RobynC

You are way off base, Jean. WAY! Speeddaddy is not Neil, period. This time, you are completely and categorically incorrect.

Jean

Well it is unfortunate because I would have really liked to have Neil here as a sponsor so that we can have some tech discussions based on actual numbers.

Whoever Speedaddy is, he has surfaced recently and is promoting PSI products in all his posts and obviously does not want to make himself known (until now at least).

I have been incorrect many times Robyn, it really is not important as long as people here know who sells what to make an informed decision..

Cheers to you 969 guys.

Speedaddy

LOL!
Not super active on the boards, but not Neil for sure. Admin, please confirm.
Fortunately, I do have some experience with dyno testing, and it is possible to compare tests on different machines and makes as long a baseline is established using the same testing procedure. If I produce a sheet that shows 600hp at the wheels without a baseline, that number means nothing. The parasitic factor is most commonly changed on a dyno calibration to yeild a "desired" figure. Bottom line, if you overlap the graphs, you will notice there is no lag and simple math will tell you the car is producing well over 550hp at the crank. As we suspected, PSI is conservative with stated power figures and the cars are very strong. This brings to mind another well respected tuner with similar conservative figures. We are here to share facts and educate using facts.

sharkster

OK just looking at the two dynos and please correct me if I am wrong.. but a few folks came on talking about the PSI550 car like 2.5 months ago. The dyno for the 550 was dated the 6th of December (looking at various threads on rennlist that you posted I'd say the car has had the kit for over 2.5months?) . The so called "baseline" on the same car was on the 30th of December... Now can you say the run on the 11/30/05 was the EXACT same car and not just some other stock 996TT? Apples to apples? Hmm not really no. It does go against what you said saying you did a "before and after"... (which I did agree with). Not quite the same as I'm sure you realize that the same model car can vary greatly. For example the last two bone stock GT2s we dynod for referrence before doing a stage IV went like this: 410RWHP and 438RWHP. A significant enough of a difference.. this was just the last two. Granny SMiths to Red Apples more like The dynos you have as a result, if they are indeed on two different cars aren't really all that useful anymore. Take a stock car, dyno it. Do the mods, then dyno it again. That's the only real way to see what effect software and hardware has to a particular car...

Also you're showing mid 400s and NOT 600 to the wheels Big difference... and all I'm saying is that mid 400s are great and all but welcome to the club. Everyone's been doing that for 3 years now on the 996tt only not with "stock" K24 turbos and not hybrids and intake plenums etc...

And with your comments always comparing PSI to RuF, sorry but I respectfully disagree. There's about 18 years of a gap there RuF has done oh so much over the years not only in Europe but here in the US also. One first dyno on American soil is a great start but not quite in RuF's league yet...

Speedaddy

Sharkster, please look closely at the dyno sheets, not claiming it to be the same car, but same make, model, year, and similar mileage car combined with same test procedure make for an excellent baseline. Perhaps you fail to understand the concept of dyno testing, weather the number is 400 or 600, that test alone means little. 969 may not be in RUF league, but PSI is another story.

sharkster

I looked closely as did others and we gave you some tips on making it better... in other words you might want to address those dips/blips. Those are not smooth curves at all. Something's not right. If you think it is, then ok. I know that PSI's tuning is done from Belgium and I'm hoping that there's a good supply of 91 octane there in order to cater to us US folks.

