New "race" tuning for GT3 owners from Revo Technik.
05-10-2006, 07:37 AM
#16
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pole position
Well, it is no easy task to strap a motronic engine on a engine dyno and make it work. .
Why - I watch people drop engines in minutes - all you need are people who know what they are doing.
Your point about horsepower ratings will be ignored by most people on this list, they will not accept that their cars have outputs close to the factory specification. This is encouraged by chassis dyno operators who set up 'magic pulls'.
However, a well run in engine sometimes produces measurably more hp than it did on delivery.
R+C
05-10-2006, 10:17 AM
#17
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NJ-GT
George,
It's possible to have three maps? I mean stock (for trips to the dealer), modified (the 404Hp one) and race (for race gas track adventures)?
When is Spencer at F-L getting the new maps?
Thanks
It's possible to have three maps? I mean stock (for trips to the dealer), modified (the 404Hp one) and race (for race gas track adventures)?
When is Spencer at F-L getting the new maps?
Thanks
05-10-2006, 08:49 PM
#18
Rhymes With Polo
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
At what cost?
05-11-2006, 11:01 AM
#19
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rolo
At what cost?
05-14-2006, 03:28 AM
#20
2nd Gear
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sunny South West Florida
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
revo technik GT3
George this is chip valente, I now have 04 GT3. We shared space at porsches in the park in Sarasota and were going to do my C4S.please contact meso we can get GT3 done
05-14-2006, 11:48 AM
#22
Good to see people using a Dyno Dynamics rig -- in my humble, it's one of the few useful dyno's for tuners to get enough "resolution" (for want of a better word) to obtain test data and really tune the car.
I'd suggest these gains (about five percent) are quite credible and look to be nicely smoothed. I'd imagine the car drives quite calmly and I assume features like the rev-limiter aren't effected.
I'm not sure how easily someone can find 104 unleaded around the traps. That would be a concern (and an expensive proposition.)
I'd like to see the same work done on 100 unleaded -- which, at least around here, is readily available at the track and on the street.
I'd be very concerned to know for sure that the dealer or factory warranty inspection people cannot see this programming or at least there should be no evidence of it once it's removed for a warranty or service visit. I'm afraid I think there's at least one counter (for each time to pointer changes) and that would cook the goose. I'd like to know the implications and consequences before trying to extract the extra neddies.
Removing a 911 engine is a very simple process and the GT3 is no exception. But the prospect of then putting it on an engine dyno and setting up the electronics and cooling would be daunting both technically and in terms of cost. A "one size fits all" especially with an AWD variant of the Dyno Dynamics machine, is the only realistic way and, for all intents and purposes of the street car tuner, there's no advantage to an engine dyno. I've spoken with race engine builders at brand-name recognized companies and they have commented that even once you have you engine built and tested in the dyno room, there will be variables that come into play once the engine is in the car (exhaust back-pressure, cooling and heat soak, air-ram and other effects on the inlet flow, fly-wheel effect of the gearbox and drive-train) that mean some things are never as clinically perfect to reproduce once you're out there with a hot exhaust, dirt in the air-filter etc.
Well, it's good to see some real numbers for this kind of work. Having played with the GT3 several times on a Dyno Dynamics dyno running 91RON -- and gotten ~5% gains especially in mid-range torque -- I and curious to see the job done completely on 91 ... assuming it doesn't blow the warranty ...
Cheers,
I'd suggest these gains (about five percent) are quite credible and look to be nicely smoothed. I'd imagine the car drives quite calmly and I assume features like the rev-limiter aren't effected.
I'm not sure how easily someone can find 104 unleaded around the traps. That would be a concern (and an expensive proposition.)
I'd like to see the same work done on 100 unleaded -- which, at least around here, is readily available at the track and on the street.
I'd be very concerned to know for sure that the dealer or factory warranty inspection people cannot see this programming or at least there should be no evidence of it once it's removed for a warranty or service visit. I'm afraid I think there's at least one counter (for each time to pointer changes) and that would cook the goose. I'd like to know the implications and consequences before trying to extract the extra neddies.
Removing a 911 engine is a very simple process and the GT3 is no exception. But the prospect of then putting it on an engine dyno and setting up the electronics and cooling would be daunting both technically and in terms of cost. A "one size fits all" especially with an AWD variant of the Dyno Dynamics machine, is the only realistic way and, for all intents and purposes of the street car tuner, there's no advantage to an engine dyno. I've spoken with race engine builders at brand-name recognized companies and they have commented that even once you have you engine built and tested in the dyno room, there will be variables that come into play once the engine is in the car (exhaust back-pressure, cooling and heat soak, air-ram and other effects on the inlet flow, fly-wheel effect of the gearbox and drive-train) that mean some things are never as clinically perfect to reproduce once you're out there with a hot exhaust, dirt in the air-filter etc.
