1999Porsche911

My '99 C2 has 86,500 miles on it, 14,000 of which are with the Evo Supercharger. I do have the GT3 Clutch and lightweight flywheel installed. I smile everytime drive it. Took it from Little Rock, AR to Dallas, TX and back yesterday in fact. I had to laugh when the SL55 pulled up beside me at 80 mph, then punched it. I downshifted to 4th and nailed it, up to 160 mph I went then backed out and waited two miles at 80 mph again for him to catch back up. The Z06 Corvette was even more fun, as I had not played with one of those, yet. I literally surprised myself when I walked away from it too at all speed ranges from 70 mph to 120 mph. I could literally press and lift throttle to control how fast I walked/sprinted away. I used throttle control for about a 15 mile stretch to show the Corvette driver just how totally dominated he was. It was fun. Even with my suspension setup the drive was very comfortable, even on the rough portions of Interstate 30.

We roughly (read, didn't use proper fan placement) dyno'd the car last Friday at a local shop and it only came out with 279 rwhp. I don't want to get into the all the differences in atmosphere, testing procedures, different dynos etc. I just wanted to toss this in here. I think we used 3050 lbs for the weight. I will try to post a pic of the dyno pull if anyone would like to look at the curves.

Again, my baby has 86K plus miles on it and the leakdown tests from about 2 months ago showed only 7% to 9% across all cylinders. IMO, not bad for a 3.4L with that many miles 14K of which are boosted. EVOMS makes a great system and I would recommend it to anyone. BTW, the 2006 EVO 997 that was dyno'd right after mine turned in 319 rwhp.


First of all, unless you have SUBSTANTIALYY modified the EVO setup, (as I have) your car would not come close to keeping up with the new Z06. Not even in reverse. Either it was not a Z06 or the driver was playing with YOU. Secondly, although I do not believe in the acuraccy of dynos or there translation to performance, your RWHP of 279 is only about 25 hp more than the stock engine, so something is wrong. Regardless of what the number was, the EVO system would increase your rwhp by approximately 100. Finally, the car will not go 160 in 4th gear.

I would review your story and if you decide to stick by it, at least correct your numbers.

CarlosR

As an EVO SC owner, I'm curious: what was (were?) the mods you made?

=Carlos=

LiveFromNY

I'm curious as well as I'm thinking about the mod for my C4.

J.Seven

You smoke a SL55 and even waite two for it at 80 mph and then what? you wake up

J.Seven

washington dc porsche

In his post it doesn't say he didn't upshift from 4th thru 6th. I just assumed he did..

I wonder is he talking about HP or really meant to say TQ.

StuartFirm

Good Lord, I should have known better than to be anything other than "crystal clear" on this board.

Okay, first of all the downshift to 4th was at 80mph. Geez. The 160 mph was in 6th. You do still have to shift gears, even with the EVO system. The EVO system isn't that magical and I don't have a Tip in the 996, the Tip is in my 986.

The reason I had to wait was because I did spend a little time up at 160 mph (more precisely it was a few seconds at 163 mph and a few at 154 mph, then a few at 161, but I thought I could take a little liberty and just call it 160 mph). I obviously don't know if the SL55 stayed on it hard or not and I would suspect he did not if it took him two miles to catch me after I slowed back to 80 mph. I did wait to slow until he was a speck AND there was other traffic we both had to safely navigate. As disclosed, we were not on a closed course. Please be reasonable in your flames and don't take everything so literally. As with all written stories on a board such as this, you can't provide every detail. The reader is expected to use their own experiences to fill in some of the details.

The Z06 was not obviously not a 2006 Z06, but the side badges did say Z06. I didn't stop on the side of road to compare notes and ask for a model year. Other than that, I stand by my story. For what it is worth, I will comparing my SC'd 996 to a 2006 Z06 in September at the track in Hallett, OK just outside of Tulsa. The 2006 Z06 will have racing slicks and if you would like, I will post my lap times and his. Hallett is a 1.8 mile 10 turn road course with over 80 feet of elevation change. www.hallettracing.com

Finally, my system has been modified, but I must confess to not knowing exactly what all has been done. Global Motorsports Group in Santa Ana (which campaigns P-cars in the Speed World Challenge GT series) had it for several months and took it over to VF Engineering for inspection. I do know it involved a new GIAC flash and updated pulleys. The charge cooler has also been replaced as the original charge cooler was installed improperly by another shop in LA and the condenser had nearly rubbed a hole in it.

As to my dyno numbers, I too am disappointed and a little skeptical, but as I said I don't want to get into the details since there are myriad reasons why the number could have been so low (i.e. dyno type/brand, calibration of the dyno, atmospheric conditions, placement or lack thereof of the external cooling fans, etc.) I was not present during the tests, I just picked it up and the mechanic had run it on the dyno since he also had the aforementioned 2006 EVO 997 there at the same time. For what it is worth, I will scan the sheet and post it for you along with my weigh slip from the weigh station, as I know this board loves to see hard data. As I also said, the 2006 EVO 997 only showed 317 rwhp which number I also would have expected to be substantially higher. Sorry, I don't have the 997's dyno sheet. Perhaps I should have just left out the dyno information until we had run a tightly controlled series of runs and I had all the specifications including air temp., humidity, brand and model of the dyno, the date of last calibration and testing method used including the number, placement and size of the external fans. When I said "rough run" I meant it. This wasn't a multi-million dollar wind-tunnel setup simulating 150 mph winds at the correct angles and 20 technicians standing around to monitor all testing systems.