I have a good understanding of dynos thank you and I guess for your first ever dyno in the US you deserve a pat on your back.... I agree a test of a car with only the dyno done after the mods is not as useful as a test of a car with and without mods and I think I understood that way before you posted your first dyno on this board. 969? I know 969, most of those people used to be customers of ours at Akkurat and/or friends and this doesn't have anything to do with them. Some of the people at 969 only a few months back were selling/installing EVO products and raving about them too. I'm just saying I do not agree that PSI is in the same league as RuF- that's all. I'm sure 99/100 people would agree. RuF has proven their worth over the years. PSI is a unknown quantity here in the US and somewhat new in Europe. The only similarity between RuF and PSI that I can see is that they are both from Europe although one is from Germany and the other from Belgium. I understand that PSI is totally new to the scene and that you want to push the product out there and I wish you luck. The US market is a very tough nut to crack and coming to the 996TT market later than most means that there is some catch up but when you do post a dyno listen to folks, no let me re-phrase that, Tuners like Kevin, Stephen etc... You may think that I don't know what I'm talking about but I learned most of what I know from those two and I'm sure 99/100 people on the boards here can vouch for them

Speedaddy

Amazing...

PorschePhD

Are you serious with this statement? First lets clear this up, who are you and who do you work for. If one is to make on going claims one needs to establish experience and reputation in the field. Do you actually build anything or bolt things on? I suspect you are a 969 employee.

That being said there are a couple of statements that concern me. First off the parasitic factor is not easily changed. You want to skew the numbers pull the 1000lb flywheel off the system. This is next to the PDU and requires several people to do it. Normally the flywheel is only moved off to run motorcycles. Your parasitic curve is based on the coast down. Not practical to change every time since you would have to go in and do it in the file. The inertia loading is only dictated by the coast down. I guess you can move the weight around, this does very little to the numbers. Your inertia is going to determine overall load and numbers. The dynos are designed not to be so easy to screw with given the nature of their use. Do you know what their main customer base is? I own a Mustang 500SE so I know how the system works.

As far as baseline goes. No you can not. Can you explain the physical difference between a 248C and a 500SE, DynaPack, and DD? The physical makeup of the dyno will dictate many things on a turbo car. You could loosely compare graphs on a NA car, but a turbo you will not. A DD you can not compare because the dyno (this is a question) is missing what compared to the dyno you are working on. The software also doesn’t do what? (another question) that the Mustang does while running a curve? If you can answer these questions then you will see that the physical aspects and inertia as well as the loading that is created by that inertia will not allow for like graphs. So any good tuner knows you baseline on the same dyno on the same car and make the changes. Match up the same parameters and run it again under the same conditions. You compare those numbers. If I offered my customers another baseline from another dyno or another car the result would be disastrous. You just aren’t making a fair comparison.

Again I will state, pulling the numbers you got were fine. That is about a Tune and an exhaust system. The issue the gang keeps avoiding is the surging on the chart. After tuning hundreds of TTs and hundred more 930s, 993TT, 965s standalone, conversions and so on I will tell you again the FV is not able to keep up with the system. The boost request sent to the FV is incorrect and causing the system to drop and close the TB down the middle because it can no longer modulate the WG actuators. If anyone takes a stock TT and adjust the wastegate down to where it hardly opens the chart will look like that. It surges HARD and creates that initial hump then the system knows it can not control the boost. Hence the dip in 4700. Notice on the other car on the baseline this does not occur. Again these are things that experiences teaches. I would have not left the dyno for the day with a curve like that.

Woodster

Stephen,
a)as pertaining to the Audiworld link,
How did AWE "calibrate" their mustang dyno higher??
b) I think we all would like to see the PSI car do a 60-130 mph run
like Jean suggests, this seems to flush out all the "bull#@@t" and
criticisms one way or the other.
c) I actually thought Speeddaddy was Neil also, whoever it is seems
quite knowledgable.
d) this is one tough board to please, as it should be:
remember someone's GT950 claims... where is the 1/4 mile or
60-130 mph??

PorschePhD

A)In answer to AWE. I don’t know and honestly do not care. I have my own dyno and do my own tuning and building in house. What another company does really has no bearing on me. They are not on this board toting anything so I really have no comment about what they do how they do it. I know what I do and that is what is important. I think LAT will tell you my dyno is calibrated fine.