Well, it's good to see some real numbers for this kind of work. Having played with the GT3 several times on a Dyno Dynamics dyno running 91RON -- and gotten ~5% gains especially in mid-range torque -- I and curious to see the job done completely on 91 ... assuming it doesn't blow the warranty ...
Cheers,
05-14-2006, 01:35 PM
#23
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You juxtapostion of 'real numbers', chassis dyno and resolution, are laughable. A chassis dyno can give you relative information, not absolute.
You must come and explain to my tunwer why he is an idiot not using his very sophisticated rolling road dyno and building two engine brakes, one for turbo and one for normal erngines, together with all the remote contol and data logging equipment.
Perhaps you know something others dont.
R+C
You must come and explain to my tunwer why he is an idiot not using his very sophisticated rolling road dyno and building two engine brakes, one for turbo and one for normal erngines, together with all the remote contol and data logging equipment.
Perhaps you know something others dont.
R+C
05-14-2006, 02:34 PM
#24
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Official Jack off extinguisher
Posts: 1,173
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Carrera GT
Good to see people using a Dyno Dynamics rig -- in my humble, it's one of the few useful dyno's for tuners to get enough "resolution" (for want of a better word) to obtain test data and really tune the car.
I'd suggest these gains (about five percent) are quite credible and look to be nicely smoothed. I'd imagine the car drives quite calmly and I assume features like the rev-limiter aren't effected.
I'm not sure how easily someone can find 104 unleaded around the traps. That would be a concern (and an expensive proposition.)
I'd like to see the same work done on 100 unleaded -- which, at least around here, is readily available at the track and on the street.
I'd be very concerned to know for sure that the dealer or factory warranty inspection people cannot see this programming or at least there should be no evidence of it once it's removed for a warranty or service visit. I'm afraid I think there's at least one counter (for each time to pointer changes) and that would cook the goose. I'd like to know the implications and consequences before trying to extract the extra neddies.
Removing a 911 engine is a very simple process and the GT3 is no exception. But the prospect of then putting it on an engine dyno and setting up the electronics and cooling would be daunting both technically and in terms of cost. A "one size fits all" especially with an AWD variant of the Dyno Dynamics machine, is the only realistic way and, for all intents and purposes of the street car tuner, there's no advantage to an engine dyno. I've spoken with race engine builders at brand-name recognized companies and they have commented that even once you have you engine built and tested in the dyno room, there will be variables that come into play once the engine is in the car (exhaust back-pressure, cooling and heat soak, air-ram and other effects on the inlet flow, fly-wheel effect of the gearbox and drive-train) that mean some things are never as clinically perfect to reproduce once you're out there with a hot exhaust, dirt in the air-filter etc.
Well, it's good to see some real numbers for this kind of work. Having played with the GT3 several times on a Dyno Dynamics dyno running 91RON -- and gotten ~5% gains especially in mid-range torque -- I and curious to see the job done completely on 91 ... assuming it doesn't blow the warranty ...
Cheers,
I'd suggest these gains (about five percent) are quite credible and look to be nicely smoothed. I'd imagine the car drives quite calmly and I assume features like the rev-limiter aren't effected.
I'm not sure how easily someone can find 104 unleaded around the traps. That would be a concern (and an expensive proposition.)
I'd like to see the same work done on 100 unleaded -- which, at least around here, is readily available at the track and on the street.
I'd be very concerned to know for sure that the dealer or factory warranty inspection people cannot see this programming or at least there should be no evidence of it once it's removed for a warranty or service visit. I'm afraid I think there's at least one counter (for each time to pointer changes) and that would cook the goose. I'd like to know the implications and consequences before trying to extract the extra neddies.
Removing a 911 engine is a very simple process and the GT3 is no exception. But the prospect of then putting it on an engine dyno and setting up the electronics and cooling would be daunting both technically and in terms of cost. A "one size fits all" especially with an AWD variant of the Dyno Dynamics machine, is the only realistic way and, for all intents and purposes of the street car tuner, there's no advantage to an engine dyno. I've spoken with race engine builders at brand-name recognized companies and they have commented that even once you have you engine built and tested in the dyno room, there will be variables that come into play once the engine is in the car (exhaust back-pressure, cooling and heat soak, air-ram and other effects on the inlet flow, fly-wheel effect of the gearbox and drive-train) that mean some things are never as clinically perfect to reproduce once you're out there with a hot exhaust, dirt in the air-filter etc.
