wross996tt

palting...no personal attack, but did you call them? I would so NO...so I give you the info and you ignore it....you have your opinions...and there are those who know...I will go with the ones who know.

Peace out.

Ray S

The link you provided is from the 6 speed turbo board. The 996TT redline is lower than the standard 996, so those limits are incorrect for our cars.

I'm not sure why Palting needs to make phone calls to prove your point. If you have proof for your position why don't you just post it?

It seems to me he made a very fair offer a few post back and now you want him to do the legwork to prove your point? I don't get it.

wross996tt

Congratulations, you can read. So you think type 2 is different for an NA than for a Turbo? Meaning you think a type 2 is not about hitting an RPM over a specified number?

OK Ray I guess you speak for palting...he first questioned:
I provided links to posts where both of these experts have responded to the type 2 question. Forget name dropping...he said he wanted to hear directly from them, so I posted their websites (Stephen is also the PCA designated turbo expert). What part of this don't you get?

Yes I guess you don't get it...sorry don't know how to help your reading comprehension.

Ray S

Did I say that??? No, I said you posted a link to a different car with a different redline. I have said nothing (in this entire thread) about what causes a type 2.

I only pointed it out because the 6,750 rpm trigger point that is listed in that thread is below the redline for these cars.

I'm speaking for myself.

Here is what he said.

He asked for a website or a scan and upload of more info. I missed the part where he asked for a phone number? It seems to me he is asking for additional information to be posted in this thread. Perhaps Palting can speak up and clarify, as you and I seem to have read his post differently.

You missed my point. What I don't "get" is why you feel the need to respond in such a hostile manner?

I hope this post doesn't draw another angry response.

Benjamin Choi

i like ray better than wross so go RAY! j/k

wross996tt

OK, I'll keep it civil, accept my appologies...I can't read what benji said, but I'm sure it added some true technical value.

Here is my opinion:

Over revs are a function of the rpms (certainly some cars have higher redline than others). Type 1's happen when you hit the rev limiter (DME controlled). I think we can all agree to that. The question is how do type 2's occur. It is when the rpms exceed some DME specified limit. How can this occur? Certainly we all agree that if you miss a shift and mechanically over rev (force rpms above the DME set limit) type 2's will be recorded. There are also cases (more than one) where type 2's are recorded by exceeding the DME limit without missing a shift (mechanical over rev). Perhaps wheel spin with high torque can accomplish this. The fact that type 2's have been recorded without a misshift and the possibility of this non-mechanical over rev condition have been confirmed by several technical experts. Cheers.

Ray S

Thanks for the response....

I don't really know what causes a type II. I had always heard that they were caused by a botched downshift which forces the engine past the limiter. However, the info you posted is very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

Benjamin Choi

what a nerd

dresler

Wow Ben, you have to quit swearing at Wross and calling his mother names!!

Here is another thread of people trying to figure this out. I would tend to believe someone who has the car hooked up to a dyno and can get immediate feedback, like the previously mentioned tuners. It does seem like a shortcoming in the 996 design to have such a narrow margin between type I and type II. I guess we will all have to buy 997s.

http://forum.pcasdr.org/forum/viewto...94f07a4fe7479f

ArneeA

LOL!!

wross996tt

That's a good one....but I'm not biting. I know many have been trying to figure this out for some time and it seems we can't get a straight answer from Porsche.

Palting

That's why this forum is so much fun! We get to make our own deductions and formulate our own opinions since there are a lot of things Porsche doesn't give a straight answer to. We then get to express these opinions, and counter others. We may learn something, we may not. But it's fun!. Let the good times roll!!

BTW, I still have not seen factual proof

wross996tt

Please define factual proof I gave you 2 links with posters that have recorded type 2 revs without a mechanical misshift. Those posts included testimonies from 2 well respected technical experts. This is more data than you have supplied regarding your hypothesis.

And yes this is quite fun

Palting

Factual = Based of fact. Several tests under controlled conditions yielding simillar results. Conclusions are clear and cannot be contested.

Anecdotal = based on personal experience. Conditions vary, and can vary significantly. Can also de tilted towards bias of the tester. As in "I placed my car on a lift hooked to a dyno, floored it, and got level2". As in "I have inadvertently hit the rev limiter several times but never missed a shift and have only level 1, no level 2". Conclusions vary, and only opinions can be offered based on reasonable assumptions, not fact. All opinions could be wrong, or all could be right. The only thing definitely wrong is to opine that your opinion is the only right or real one, and that everyone else giving a different opinion is wrong and giving out misinformation.

Fun, isn't it ?

wross996tt

Funny you define factual by using the word fact....(the root)here is another one..."a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred"(WordReference)...I can play with words too...and post the reference.
This is of course unrealistic and improper testing (read about fractional and full factorials...experiments run in noisy environments). I will be happy to provide papers from world renowned Statisticians.
This is also unrealistic, heck we still contest F=ma at the quantum level.

How is it the information posted in this thread met any of the criteria you post here?

Absolutely AGREE...that is why I posted the original link as it seems that most folks were posting their opinions as though they were truths (BTW a truth is different than a fact).

Lastly, what really got me excited was your insinuating that the two gentlemen I referred to are guilty of changing the limiter in the DME...Is misleading (unless you have first hand knowledge)...They are quite knowledgeable and respected and your comments were inflammatory.

This is a blast, but I'm sure we're pissing off most readers....so I'll let you get the final post...enjoy.