Stephen, When Lat's car returns from Germany, I will bring my car and his down to
your facility. I really look forward to it and think it would be fun and elightening to all
of us. I appreciate the offer and am too close not to take you up on it!
thanks,
Stephen, are you comfortable with anybody's claim of 115 HP from a chip only?
cheers,
Marty

 

Dock,
Am I missing something: IT shows the X-50 car rated at 444 hp from the factory (crankshaft HP),
was at a baseline of 437 HP (that would be at the crankshaft I believe and much lower at the wheels)
the upsolute chip provided and increase of 59.2 hp (at the crankshaft), for a total
of 496.2 hp. Please school me on how you look at this differently and also what the baseline
hp number should be from the factory on an x-50 car.
Thanks in advance!
MK

 

No, not from just a chip.

 

I've got the Upsolute chip, and it works very well. The car is very strong!

 

Hi Woodster, I believe yje x50 dyno figures are in RWHP numbers.

 

The base dyno was an X50 plus Upsolute with a stock exhaust. The other run was the same car with an exhaust upgrade.

The Mustang dyno is AWD, and the power numbers are at the wheels. The transmission loss on an AWD dyno is between 20-25%, and I used 22% for the correction factor. The puts the flywheel power at ~560 hp.

 

That is one hell of an exhaust!

 

Math error alert. I think the correct analysis follows with one inflammatory question.
(Test power) - (base power) X correction factor= calculated hp gain
(496)-(437)=59 59X1.22= 71.98 That is the calculated flywheel hp gain if you believe what people tell you.
Now for the inflammatory question: I beleive that the actual number that comes off the dyno is subsequently "corrected" for ambient temp and barrometric pressure to recreate a theoretical common ground for comparison- sea level for example. But, can't the demonstrated hp numbers be manipulated by entering an intentionally high temp or low barometric pressure? For example, if the operator wanted to tell the computer in Atlanta that the car was being tested at Denver altitude, wouldn't the computer simply spit out a higher "corrected" hp value?
In the above test, the presumption is that the X50 with a chip has 437 hp at the rear wheels, or 533 at the flywheel. I love my X50 , but that seems high for a chip mod. Do we also just believe that the competition muffler added 72 hp at the flywheel? Something seems very optimistic. AS

 

Porsche race teams may want to change out all of their race proven exhaust systems to this new
"wonder exhaust"...wow!!

 

I have a quick comment on ECU remaps. The first one I had on my '01 (brand X, which I will not identify but it is NOT mentioned in this thread) had an output like a cat's back. That is it ramped up so fast it was nearly undriveable on the track, particularly autocross. In a straight line after I put it in it seemed like fun because it gave you a swift kick up the backside; before you shut it down at the next light. But it was not tractable and came on too quickly.

So, the issue is more than power here folks. How is the power delivery? How driveable is it? What is it taking the boost to? This is the hard to explain side of modifications. You might make huge power but making it practical is a whole 'nother ball game.

I now have a different ECU and it is MUCH better to drive, fast or slow. However I still think it could be better.

Disclaimer; these statements in now way reflect on Upsolute because I do not have any experience with that program.

 

Math alert answer...the X50 with chip gained 75.64 hp when the competition exhaust was added. The 59 hp difference has to be *divided* by .78 (22% conversion factor).

The point of the two dynos is to show that the Upsolute makes the power they claim.

From what I've read through the years over on 6speed, those with Upsolute report it's the real deal.

I have GIAC, and also believe it delivers their advertised power.

 

So, you believe the muffler added 75 hp? Regardless of how you do the conversion, I think that 's a hard number to swallow. The estimate of hp loss thru the driveline is a rough estimate, so to me the difference of the 4 hp via different methodologies isn't the issue (tho I accept your method). The issue is that the data from the dyno run is suspect since it seems way too much to believe.
I think Woodster's comment suggests his affirmation of my suspicion.
If Porsche could have gotten that much hp from a muffler, I'm disappointed it wasn't a part of the $17,000 X50 package. AS

 

I have no information on the exhaust.

What about the +111 hp on the non-X50 Upsolute with exhaust? It seems to me that the two dynos support Upsolute's power claims, especially on the torque side.

 

I agree that 75 hp is pure BS.

But Porsche has to pass ALL noise and emission standards WORLDWIDE.
They do not engineer different exhaust systems for different regions I think.

Add to this that the 996tt is way more a sedan than a sports car for Porsche (Gt2/3), it makes no sense to build a more free flowing and louder muffler for Porsche to gain hp.