Well, it's good to see some real numbers for this kind of work. Having played with the GT3 several times on a Dyno Dynamics dyno running 91RON -- and gotten ~5% gains especially in mid-range torque -- I and curious to see the job done completely on 91 ... assuming it doesn't blow the warranty ...
Cheers,
So, where were those dyno dynamics experts with their dirty airfilters and hot exhausts when the above car was raced ? Or were they simply busy marketing several forums for their claims ?
05-14-2006, 09:36 PM
#25
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by pole position
Now, for the last time, by law , in Germany, a engine has to be within +/- 3 % of its advertised hp rating ,if not, it goes right back to assembly until it is within the specified range.
Like you though, I'm very skeptical of these tuner claims, especially on NA engines with no changes to induction/exhaust etc. Where do these enhancements come from, what is the compromise that the manufacturer chose to avoid? Are Porsche really losing 20bhp over what an aftermarket flash can give simply for fuel economy on a sports car? Or is it emissions? What is the downside?
05-15-2006, 07:30 AM
#27
AutoX
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Centre of the British Empire
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nordschleife
Dan
A good Dyno Driver can manipulate the pull so that the modification appears to be efficacious.R+C
A good Dyno Driver can manipulate the pull so that the modification appears to be efficacious.R+C
The dyno tests George is referring to were done back-to-back on ther same dyno. Therefore the results should be viewed in the same manner. If one looks at the data comparitively you can see some significant increases over and above the standard map. One shouldn't read into it that if you use map X you will get Yhp, but you should see Z% increase in what it was previously.
I understand the fervent fanatacism for engine dynos, but please don't dismiss Carrera GTs comments - he wasn't saying one is better than the other, just that it was different (and certainly a lot more accessible for most people). Oh, and by the way, the chassis dyno (contrary to Nord's own statement) does give absolute figures - it gives absolute rear-wheel horsepower far better than any engine dyno I know of
. Oh, and if you can tell me how I can "drive" a dyno to get better figures I'd appreciate it - it would certainly save me a lot of money and effort!!!Dan - AFAIK the RS has the same heads as the GT3. Nobody has shown or proven it to me otherwise. Yes, I know there may be different part numbers, but there are for a lot of the identical shared parts on the 2 models. The engine map will probably be different, due to the lighter SMF in the RS, but that's it.
On another note, if one accepts that Porsche will develop very few different maps to cover the world market (in terms of fuel quality and octane rating, as well as emissions), one has to accept that the map running the engine will be a compromise. By narrowing this compromise down, one can allow the engine to run in a tighter band of parameters, e.g. allowing slightly more advance for higher octance fuel, and thereby make more power/torque. Think of it, if you will, like a bespoke suit; sure, the off-the-peg suit will work fine, and may fit you very well, but to get the best fit the only way to go is to get it tailored exaclty to your dimensions.
Just my 2p worth!!
05-15-2006, 08:21 AM
#28
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce
To address your points
1. A good dyno driver will perform the pulls back to back; if he is faking it, the second, post modification pull will 'over read'.
2. ****wits peform a host of calculations based upon all to often erroneous assumptions to convert the measured rear wheel torque to a bhp figure which can be compared to sme previously published figure. This process is full of smoke and mirrors and is where the distortion comes in.
3. By definition an engine brake does not give reasrwheel horsepower. You could be on daytime tv, son. Most chassis dyno software is set up to encourage the operator to input corrections to allow graphs of extrapolated bhp to be drawn and supplied to the customer.
I assume you operate a dyno yourself, in which case you know everything I have pointed out above, and should know perfectly well how to fudge readings.
R+C
To address your points
1. A good dyno driver will perform the pulls back to back; if he is faking it, the second, post modification pull will 'over read'.
2. ****wits peform a host of calculations based upon all to often erroneous assumptions to convert the measured rear wheel torque to a bhp figure which can be compared to sme previously published figure. This process is full of smoke and mirrors and is where the distortion comes in.
3. By definition an engine brake does not give reasrwheel horsepower. You could be on daytime tv, son. Most chassis dyno software is set up to encourage the operator to input corrections to allow graphs of extrapolated bhp to be drawn and supplied to the customer.
I assume you operate a dyno yourself, in which case you know everything I have pointed out above, and should know perfectly well how to fudge readings.
