NO ONE will believe this!
#31
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Philip in AL
.
3) The unchip setup has a small rocker switch with an LED light on it. When activated, it bumps the timing by an addition 6 degrees (I think that's what he said), anyway, I was told NOT to use the advanced setting unless I WAS SURE that I had high quality fuel (such as racing fuel) in the tank. When they stripped the Unichip out, they noted that the switch had accidentally been knocked into the advanced seting, when it was tucked away.
3) The unchip setup has a small rocker switch with an LED light on it. When activated, it bumps the timing by an addition 6 degrees (I think that's what he said), anyway, I was told NOT to use the advanced setting unless I WAS SURE that I had high quality fuel (such as racing fuel) in the tank. When they stripped the Unichip out, they noted that the switch had accidentally been knocked into the advanced seting, when it was tucked away.
#32
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally!!
Here is the deal (remember that I will only get about half of this story correct, but you will get the idea).
It is back to the drawing board for Unichip! The system has been removed and Unichip is aware that more work needs to be done before the system is compatible with the GT3. I will get this part wrong, but it has something to do with the GT3 having a closed loop system. When the car was on the dyno and the tuner assumed that it was "heat" that was causing the results to decrease with each run, he was wrong. It was the factory DME causing the unichip (slowly), to revert back to the factory setting. Something like that. It would happen slowly; that's why it would dyno worse and worse. Anyway, if someone wants more detailed info and who to call at Unichip, PM me.
Second, withe the BMC and some special tuning (which I will not discuss on this open board), here are the results:
Base: 327.1 hp and 238.64 ft lb at 7,200 rpm
after Filter: 334.2 hp and 243.74 at 7,200 rpm
After filter and tuning: Peak at 362.5 hp and 244.74 at 7,000
All said and done, I picked up 35.4 hp and 6.1 ft lbs!
I would bet money that these figures are correct. I have messed up the story over the past few days, and have undoubtedly made this tuner sound like a nut to some of you. He is not; he is very well respected, to the tune that the Porsche factory has involved him in some projects.
Here is the deal (remember that I will only get about half of this story correct, but you will get the idea).
It is back to the drawing board for Unichip! The system has been removed and Unichip is aware that more work needs to be done before the system is compatible with the GT3. I will get this part wrong, but it has something to do with the GT3 having a closed loop system. When the car was on the dyno and the tuner assumed that it was "heat" that was causing the results to decrease with each run, he was wrong. It was the factory DME causing the unichip (slowly), to revert back to the factory setting. Something like that. It would happen slowly; that's why it would dyno worse and worse. Anyway, if someone wants more detailed info and who to call at Unichip, PM me.
Second, withe the BMC and some special tuning (which I will not discuss on this open board), here are the results:
Base: 327.1 hp and 238.64 ft lb at 7,200 rpm
after Filter: 334.2 hp and 243.74 at 7,200 rpm
After filter and tuning: Peak at 362.5 hp and 244.74 at 7,000
All said and done, I picked up 35.4 hp and 6.1 ft lbs!
I would bet money that these figures are correct. I have messed up the story over the past few days, and have undoubtedly made this tuner sound like a nut to some of you. He is not; he is very well respected, to the tune that the Porsche factory has involved him in some projects.
#33
Guru
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
Originally Posted by Philip in AL
and have undoubtedly made this tuner sound like a nut to some of you.
Too many unanswered questions.. Would you care to tell us who is doing this to your car?
Dont want to dampen your enthusiasm for this tuner, but also do not want you ending up with a holed piston..
#34
Nordschleife Master
I would try another dyno. either a dynapak, dynojet or mustang to confirm these results. My recommendation is refund and go back to stock. If your really want to do it right you would go with a Manthey Racing package consisting of new DME, equal length headers, new intake and race cats free flow mufflers. It will be close to 10K but you will get a real 25-30 hp increase. Just my 2 cents.
#35
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Philip in AL
Finally!!
Base: 327.1 hp and 238.64 ft lb at 7,200 rpm
after Filter: 334.2 hp and 243.74 at 7,200 rpm
After filter and tuning: Peak at 362.5 hp and 244.74 at 7,000
All said and done, I picked up 35.4 hp and 6.1 ft lbs!
Base: 327.1 hp and 238.64 ft lb at 7,200 rpm
after Filter: 334.2 hp and 243.74 at 7,200 rpm
After filter and tuning: Peak at 362.5 hp and 244.74 at 7,000
All said and done, I picked up 35.4 hp and 6.1 ft lbs!
#36
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SundayDriver you are correct. In my haste to post, I made a mistake. It should have read: peak at 7,000 rpm's was 362.4 hp and 271.92. I messed up and quoted the torque figure from the base run at 6,900 rpms and 321.5 hp!
So from base, I picked up (at 7,000 rpm's) 36.2 hp (326.2 vs 362.4) and at 7,000, 27.18 ft lb of torque (244.74 vs 271.92).
