Gt2 numbers before/after Orton flash
11-05-2006, 06:32 PM
#61
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Jean
9Eleven
Whenever you want to know how much real HP your car is putting on the ground and you start with the asusmption that your car puts more than the factory quoted when stock, all the rest is almost sure wrong.
Mike Levitas is a great driver, that does not make him an expert in measuring HP, and certainly not qualified to say that the factory underrates their cars. This is the typical (and now boring) sort of statements that some tuners say to justify an optimistic dyno reading, don't fall for that trap, you have gone to great lengths to know the truth.
If you want to know how much you really are putting on the flywheel, start with a stock GT2 factory number, and then aftermods, use the RWHP readings as your FWHP readings (yes you read that right), and you will be closer to the truth...The more the engine is aggressively tuned, the more the reading errors will be... Not correct to compare stock vs modded HP on a chassis dyno, the error is much higher, the higher the temps (boost, timing...) generated. Hence, a dyno showing you 456HP stock, and 550HP modded, might be closer to being 520 real HP when modded regardless of the accurateness shown on a stock car readings.
For benchmarking against other tuner 996TTs here, your approach might be fine, but not if you want to know how much Porsche hp you have.
Whenever you want to know how much real HP your car is putting on the ground and you start with the asusmption that your car puts more than the factory quoted when stock, all the rest is almost sure wrong.
Mike Levitas is a great driver, that does not make him an expert in measuring HP, and certainly not qualified to say that the factory underrates their cars. This is the typical (and now boring) sort of statements that some tuners say to justify an optimistic dyno reading, don't fall for that trap, you have gone to great lengths to know the truth.
If you want to know how much you really are putting on the flywheel, start with a stock GT2 factory number, and then aftermods, use the RWHP readings as your FWHP readings (yes you read that right), and you will be closer to the truth...The more the engine is aggressively tuned, the more the reading errors will be... Not correct to compare stock vs modded HP on a chassis dyno, the error is much higher, the higher the temps (boost, timing...) generated. Hence, a dyno showing you 456HP stock, and 550HP modded, might be closer to being 520 real HP when modded regardless of the accurateness shown on a stock car readings.
For benchmarking against other tuner 996TTs here, your approach might be fine, but not if you want to know how much Porsche hp you have.
Last edited by 9Eleven; 11-05-2006 at 07:00 PM.
11-05-2006, 06:38 PM
#62
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Stummel
do you have a long term strategy for your tuning stages?
Ask TB what kind of money you can sink into non-packaged tuning parts.
BTW, what is your use of the GT2, is it more fast street driving or also track usage or even open road racing?
For street use in the US I guess ZC turbos from Kevin are something to consider.
Ask TB what kind of money you can sink into non-packaged tuning parts.
BTW, what is your use of the GT2, is it more fast street driving or also track usage or even open road racing?
For street use in the US I guess ZC turbos from Kevin are something to consider.
11-05-2006, 06:41 PM
#63
Pro
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pole position
Do you have a slip or you are you only using the Race logic ? If you are a big 1/4 fan you MUST have a time/trap slip , no if's or but's and then there are fast tracks and slower ones . I can guarantee you that you would trap differently (by a good margin) going , for example from Englishtown to Palmdale.
A Carr Gt traps on a dragstrip 133-135 with a low 600 crank hp and you claim you are at 550 with a ~ 127 trap. 60 horses ain't making up 6-8 mph on a strip..............ever.
As for your statement that PAG underrates..........LOL, total chassisdyno tuner myth and why would PAG charge 15 k for the X50 upgrade for a lousy 30 hp but give you 50 FOR FREE ? BTW, by german law the manufacturer has to stay within 2-3 % of the advertised hp figures , fact not fiction.
In the early 70's the 911S was Porsche's flagship with top acceleration #'s up to it's ~230 km/h topspeed. The usual suspects for competition were from Italy , Ferrari,Lambo, Maserati and De Tomaso with sometimes twice the rated hp of the 911. It might come as a surprise to you but the 911 dusted them all up to 220-230 km/h and the above cars only had higher topspeeds. That was the difference with Porsche REAL hp and Italian threelegged PONY hp and nobody ever accused Porsche of underrating ever back then. It was just acknowledged that PAG produces to a higher standard.
I think I have mentioned ti before, if you want a somehow realistic chassis dyno reading you have to use a MAHA, but be warned, it spits out humbling low (read real) hp/tq and stresses the car for almost 45 sec not the typical 5-10 sec Mustang/Dynojet run.