R+C
05-15-2006, 09:50 AM
#29
Three Wheelin'
Bruce, if the RS has the same head, why would it have a different engine desingation as mentioned here (whilst mentioning optimised inlet ports) :
https://techinfo.porsche.com/techinf...4_911gt3rs.pdf
It is also mentioned in the Excellence article with Preuninger who additionally mentions the changes to the map to take advantage of the LWF (where he also points out few aftermarket mappers know that you can make the fueling much more aggressive with one). He then went on to say that they all add approx 400 bhp on the bench dyno. Given he is the technical lead on the GT3 product line, I'm not sure why he'd fabricate these claims?
Maybe worth getting the back issue of Excellence if you are interested in seeing it from the horses mouth, or alternatively it was reprinted in Total 911 a couple of months ago.
No one has yet explained why there is so much scope for improvement on mechanically identical NA engines. I realise they leave a small margin factored in for tolerance stack, but it would be an awfully nice coincidence for all the engines that get remapped to be the ones with better than average tolerances. I had a chat with Gavan Kershaw of lotus a few years back about these chips for NA engines, and he was extremely dismissive, and also pointed out how many hours they spend on the road getting the map right. He accurately pointed out that whilst a lot of aftermarket maps are ok on WOT, they are often hopeless with partial throttles.
At least the RS has a modified head for its 400 bhp, which is more convincing to me than waving some software at the problem and then estimating drivetrain losses etc! Never mind the warranty issues if it lunches itself and Porsche detect the tampering.
https://techinfo.porsche.com/techinf...4_911gt3rs.pdf
It is also mentioned in the Excellence article with Preuninger who additionally mentions the changes to the map to take advantage of the LWF (where he also points out few aftermarket mappers know that you can make the fueling much more aggressive with one). He then went on to say that they all add approx 400 bhp on the bench dyno. Given he is the technical lead on the GT3 product line, I'm not sure why he'd fabricate these claims?
Maybe worth getting the back issue of Excellence if you are interested in seeing it from the horses mouth, or alternatively it was reprinted in Total 911 a couple of months ago.
No one has yet explained why there is so much scope for improvement on mechanically identical NA engines. I realise they leave a small margin factored in for tolerance stack, but it would be an awfully nice coincidence for all the engines that get remapped to be the ones with better than average tolerances. I had a chat with Gavan Kershaw of lotus a few years back about these chips for NA engines, and he was extremely dismissive, and also pointed out how many hours they spend on the road getting the map right. He accurately pointed out that whilst a lot of aftermarket maps are ok on WOT, they are often hopeless with partial throttles.
At least the RS has a modified head for its 400 bhp, which is more convincing to me than waving some software at the problem and then estimating drivetrain losses etc! Never mind the warranty issues if it lunches itself and Porsche detect the tampering.
05-15-2006, 09:57 AM
#30
AutoX
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Centre of the British Empire
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nordschleife
Bruce
To address your points
1. A good dyno driver will perform the pulls back to back; if he is faking it, the second, post modification pull will 'over read'.
2. ****wits peform a host of calculations based upon all to often erroneous assumptions to convert the measured rear wheel torque to a bhp figure which can be compared to sme previously published figure. This process is full of smoke and mirrors and is where the distortion comes in.
3. By definition an engine brake does not give reasrwheel horsepower. You could be on daytime tv, son. Most chassis dyno software is set up to encourage the operator to input corrections to allow graphs of extrapolated bhp to be drawn and supplied to the customer.
I assume you operate a dyno yourself, in which case you know everything I have pointed out above, and should know perfectly well how to fudge readings.
R+C
To address your points
1. A good dyno driver will perform the pulls back to back; if he is faking it, the second, post modification pull will 'over read'.
2. ****wits peform a host of calculations based upon all to often erroneous assumptions to convert the measured rear wheel torque to a bhp figure which can be compared to sme previously published figure. This process is full of smoke and mirrors and is where the distortion comes in.
3. By definition an engine brake does not give reasrwheel horsepower. You could be on daytime tv, son. Most chassis dyno software is set up to encourage the operator to input corrections to allow graphs of extrapolated bhp to be drawn and supplied to the customer.
I assume you operate a dyno yourself, in which case you know everything I have pointed out above, and should know perfectly well how to fudge readings.
R+C
Your second point has some validity. However, if you read my post you will see that I said this doesn't really matter. As long as the f***wit performs the calculation consistently wrong, then the comparitive results are valid. (Geeze - I think we even agree on this one!).
Finally, I don't run a dyno myself - I'm far too busy on daytime TV