Using a .19 multiple, I'm looking at about 431.26 hp and 323.58 ft lb at the crank. Now, while the peak hp was at 7,000, the peak torque occured at 5,000 rpms (289.69 vs 262.13 stock at 5,000).
Forgeting the rpms, peak hp is 362.5 and peak torque is 289.9 at the rwhp and 431hp and 345 ft lb at the crank.
I'll post the actuall charts over the weekend; in the mean time I have an idea for any one who is interested in participating. I have a Vector FX2 performance computer. What if we set it to gauge runs from say, 20mph to 100mph; it will hold 10 runs into memory. I'll make three runs and then overnight the computer to someone with a stock GT3, they make 3 runs and then overnight it to a third GT3 owner with some mods done. He mails it back to me, we average each persons 3 runs and then see what it looks like.
Even if the computer is way off, it will still give an accurate picture (comparison) of the three cars.
Anyone up for it?
Philip
So from base, I picked up (at 7,000 rpm's) 36.2 hp (326.2 vs 362.4) and at 7,000, 27.18 ft lb of torque (244.74 vs 271.92).
Using a .19 multiple, I'm looking at about 431.26 hp and 323.58 ft lb at the crank. Now, while the peak hp was at 7,000, the peak torque occured at 5,000 rpms (289.69 vs 262.13 stock at 5,000).
Forgeting the rpms, peak hp is 362.5 and peak torque is 289.9 at the rwhp and 431hp and 345 ft lb at the crank.
I'll post the actuall charts over the weekend; in the mean time I have an idea for any one who is interested in participating. I have a Vector FX2 performance computer. What if we set it to gauge runs from say, 20mph to 100mph; it will hold 10 runs into memory. I'll make three runs and then overnight the computer to someone with a stock GT3, they make 3 runs and then overnight it to a third GT3 owner with some mods done. He mails it back to me, we average each persons 3 runs and then see what it looks like.
Even if the computer is way off, it will still give an accurate picture (comparison) of the three cars.
Anyone up for it?
Philip
#38
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just interested in seeing what kinds of differences small adjustments and horsepower increases make. In other words, if I can spend $1,000 and make the car x amount quicker I would just like to be able to quantify that performance. I don't know, not being able to leave well enough alone has always been a problem of mine!
#39
Rennlist
Basic Site Sponsor
Basic Site Sponsor
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! I think that a GT3 motor falls into this catagory. It's a le$$on that my boys (22 & 20) are just starting to learn.
__________________
Larry Herman
2016 Ford Transit Connect Titanium LWB
2018 Tesla Model 3 - Electricity can be fun!
Retired Club Racer & National PCA Instructor
Past Flames:
1994 RS America Club Racer
2004 GT3 Track Car
1984 911 Carrera Club Racer
1974 914/4 2.0 Track Car
CLICK HERE to see some of my ancient racing videos.
Larry Herman
2016 Ford Transit Connect Titanium LWB
2018 Tesla Model 3 - Electricity can be fun!
Retired Club Racer & National PCA Instructor
Past Flames:
1994 RS America Club Racer
2004 GT3 Track Car
1984 911 Carrera Club Racer
1974 914/4 2.0 Track Car
CLICK HERE to see some of my ancient racing videos.
#40
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Between rock and hard place
Posts: 3,832
Received 1,232 Likes
on
670 Posts
Ummm that Multiplier of .19 seems off.
Using a .19 multiple, I'm looking at about 431.26 hp and 323.58 ft lb at the crank. Now, while the peak hp was at 7,000, the peak torque occured at 5,000 rpms (289.69 vs 262.13 stock at 5,000).
I am no expert but .19 seems high for a rear engine rear drive car. What kind of driveline loss do you expect?
I have always used .12 for front engine rear wheel drive cars. I am thinking that maybe .10 for rear wheel, rear engine cars are more on the realistic side
Last edited by cosmos; 08-08-2004 at 10:47 PM.
#42
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked it backwards. If base was 326.2, and these cars are supposed to be about 381hp (although some say that is slightly underated); 326.2 + 19% equals 388.17.
#43
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Larry Herman
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! I think that a GT3 motor falls into this catagory. It's a le$$on that my boys (22 & 20) are just starting to learn.
#44
Phil in Al,
Respectfully, FWIW, you're doing the math incorrectly.
326.2 is a 16% reduction from 388.17.
If you think there is a 19% loss from flywheel to rear wheels (which I strongly doubt --I would bet it's closer to 12%), you would divide 326.2 by .81 which yields 402.7.
Respectfully, FWIW, you're doing the math incorrectly.
326.2 is a 16% reduction from 388.17.
If you think there is a 19% loss from flywheel to rear wheels (which I strongly doubt --I would bet it's closer to 12%), you would divide 326.2 by .81 which yields 402.7.
#45
Rennlist
Basic Site Sponsor
Basic Site Sponsor
Originally Posted by bob_dallas
Larry - it seems to me they understand that quite well...and your son knew you really wanted that RS wing but that you wouldn't replace it unless it was broken...