Is there a consensus on the best intake modification out there?
02-07-2004, 01:02 AM
#31
Burning Brakes
Originally posted by STRSHP
Has anyone done the full boat HP upgrade, air box, headers, high flow cats and sport exhaust? Being told of true 25 to 30 hp at the wheels. Hype or truth, anyone know?
Has anyone done the full boat HP upgrade, air box, headers, high flow cats and sport exhaust? Being told of true 25 to 30 hp at the wheels. Hype or truth, anyone know?
02-07-2004, 08:52 AM
#32
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"but it does eliminate the silencer improving the sound."
i believe i was the first one to take fabspeeds idea and improve upon it (ie: combine fabspeed and mkw ideas) - before i decided to get a real performance increase with the SC instead of a joke that produces rounding error amounts of power - if at all. i took out the ENTIRE muffler box whereas fabspeed just plugs the hole after "i think" removing the bottom half of the muffler box. if you remove top and bottom, you remove all obstruction of air left in place by the now unsmooth "walls" of the air box muffler after fabspeed removes the bottom only. i did the "fabspeed" kit for about $11 and it most definetely achieved everything fabs did (which ain't much - other than sound) but also added more air and less obstruction. that said, i think the airbox deal is pure horseschit. it does "sound" better though, but let's just make sure we don't confuse increased power with auditory enjoyment.
many responses have been "but the SC is $10k vs. $225". sure, but the S2000 is $30k vs. $70k. why did you guys spend the extra $40k if $9775 is an issue?
i believe i was the first one to take fabspeeds idea and improve upon it (ie: combine fabspeed and mkw ideas) - before i decided to get a real performance increase with the SC instead of a joke that produces rounding error amounts of power - if at all. i took out the ENTIRE muffler box whereas fabspeed just plugs the hole after "i think" removing the bottom half of the muffler box. if you remove top and bottom, you remove all obstruction of air left in place by the now unsmooth "walls" of the air box muffler after fabspeed removes the bottom only. i did the "fabspeed" kit for about $11 and it most definetely achieved everything fabs did (which ain't much - other than sound) but also added more air and less obstruction. that said, i think the airbox deal is pure horseschit. it does "sound" better though, but let's just make sure we don't confuse increased power with auditory enjoyment.
many responses have been "but the SC is $10k vs. $225". sure, but the S2000 is $30k vs. $70k. why did you guys spend the extra $40k if $9775 is an issue?
02-07-2004, 10:53 AM
#33
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Destin, Nashville, In a 458 Challenge
Posts: 5,128
Received 904 Likes
on
532 Posts
Big difference between a $ 10k commitment and $ 225 also warranty issues on every day drivers. I think the supercharger idea is cool though. No reason to classify small modifications as a joke for those not willing to commit to a SC or for those just looking for small tweeks. You could also argue that if your willing to spend $ 10k, why not get a real TT or even send off to Ruf. I guess its all about compromises and budgets, but that does not make anything less than a full Ruf a joke.
I think the entire inside piece is removed. True, there isn't a whole lot to it. Just need something to block the hole for silencer box, a spacer beside the screen, and a solid hose with no fork in it. For someone with some ingenuity, I don't doubt it could be done for very cheap.
I think the entire inside piece is removed. True, there isn't a whole lot to it. Just need something to block the hole for silencer box, a spacer beside the screen, and a solid hose with no fork in it. For someone with some ingenuity, I don't doubt it could be done for very cheap.
02-07-2004, 11:13 AM
#34
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Big difference between a $ 10k commitment and $ 225"
much bigger difference between an SC'd 996 and a stock 996 than there is between many other sports cars vs. a stock 996 yet we all decided to pay tens of thousands more for the smaller difference.
"also warranty issues on every day drivers."
that's certainly true. however, playing with the ECU and modifying air boxes isn't going to win friends and influence people at PCNA and porsche service depts when it comes to warranty claims either.
"No reason to classify small modifications as a joke for those not willing to commit to a SC or for those just looking for small tweeks."
it's not about the money. i did the piddly snake oil stuff like is being proposed here and THAT'S why i refer to it as a joke. i had three different intake/airbox combos on my car as well as an ECU change before i had the SC installed. the former solutions were a joke in all but the sound dept.
"You could also argue that if your willing to spend $ 10k, why not get a real TT or even send off to Ruf. "
a) a tt is AWD and the heavy yet overboosted more numb feel of the AWD (which has a computer which decides the power you need during hard cornering - 5 to 40% up front - instead of you and the throttle) is repugnant to many C2 drivers such as myself
b) the tt is a porker compared to a C2
c) mine is a cab and there is no way in hell a 3850 lb car is a sports car to me (ie: the tt cab)
d) ruf doesn't have anything for the C2 that compares with the SC unless you want to spend considerably more for a twin turbo modification which will come complete with turbo lag and more weight
e) the difference between the tt and c2 is considerably more than $10k
"but that does not make anything less than a full Ruf a joke."
nope, a joke is a joke regardless of price. that is precisely how i view intake modifications based on my own experience.
much bigger difference between an SC'd 996 and a stock 996 than there is between many other sports cars vs. a stock 996 yet we all decided to pay tens of thousands more for the smaller difference.