B)I agree. There is an awful lot of BS on the board being created by resellers and people that do nothing but bolt things on. Toting you are a builder with these credentials is just wrong. It fills the industry with misinformation and clouds the facts. This should be a technical board, not a marketing board.

C)Not really. Anyone that would post the dyno baseline of one car and tune and post another completely different car for comparison is very green in this industry. Neither SpeedDaddy or Neil is all that knowledgeable. Neil’s background is he was the shipping manager for Rook. He does not own a Porsche to dig or test on. Again the result of marketing, spamming what ever you want to call it. No real technical background. I personally take offense to the misconception posted on the boards. This is an integrity thing, not a PSI thing. These are the same tactics that Rook used for years. Personally I don’t care what PSI makes or does. Again, I stick to my own projects unless the BS flag goes up. There is a lot of BS being spread to make sales. That I have a problem with when there is not any real experience or data or certainly knowledge to back it up. I post question on these boards all the time to gain an insight to the level of which people actually work on these cars. So far I have most of those questions left unanswered.

D) Again, I do not make these claims nor make accusations I can not back up. I post dynos non-stop, show up at shootouts and provide data and pictures of things people have never seen or do. Bottom line is I post nothing that I can not factually back up. No spam, no marketing just info. So again, I didn’t make those claim I only built the motor and shipped it out. I also don’t typically follow those types of threads. They offer very little in help or information. That is not where I troll.

Bottom line here is I normally take the high road and do not indulge in these conversations. But I am getting enough feedback from people, customers of things that are said or being done to spam these boards to gain business. I have a real problem with that. Especially since I am one of the few that actually does do this stuff and actually build things. I spent my time helping, posting facts and don’t worry about feeding garbage so I can make that sale. In fact I watch three TV shows and that is only because I have Tivo. The rest of my time is either spent on these boards or the National PCA Boards as the turbo Tech Advisor answering and helping. I do not abuse my rights.

Jean

Speedaddy

My bad if you are not Neil, but it does not change the fact that you are promoting PSI products in almost all your posts and that you are in the business.. so put it in your signature so that people here know that your seemingly informational posts are in fact promotional and this way you ensure transparency.
This is really what is Amazing... I heard from Neil about being the same as RS Tuning and Manthey, now also RUF. I also heard all sorts of other claims from him (they build engines for Roock, they did the 9FF speed record car, they support Manthey) and some posts being deleted afterwards, this is not helping PSI, a good company, unfortunately.

FWIW, I know PSI quite well, I was about to do my engine with PSI in Belgium about 2-3 years ago, but let us not get carried away...4-5 years of PSI Porsche tuning business and good contacts of Olivier Nameche (gone it seems from an email he sent me) with some European magazines, don't make PSI a veteran.

Woodster

This all is amazing...
Please, regardless of what you think of PSI Motorsport, lets not bash fellow
People in the Porsche tuning business--this is not "GOOD BUSINESS" !!
We all want facts and want to learn more, and have a little break from the
non-car part of our lives. 969 has been very impressed with this PSI 550 car,
and it sounds like most people who have ridden in it are also. I would like to see
a 60-130 run and/or a 1/4 mile run which will help us determine how well it is
making power. Unfortunately for the good DYNO charts and tuners who know how
to use them, Dyno charts now are often "manipulated" and "spun" for marketing
purposes (i.e. AWE, etc.). This will make a non-doctored dyno chart look unimpressive
and is hard for us non-experts to weed thru all of this.
My $.02 !!
Marty Kaye

Itzkirb

Just need to keep a note of who bashes and who doesn't.

It's funny...all that was posted was a Dyno chart. Not really promoting anything. Just a PSI Car and a Stock TT? Hmmm, wonder if any other tuner would get bashed for that? Strange?

ah well, can't make everyone happy. I just find it funny....and pointless

Woodster

I agree! Kirby has an excellent, level headed comment (for once-LOL)
marty

Itzkirb

HAHAHA

I better hide now