The car will be run again and again and everyone is invited to PM me for all the numbers. I don't care to brag or boost numbers or stories, I will readily share any data that comes from the car whether electronically monitored or seat of the pants. I guess I should leave out that I did have it a digitally indicated 180 mph last Saturday on a divided, concrete 4 lane highway in northcentral Arkansas. Yes, I was in 6th. No, I did not have the speed checked by a recently calibrated radar gun. No, I did not look at the analog speedometer, which by the way would have been on it last white notch just past the number 175, as I was a little busy driving. Yes, the tach indicated 7000 rpms. No, I am not positive about the 7000 rpm, as it could have been 6950 or 7050, at that speed I really was more concerned about making sure I focused on the road. It would have been nice to have digital monitors to records the specifics, but I don't. Additionally, I am not enough of a gearhead or fanatic to do the research necessary to obtain and calculate exactly what the rpms would theoretically have been based on my gear ratios. And I am aware that the digital readout under the tach is consistently 2 mph faster than my analog speedo when travelling at a constant 80 mph. Which is correct? Probably neither. Does it REALLY matter? No, because in any instance they aren't far off. Even if they are both 10% optimistic, 162 mph (analog with rounding calculated as 162 actual x 110% = 178 displayed) and 164 mph (digital with rounding calculated as 164 actual x 110%= 180 displayed) respectively are still pretty damn fast, IMO. Also, my speedometers are likely affected by the fact that I have 19 inch TechArt wheels, as I think the speedo is calibrated for 18 inch wheels. Again, I will listen to/read technical explanations.

Lastly, I have been told that a GT3 clutch and lightweight flywheel will not fit my '99 996 C2. I have not actually pulled the clutch and flywheel assembly, nor done the research on it. The person from whom I purchased the car said this is the setup and I have no other reason to doubt it. I will confirm it when it all needs replacement. Perhaps, the technical experts and gearheads on this board know better than me. I would be happy to listen/read the technical specs of the GT3 clutch and lightweight flywheel setup as applied to a 1999 996 C2 six speed.

Thank you DC Porsche for remembering that you have to use your brain when reading here and that the poster won't spoon feed you everything. I have much respect for this board, the posters and their detailed and oftentimes technically correct critiques, as it makes the board better, but when we are too quick to knock someone's post it makes me sad. Everyone else can feel free to flame on.

Wellardmac

I personally think that there were a lot of bugs in dark crevices in this thread.

How would you like to be on the receiving end of this thread? Really, page back and read some of the junk that has been written.

The term **** retentive comes to mind and the tone has been a little lacking in social graces. Some people need to lighten up a little and leave alone.

Personally I thought the account of the new SC was pretty cool and it made me check out the Evo site and add that mod. to my shopping list for the future.

Time to take a chill pill people.

Chris 996

Good info. Not a bad mod for the money.

c4bliss

Ill second that! Nice thread and im looking into adding a SC to mine.

StuartFirm

So here is the dyno sheet for what its worth. Tonight, while talking with the guy with the 997 Evo, which was dynoed at the same time as mine, he said his had been dynoed in both Phoenix and LA at 435 rwhp. But, his car only pulled 317 rwhp on the dyno our cars were tested on the other day the same dyno, which is where this report came from. With that being said, I have serious doubts about the accuracy of the dyno report below.

Through extrapolation, I wonder if my numbers should not be closer to 397 rwhp. (extrapolated calculation is done using his 435 from the other dyno minus the 317 on this dyno equals a 118 rwhp difference. So then I take my 297 from this dyno and add the 118 is appears to be shorting the cars.) How's this logic work for everyone?

My preference is to actually, run the car on a recently calibrated dyno and run the cars back to back, so we can see if there is still a 40 rwhp difference between the 3.4L and 3.8L EVO supercharged systems.

Chuck Jones

I'll add my voice to those who thought the thread was interesting, informative, and enticing to the point of my meandering over to the EVO site and taking a look at the product lines with a quick mental calculation of how much I had in my savings account. I was entertained by the post, and felt no compelling need to break out my calculator to double check all the figures.

Good post StuartFirm

Chuck

JoeTanto

Great post with a lot of info! That EVO site is something else!

vince_1972

I heard(understood) on a video the sound of the very present kit TPC. Do you know where I can find a video of the kit evome?
Thanks to all for your help(assistant)

Vince

Chuck Jones

StuartFirm and others who have an SC installed:

I thought I'd resurrect the discussion only to see if those of your who have supercharged your 996's are still of the mindset that it's a great way to go....and also to check and see how the cars have held up with all that added power. I'm seriously considering having the EVO S/C installed by SharkWerks in January, and thought I'd do a quick check before I took the plunge.

I was not considering putting in the lightweight clutch. Can any of you comment for or against that decision? I did hear that the lightweight clutches took some getting used to...that they rattled a bit in neutral at stoplights...and had a habit of stalling out once in a while. If I don't intend to track the car, is the lightweight clutch worth the money? I do look forward to hearing back from those of you who already took the plunge. chuck

CarlosR

Yes, I would definitely recommend it. Keep in mind that the power is *most* apparent at higher revs, although you can tell it's there at all engine speeds.

For calibration of the power, my track experiences are that I can pass a not-so-good driver in a GT3, stick like glue to a GT3 driver of my skills, while a good driver in a GT3 will *slowly* pull away from me. Mind you, that is in a cab, with a top that weights 165 lbs more than a coupe. So a coupe should do even better. Oh, and that's also with a 3.4 L engine.

Unfortunately, I can't keep up with a turbo. But I kinda think a SC 3.6L in a coupe might give a turbo a run for it's money.

In any case, highly recommended.

=Carlos=

P.S. I don't have any experience with the light-weight clutch, so I can't comment.