for JCs engine failure is just silly and frankly it's no suprise to me he'd want nothing more to do with it.
03-21-2008, 09:42 AM
#87
Addict
Rennlist Member
RIP
Rennlist Member
RIP
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: London
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is I paid a lot of money for a 600hp car and what I got was less than I started with, FACT. I would proceed with legal route but I dont want to drag my current tuner in this mess as he produced a 600hp car at a fraction of the cost of 9m and did so in a very short time frame unlike 9m where my car seemed to spend most of its life in bits. 9m HP figures are a joke FACT. I blame 9m 100%, I would like to know why you feel some of these problems were my fault?
03-21-2008, 10:48 AM
#88
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is Tony taylor, is he an 'interested' party?
I have no direct experience of 9M, but have had big problems with other shops in the UK. When I posted my experience on some of the forums, I too was doubted by 'good intentioned' posters when they had no knowledge of my case. It was however a very valuable tool to be able to name & shame the culprits as:
1. It warned others to be careful of the suppliers instead of believing the usual hype, and
2. It encouraged the offending traders to settle my grievances.
It is perhaps a shame that JBL and James didn't feel comfortable in sharing their bad experiences earlier. It was noticeable that when I publicised my own bad experiences, that I received several p.m's from previous victims.
PS: Tony, the legal system, whilst a useful tool can be time-consuming, costly and daunting to most of us, and is a last resort.
PPS: I took one supplier to court and obtained full redress, and the threat has been effective in some other instances, P car related or otherwise.
I have no direct experience of 9M, but have had big problems with other shops in the UK. When I posted my experience on some of the forums, I too was doubted by 'good intentioned' posters when they had no knowledge of my case. It was however a very valuable tool to be able to name & shame the culprits as:
1. It warned others to be careful of the suppliers instead of believing the usual hype, and
2. It encouraged the offending traders to settle my grievances.
It is perhaps a shame that JBL and James didn't feel comfortable in sharing their bad experiences earlier. It was noticeable that when I publicised my own bad experiences, that I received several p.m's from previous victims.
PS: Tony, the legal system, whilst a useful tool can be time-consuming, costly and daunting to most of us, and is a last resort.
PPS: I took one supplier to court and obtained full redress, and the threat has been effective in some other instances, P car related or otherwise.
Last edited by 911addict; 03-21-2008 at 02:10 PM.
03-21-2008, 12:16 PM
#89
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Tonytaylor
A quick search on your posts shows that you know Colin and how devoted you are to Ninemeister, which is fine, but probably more biased than I could ever be. I am not blaming Colin of anything other than having an overly optimistic dyno and numbers...always, and that he uses them to market his products...always (run a search), it is his disappointed and cheated customers who are blaming him here, but he certainly does not seem to be taking any blame at all. .
As to the factst The test was far from being independent as it was initiated and orchestrated by Robin the 4T partner and Colin, they did the tests, the weight, etc..A record braking Porsche built by an independent certainly deserves an independent test by the authority in magazine tests such as Sportauto, if nothing else, it is independent.
One of the cars had 200lbs less than stock weight, that is "not much"?
The 993 Carrera with 300bhp was tested by Sportauto at 6.2 seconds from 100-160kph, while the 360bhp 9M car of Robin with the same weight was around 6.1 s, what do you think?
As to BMEP, what I will tell you is that Colin's aircooled 2V engine is about 19% more efficient than the brand new watercooled 4V 997RSR. If that does not seem much, think that the 997RSR with all the engineering work done on it, is less than 2% more efficient that the older 996RSR, and 3% more than the 997 CUP, and 8% more than the street 997GT3. Suddenly 19% more efficient (than the most efficient) NA engine ever built by Weissach seems crazy doesn't it.?
A quick search on your posts shows that you know Colin and how devoted you are to Ninemeister, which is fine, but probably more biased than I could ever be. I am not blaming Colin of anything other than having an overly optimistic dyno and numbers...always, and that he uses them to market his products...always (run a search), it is his disappointed and cheated customers who are blaming him here, but he certainly does not seem to be taking any blame at all. .
As to the factst The test was far from being independent as it was initiated and orchestrated by Robin the 4T partner and Colin, they did the tests, the weight, etc..A record braking Porsche built by an independent certainly deserves an independent test by the authority in magazine tests such as Sportauto, if nothing else, it is independent.
One of the cars had 200lbs less than stock weight, that is "not much"?
The 993 Carrera with 300bhp was tested by Sportauto at 6.2 seconds from 100-160kph, while the 360bhp 9M car of Robin with the same weight was around 6.1 s, what do you think?
As to BMEP, what I will tell you is that Colin's aircooled 2V engine is about 19% more efficient than the brand new watercooled 4V 997RSR. If that does not seem much, think that the 997RSR with all the engineering work done on it, is less than 2% more efficient that the older 996RSR, and 3% more than the 997 CUP, and 8% more than the street 997GT3. Suddenly 19% more efficient (than the most efficient) NA engine ever built by Weissach seems crazy doesn't it.?