A Carr Gt traps on a dragstrip 133-135 with a low 600 crank hp and you claim you are at 550 with a ~ 127 trap. 60 horses ain't making up 6-8 mph on a strip..............ever.
As for your statement that PAG underrates..........LOL, total chassisdyno tuner myth and why would PAG charge 15 k for the X50 upgrade for a lousy 30 hp but give you 50 FOR FREE ? BTW, by german law the manufacturer has to stay within 2-3 % of the advertised hp figures , fact not fiction.
In the early 70's the 911S was Porsche's flagship with top acceleration #'s up to it's ~230 km/h topspeed. The usual suspects for competition were from Italy , Ferrari,Lambo, Maserati and De Tomaso with sometimes twice the rated hp of the 911. It might come as a surprise to you but the 911 dusted them all up to 220-230 km/h and the above cars only had higher topspeeds. That was the difference with Porsche REAL hp and Italian threelegged PONY hp and nobody ever accused Porsche of underrating ever back then. It was just acknowledged that PAG produces to a higher standard.
I think I have mentioned ti before, if you want a somehow realistic chassis dyno reading you have to use a MAHA, but be warned, it spits out humbling low (read real) hp/tq and stresses the car for almost 45 sec not the typical 5-10 sec Mustang/Dynojet run.
11-05-2006, 07:56 PM
#64
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Stummel, you failed to tell us that the 542 hp Gt2 that ran a 10.7, 0-200kph weighed 3124 pounds. My car weighed 3400 plus pounds. A 280 plus pound difference. My car ran an 11.6, 0-200 kph. I think 280 plus lbs might have slowed me down a bit. At least .9 seconds. 
11-05-2006, 08:20 PM
#65
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by 9Eleven
Stummel, you failed to tell us that the 542 hp Gt2 that ran a 10.7, 0-200kph weighed 3124 pounds. My car weighed 3400 plus pounds. A 280 plus pound difference. My car ran an 11.6, 0-200 kph. I think 280 plus lbs might have slowed me down a bit. At least .9 seconds.
11-05-2006, 08:32 PM
#66
Pro
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jean
9Eleven, Your tuner NAO says you have 520HP, any other similar tune-up on these cars gives about 520 Porsche hp, your car traps 127.xxmph, which corresponds to 550-600HP it seems, which is incorrect even according to your tuner.
11-05-2006, 08:40 PM
#67
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Rickard 993 Turbo
Or they list the car empty..my car weights 3234 with half tank without me
Last edited by 9Eleven; 11-05-2006 at 09:38 PM.
11-05-2006, 08:53 PM
#68
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by 9Eleven
Well was it empty or not? Stock Gt2 empty weighs in at 3175. Not sure if that is dry or with gas. Where did they get 3124lbs? Was this with a driver? If not what did he weigh? Was he your standard 5'10'' 175 lbs?
Maybe it was without fuel and driver then
11-05-2006, 09:01 PM
#69
Pro
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rickard 993 Turbo
Sounds very light if he was in there..?
Maybe it was without fuel and driver then
Maybe it was without fuel and driver then
Kevin
11-05-2006, 09:32 PM
#70
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Rickard 993 Turbo
Sounds very light if he was in there..?
Maybe it was without fuel and driver then
Maybe it was without fuel and driver then
11-05-2006, 09:43 PM
#71
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Jean
Your tuner NAO says you have 520HP
11-06-2006, 01:11 AM
#73
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by KPG
Jean, are you saying this car cannot trap 127? If you are , I have to respectfully disagree.
9Eleven, Concerning the weight of the GT2 mentioned by Stummel, it is stock GT2 weight, exactly like yours. Apples to apples.
Below is what Neil said a while ago.
Originally Posted by NAO
In Europe 9Elevens car would be rated at 520HP and with a muffler 530 Tops.
In any case I have yet to see a tuner on these forums erring on the conservative side with his numbers, which is normal, so I would say that the 520FWHP no exhaust is the upper limit and not the contrary.
Based on the above, any HP you get through trap speed calculations beyond the 520 is inaccurate...If you want to compare them to the factory horses that is.
Does it matter? No. As long as we agree on these points, then one can have 900 dynojet HP, and that will be the HP he really has, as far as he (and his tuner) are concerned....Not an issue, seriously.
11-06-2006, 06:47 AM
#75
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by KPG
That is an impressive time for a car that has no driver or fuel.... imagine if it was running and had a driver Kevin
Kevin