Dynoed the 4.0 (updated with 3.8 vs 4.0 chart)
02-04-2012, 01:35 PM
#31
Drifting
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Belmont Shore in Long Beach CA
Posts: 2,740
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Assuming one can get a used 6GT3 for $35,000, please just speaking hypothetically here, how much would it cost for all the mods? I'm thinking around $85,000 including cost of the Car.
02-04-2012, 01:54 PM
#32
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wishing I Was At The Track
Posts: 13,627
Received 1,863 Likes
on
963 Posts
I get the attraction of a "pure" 996 GT3 with no nannies, and not to take away anything from Serge's very cool project, but any Cup racer will tell you that the 997 is a far better platform than the 996 on track. If it were my money I'd find a cheap used 997 GT3 as a starting point and run the same exercise.
02-04-2012, 04:10 PM
#34
Rennlist Member
It's shrinking. I infrequently see 996 GT3s for less than 50k. There's an 08 GT3 with 60k miles advertized for 66k right now. I'm sure they wouldn't say no if you flash $60k cash in their face.
You ideally want the highest mileage car since you'll be replacing many wear items anyways with a big bore project.
But a $35k 996 GT3? I really don't think that will EVER happen. I think these cars will be valued like RS Americas of the 996 generation.
You ideally want the highest mileage car since you'll be replacing many wear items anyways with a big bore project.
But a $35k 996 GT3? I really don't think that will EVER happen. I think these cars will be valued like RS Americas of the 996 generation.
02-04-2012, 04:33 PM
#35
Rennlist Member
It's shrinking. I infrequently see 996 GT3s for less than 50k. There's an 08 GT3 with 60k miles advertized for 66k right now. I'm sure they wouldn't say no if you flash $60k cash in their face.
You ideally want the highest mileage car since you'll be replacing many wear items anyways with a big bore project.
But a $35k 996 GT3? I really don't think that will EVER happen. I think these cars will be valued like RS Americas of the 996 generation.
You ideally want the highest mileage car since you'll be replacing many wear items anyways with a big bore project.
But a $35k 996 GT3? I really don't think that will EVER happen. I think these cars will be valued like RS Americas of the 996 generation.
I think when 991 gt3 will come out that will be time to shop for 997.1 gt3 cars, will see.
02-04-2012, 04:56 PM
#37
Drifting
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Belmont Shore in Long Beach CA
Posts: 2,740
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Sorry, I way under-estimated the value of the 6.
I know there are a few folks here who would vouch for the 6 and enjoy its lack of sophistication. But I cannot ignore the fact that the 7 is probably a better car to modify.
I was thinking on the cheap...
I know there are a few folks here who would vouch for the 6 and enjoy its lack of sophistication. But I cannot ignore the fact that the 7 is probably a better car to modify.
I was thinking on the cheap...
02-05-2012, 01:30 PM
#39
Burning Brakes
with the engine being located in the rear the HP loss to the actual rear wheels as measured on the dyno is minimal due to the short distance from the engine to the wheels where power is usually lost.
Cars with front engines have further drivetrain distance to the rear wheels which robs even more power from the crank rating.
i really want 4.0 power in my 997.1
damn!
Cars with front engines have further drivetrain distance to the rear wheels which robs even more power from the crank rating.
i really want 4.0 power in my 997.1
damn!
02-05-2012, 01:32 PM
#40
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
It’s not clear to me why a rear engine, RWD car would have dramatically less driveline loss than a front engine, FWD car, at least when the wheels are pointed straight as they always are on a chassis dyno. I’ve often seen 15% quoted as a ballpark figure for driveline loss on most FWD setups. Either Porsche is under rating HP, or there’s something especially efficient about their driveline implementation.
02-05-2012, 01:41 PM
#41
Drifting
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Belmont Shore in Long Beach CA
Posts: 2,740
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I saw on an old episode of BBC Top Gear they dynoed a Ford Mustang GT500, the modern one with a super charger. They eeked out something like 445 BHP, and that assuming 500BHP at the crank? That is just over 10% loss! I call shenanigans, that car they tested was making more than just 500BHP.
02-05-2012, 01:50 PM
#42
Burning Brakes
Grant - Agree the two setups should have similar driveline efficiencies. But the 8%-10% figures implied by most GT3 dyno results are better than what I've seen published for several modern FWD setups.
02-05-2012, 03:47 PM
#44
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away....
Posts: 17,107
Likes: 0
Received 258 Likes
on
172 Posts
It’s not clear to me why a rear engine, RWD car would have dramatically less driveline loss than a front engine, FWD car, at least when the wheels are pointed straight as they always are on a chassis dyno. I’ve often seen 15% quoted as a ballpark figure for driveline loss on most FWD setups. Either Porsche is under rating HP, or there’s something especially efficient about their driveline implementation.
HP is lost in the drive train. ( transmission, drive shaft rear end...)
With the distance from the Engine to the wheels on a Porsche the lack of a drive shaft minimize this loss.
Dyno Dynamics make a decent dyno.... i would like to see the number set down on one of them.
02-06-2012, 10:28 AM
#45
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I noticed the correction factor is STD. What are your SAE numbers? Your SAE numbers should be about 3% less than STD. For comparison, my stock 10' GT3 did 404 rwhp and 298 lb-ft SAE on a Dynojet 100% stock. Jackie at RAC's 10' RS did 434 rwhp on the same Dynojet with GMG headers, GMG center pipe and a flashed ECU.
Sorry for the late response. This weekend I went out of town with my wife. First time away from the kids since our son was born 7 months ago.