"also warranty issues on every day drivers."
that's certainly true. however, playing with the ECU and modifying air boxes isn't going to win friends and influence people at PCNA and porsche service depts when it comes to warranty claims either.
"No reason to classify small modifications as a joke for those not willing to commit to a SC or for those just looking for small tweeks."
it's not about the money. i did the piddly snake oil stuff like is being proposed here and THAT'S why i refer to it as a joke. i had three different intake/airbox combos on my car as well as an ECU change before i had the SC installed. the former solutions were a joke in all but the sound dept.
"You could also argue that if your willing to spend $ 10k, why not get a real TT or even send off to Ruf. "
a) a tt is AWD and the heavy yet overboosted more numb feel of the AWD (which has a computer which decides the power you need during hard cornering - 5 to 40% up front - instead of you and the throttle) is repugnant to many C2 drivers such as myself
b) the tt is a porker compared to a C2
c) mine is a cab and there is no way in hell a 3850 lb car is a sports car to me (ie: the tt cab)
d) ruf doesn't have anything for the C2 that compares with the SC unless you want to spend considerably more for a twin turbo modification which will come complete with turbo lag and more weight
e) the difference between the tt and c2 is considerably more than $10k
"but that does not make anything less than a full Ruf a joke."
nope, a joke is a joke regardless of price. that is precisely how i view intake modifications based on my own experience.
02-07-2004, 11:23 AM
#35
Rennlist Member
Ben , as you did when we argued this 2 years ago , you are once again confusing the Airetek unit from Arizona with the Fabspeed from Pennsylvania . The former just puts an external cap over the resonator box neck and installs a new intake hose that eliminates the " T" junction sprouting out of the stock intake hose that connects the MAF to throttle body. The Fabspeed removes the entire resonator box and plugs the hole in the air box with custom formed dummy plug that screws into the resonator mounting points.
Like I posted, do this mod for improved intake sound and improved part throttle response. NOTHING improves "seat of the pants" acceleration that you can really feel on the normally aspirated motor , short of supercharging or spending GT2 money for a RUF R-GT that is still slower than a stock 2004 GT3.
Like I posted, do this mod for improved intake sound and improved part throttle response. NOTHING improves "seat of the pants" acceleration that you can really feel on the normally aspirated motor , short of supercharging or spending GT2 money for a RUF R-GT that is still slower than a stock 2004 GT3.
02-07-2004, 03:53 PM
#37
Rennlist Member
Originally posted by ben in lj
MKW, I wasn't aware that Fabspeed removes the entire box. Just the same, your $11 solution achieves 100% of what Fabspeeds does.
MKW, I wasn't aware that Fabspeed removes the entire box. Just the same, your $11 solution achieves 100% of what Fabspeeds does.
02-07-2004, 04:33 PM
#38
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, but i put something else in the hole to insure it was completely plugged and couldn't do the dreaded "suck down" (and then put the free piece over that) and i bought something else too but can't remember now. but, it was a whole $11 anyway so that shouldn't change too many lifestyles. you'd think niagra would catch on though, eh :
02-07-2004, 04:49 PM
#39
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Destin, Nashville, In a 458 Challenge
Posts: 5,128
Received 904 Likes
on
532 Posts
I don't think anyone is of the impression that the Febspeed air kit is going to comes close to supercharger specs, at leat I hope not.
While we are on the subject . . . I saw the write-up on the SC in European car and thought it was interesting, but the torque figure of 271 seemed low. Out of curiosity, what kind of numbers does the supercharger produce 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile wise.
I am thinking about buying a clean low mile 964 C2 and having Ruf work their magic in the form of a CTR (469 hp and 535 nm torque). I am interested in having a C2 hardtop in souped up form and think I lean to ward to older body style for this project. Love my TT and never feel that it is not enough for me, but I would like to have a C2 with forced induction to play with on the track. Open to ideas though.
While we are on the subject . . . I saw the write-up on the SC in European car and thought it was interesting, but the torque figure of 271 seemed low. Out of curiosity, what kind of numbers does the supercharger produce 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile wise.
I am thinking about buying a clean low mile 964 C2 and having Ruf work their magic in the form of a CTR (469 hp and 535 nm torque). I am interested in having a C2 hardtop in souped up form and think I lean to ward to older body style for this project. Love my TT and never feel that it is not enough for me, but I would like to have a C2 with forced induction to play with on the track. Open to ideas though.
02-07-2004, 05:24 PM
#40
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I don't think anyone is of the impression that the Febspeed air kit is going to comes close to supercharger specs, at leat I hope not."
i'm not really comparing them. what i am saying is the fabspeed air kit is a joke even compared to stock! the difference is a smig under miniscule.
