forklift

Yikes! What does a non B&B Cayman S run at the wheels w/ the stock ECU?

300 at the wheels would mean that a Cayman is the H class killer if even close to 3,100 lbs. Would need to weigh 3,300 w/ driver for gts3 for 11 lbs/hp.

cgomez

Mine is around 265 - 270 (Dyno dependant). That's a lot of power with the stock ECU!!
With a modified ECU, without bumping the redline I get up to 20hp more. It all depends how aggressive (lean) you want to run the car and fuel (We do up 100Oct, but if you tune for 110hp you will get more hp).
In Krok's case I guess since the engine is B&B you can definetively increase the redline and should get up to 30hp more than his stock ECU. That's a ton of power out of the 3.4, but sounds in line from what Ernie is getting from the I Prepared Cayman, and big disparity with a stock internals engine (This is why I think B&B is NOT a good idea for a Spec class)

Krokodil

I thought you said we were not going to talk about the B&B? NASA, POC, and others all allow the engine to be B&B. Also, it is necessary to keep costs down in the long run. A B&B used motor is about the same as a new crate motor and will last much longer.

Remember, my engine no longer has the AC compressor or Cats (catless headers) and has an underdrive pulley (maybe 5-6 HP). The same engine, before installation of the Catback (Fabspeed) and removal of the cats and AC made about 275 RWHP, not a lot different than CGs.

The B&B is probably only good for 15-20 RWHP or so, and most of that is from matching compression to the stock spec. FYI, the HP numbers were taken running a blend of 91 & 100 octane fuel.

I was hesitant to post the HP numbers because of this debate, but I have no secrets. I am also considering removing the ECU modification allowance from the spec. It is there to allow folks to get rid of some of the warnings and errors, not to encourage folks to spin the brains out of their engines (although this cannot be prevented).

On the encouragement of potential drivers we are also trying to make the cars align with as many other classes as possible (e.g., POC GT3, NASA GTS4, etc.) in case they want to run elsewhere or chase others as the class develops.

Cheers,

Paul 996

Krododil,

regarding the CaymanSpec, why don't you tighten up the Spec... Shocks, springs, sway bars, tires etc are all open.

Why not establish a starting baseline to guide potential builders.

Krokodil

Paul,

Thank you for taking the time to read the rules. It is appreciated.

A bit of clarification. In your above list, only the springs are open (no different than Koni, Cup, etc.). Shocks are limited to double adjustable, sway bars can not be bladed, and tires must be DOT (no slicks). Spec does not mean exact, it just means there are limits.

While not manufacturer/PN specific (which is the only real way to "tighten" the spec), the rules govern using a "Max Spec" concept. This is different than BoxsterSpec, 996Spec, etc., but not uncommon in racing (formula, etc). Various GT3 cup classes, NASCAR, etc are all spec with allowable differences.

This concept was put in place at the request of many/most of the folks that commented on the rules discussion during the second half of last year. Existing racers said "I do not want to remove my Motons" or JRZ or whatever. Potential new racers said "I can get support from Kumho" or Hoosier or ...

There are several other reasons for the decision (can not please everyone) including encouraging racers to enter the class and develop the car as their budget allows, and the desire to create compatability with competing series (e.g., NASA GTS). We want cars on grid.

Also, and nearly as critical, was the observed desire to tinker as a key part of sustainability in this hobby. Much of the debate and dissention in other specs seems to occur when the early adopters get bored. People want to tweak their cars and alter the setup for their personal style. While this does introduce variability it should improve the dynamics of the class. The initial build is no more expensive (and may be less for some) by having a Max Spec than if we had spec'd JRZ DA as the class shock.

There are folks that rightly point out that a Max Spec concept favors those who can afford to test and tweak. This is no doubt true, but those folks have many other lower cost places to play. The Cayman, as pointed out by many, is not an inexpensive platform, and our discussions indicate that folks who are willing to spend the money to build this car are also willing to spend the money to set it up to their liking.

We already have a crowded field of tightly defined spec classes - 944, Boxster, 996 - so why not create something for people who are looking for a faster car, but non cup, that want to play around and test their engineering mettle (with limits) as well as their driving skill?

Please continue to provide feedback, it is much appreciated.

Cheers,

cgomez

I agree that there's no reason, at the current cost level, for the parts to be of one kind or cheapest common denominator. Spec swaybars, Any double adjustable shock and free springs is good enough for fairness (+ with such a "new" platform you still need a lot of testing from actual racing to see what comes out as best for the car, and only then it makes sense to go 1Spec only)

Krok, since you are already allowing B&B I would free up the ECU. However, it is not needed to correct anything (no fault codes, etc.) nothing works wrong by using the stock ECU in a Cayman racecar. I would allow it to make sense of the whole B&B package and exploit its potential and be compatible with other potential classes (GTS in Nasa and GT in PCA).

However, if you want to lower performance variance and make some guys like me happ(ier), I would constrain the engine to full stock (internals and ECU) with free allowances for cooling and oil reservoirs (as you have it already). A Spec class is only succesful if people and cars show up and it might take a while. In the meantime I will keep running PCA stock, but love the idea of one day pulling out 300#s of my car! It will be a beast!