"but the torque figure of 271 seemed low."
271 was "at the wheels" vs. 218 "at the wheels" for stock. my particular car dynoed at 291 "at the wheels" (mine is running slightly more boost than the one in the article which is the setup EVO sells). using the same powertrain loss from crank to wheels stock (ie: 15.5% to 218 from 258), mine is producing 345 lbs of torque. also, mine is only a 3.4 . the numbers evo is getting out of the 3.6 are SUBSTANTIALLY higher. ie: whereas my car dynoed at 367 "at the wheels" vs. the stock 248, they are getting 430 "at the wheels" out of the 3.6 - and that's not even an X51! not only that, the powercurve on these things is silky smooth straight up.
i'm not really comparing them. what i am saying is the fabspeed air kit is a joke even compared to stock! the difference is a smig under miniscule.
"but the torque figure of 271 seemed low."
271 was "at the wheels" vs. 218 "at the wheels" for stock. my particular car dynoed at 291 "at the wheels" (mine is running slightly more boost than the one in the article which is the setup EVO sells). using the same powertrain loss from crank to wheels stock (ie: 15.5% to 218 from 258), mine is producing 345 lbs of torque. also, mine is only a 3.4 . the numbers evo is getting out of the 3.6 are SUBSTANTIALLY higher. ie: whereas my car dynoed at 367 "at the wheels" vs. the stock 248, they are getting 430 "at the wheels" out of the 3.6 - and that's not even an X51! not only that, the powercurve on these things is silky smooth straight up.
02-07-2004, 07:03 PM
#41
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Destin, Nashville, In a 458 Challenge
Posts: 5,128
Received 904 Likes
on
532 Posts
Hahaha, stuck on that word joke.
No 0 - 60 times or 1/4 mile times. Are there any dyno charts around that can be viewed. Sounds good. I hit 239 torque at the wheels today on a 90 NA 964 dyno.
No 0 - 60 times or 1/4 mile times. Are there any dyno charts around that can be viewed. Sounds good. I hit 239 torque at the wheels today on a 90 NA 964 dyno.
02-07-2004, 07:54 PM
#42
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi doug, sorry but i felt joke was better than scam.
i've no 0-60 or 1/4 mile times, but dynos of my car can be found:
http://www.986host.com/gallery/benkea?&page=11
just click each picture to make it large
i've no 0-60 or 1/4 mile times, but dynos of my car can be found:
http://www.986host.com/gallery/benkea?&page=11
just click each picture to make it large
02-07-2004, 08:24 PM
#44
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, it's as advertised. butt dyno reads "quite satisfied" too. also of note, you should see how fast the motor revs with the lightweight flywheel. watch the tach in the "996 C2 Cab2" video:
http://www.986host.com/gallery/benkea?&page=12
http://www.986host.com/gallery/benkea?&page=12
02-07-2004, 09:37 PM
#45
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NC - One headlight capital of the world
Posts: 1,820
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
10 Posts
Originally posted by MKW
On the lower right you will see about 40 little holes , which allows intake air directly from the hot exhaust below it. Look at your air filter- it is filthy in that same location, which means a significant amount of the intake air is hot air , despite the snorkel that connects through the lid to suck in outside air. They must be for allowing hot air for warm up emissions purpose , as far as I can figure, although the Turbo air box has no such thing. I blocked those holes with a thin sheet of ABS plastic screwed into four of those holes. Now you have true cold air intake. ( Don't worry, there is a separate drain hole for water that might go into the snorkel when washing or raining. )
On the lower right you will see about 40 little holes , which allows intake air directly from the hot exhaust below it. Look at your air filter- it is filthy in that same location, which means a significant amount of the intake air is hot air , despite the snorkel that connects through the lid to suck in outside air. They must be for allowing hot air for warm up emissions purpose , as far as I can figure, although the Turbo air box has no such thing. I blocked those holes with a thin sheet of ABS plastic screwed into four of those holes. Now you have true cold air intake. ( Don't worry, there is a separate drain hole for water that might go into the snorkel when washing or raining. )
I didn't see any other areas for drainage except the perorated area in the right rear portion of the base of the stock airbox. I wonder about those little holes. How would warm air aid emissions? On startup, it's all cold air anyway. Perhaps the perfs are for drainage and act as an adjunct for intake at high speed (albeit, hot air). Maybe the snorkel can't keep up under extreme conditions due to airbox volume and length of tubing issues (especially with that silencer in there... I was amazed at how narrow the intake path was with that box in there). There's only so much room back there, plus you have to work around the fan unit. Who knows?
Ben, no arguing here over your supercharged BEAST!
I was after better sound and the Fabspeed kit allowed an easy way to achieve sound improvement with little alteration to the stock airbox configuration. As a bonus, the improved throttle response was a pleasant surprise...