Planet 9

There has been a lot of speculation and discussion about the relative merits of the IPD Competition Plenum with its 82mm throttle body as compared to the Softronic Race Plenum with its 80mm throttle body. See this thread, for example. The comparison is sometimes clouded by the ECU software, as Softronic packages their plenum with a flash. The IPD plenum can be installed with the EVOMS flash, but it is not required.

In an effort to add some hard data to the discussion I have completed a back-to-back dyno test of the IPD Competition Plenum (IPD) and the Softronic Race Plenum (SRP). The car was tested with the SRP installed, and then the car was tested with the IPD installed. No other changes were made, and the car remained hooked up to the dyno while I changed plenums. Less than an hour elapsed between the 2 dyno runs. This is about as good a back-to-back test as can be done.

The testing was conducted at Synergy Motorsports in Newark, California. I selected that shop because they have a Dynapack 4000 chassis dyno. This dyno hooks up to the wheel hubs and directly measures torque. This eliminates the problems of tire slippage, tire rolling resistance, and the other uncertainties encountered with the usual roller-drum dynos, and should provide the most accurate results that can be acquired with the engine still in the car. Synergy Motorsports is a GM tuning shop. There were lots of Corvettes, GTO's and Trans Am's in the shop. I don't think a Porsche had ever been in the building before! Certainly, Synergy had no stake in the outcome of the test. I also had no stake in the outcome. I've purchased, installed, and posted favorable comments about the IPD products as well as the Softronic products. I like 'em both! I've been running the IPD Competition Plenum with Softronic software for several months. On to the test...

Here is a photo of the special Dynapack wheel hub adapter bolted to my rear wheel hub:



After the hubs are installed the Dynapack loading/measurement units are wheeled into place and attached to the wheel hub adapters. At this point the Dynapack units are supporting the rear half of the car through the wheel hubs:



Cooling fans were used to blow cool air onto the radiators:



The engine configuration of my 2007 Cayman S was stock except for:
Desnork
EVOMS V-Flow air filter (freshly cleaned)
IPD or SRP plenum and throttle body
B&B catless headers
AWE catback
Softronic 4.1 flash

I had a mixture of about 3 gal of rotgut 7-11 California oxygenated, ethanoled 91 octane fuel, and 10 gal of Sunoco 100 octane unleaded race fuel. The estimated resulting octane was 98.

The test conditions were 63 deg F for the SRP, and 65 deg F for the IPD. The elevation was about 20 ft above sea level, and the relative humidity was 74%. These conditions are very close to a "standard atmosphere". All data has had the resulting tiny SAE corrections applied.

The test procedure was as follows:
(1) disconnect the battery to force the ECU "learning" process to start over from scratch.
(2) turn the power on and let the car sit for 45 seconds so the e-throttle can establish calibration for the throttle body.
(3) run the car from 2000 to 7500 rpm under load with full throttle, recording data continuously. The runs were performed in 4th gear.
(4) run again as many times as required until the runs stop changing and provide repeatable data. 4 runs were required for the SRP, and 5 were required for IPD.
(5) save the final (best and repeatable) run.
(6) swap from SRP to IPD plenum
(7) repeat steps (1) - (5).

Here is a chart that plots the last 2 runs with SRP (the fine lines: purple and dark blue) with the final IPD run (thick light blue line).



In summary, the maximim power of the IPD configuration was 7 HP more than the SRP configuration. Peak power & torque for the IPD is in the green boxes at the bottom of the chart, and peak power & torque for the SRP are in the yellow boxes.

A high-resolution copy of this image is available for download here. The data for the final 2 SRP runs is very repeatable - the final 2 IPD runs exhibited similar repeatability. Tabulated data for the SRP is available for download here, and tabulated data for the IPD is available for download here.

A number of people had earlier posted that they were sufficiently interested in a test along these lines that they would be willing to contribute to the cost of the testing. I spent about $200 on the testing and fuel. If anbody still wants to contribute send me a PM.

Fort,

Congratulations. Nice test. What I see in particular is that between 4000 and 6000 RPM (with a closing of the gap at 5000 RPM), is where the peak differences occur. And The torques curves are almost identical to each other. The areas of the differences as computed "between the curves", show again not much difference in my book. Yes I would conclude from your data, the IPD plenum/997GT3 82 mm throttle body setup makes slightly more HP and torque than the SRP Plenum/996 80mm Porsche Motor Sports GT3 throttle body setup with Version 4.1 Softronic Software.

I think this is about the result I was expecting.

Certainly much different than to a comparison posted on another site, claiming 15 HP and 20 ft-lbs of torque difference for the IPD over SRP.

This post has convinced me to shelve my plan I was entertaining for doing just the same.
And it convinces me to stay with what I already have. the SRP package with V4.1 software.

__________________

Fort,
many many thanks for this outstanding review.
Best,
w

I think you have a typo, you say IPD is higher and in yellow box but the green box data is higher?
Nice post BTW.

__________________
2010 Cayman S, special build.

Nice job Fort..... I can't think of a better person in this community to have conducted this test. You are a devoted Cayman enthusiast and profesional scientist. You own both products, you paid full pop for them, and you stand to gain nothing by being subjective.

Your results are right along the lines of what I would have expected. The larger throttle body is producing a little less torque down low, a little more up high. That makes perfect sense. I think you would agree that because your car has catless aftermarket headers that it can probably benefit more up top from the larger throttle body than a car that has stock headers. Even so, the two packages are delivering very similar results.

__________________
Gator Bite
PCA Cayman Register Advocate

You're correct - thanks for catching that. I'll correct the post.

I understand that some data has been posted on a different site that shows a much bigger increment. I have no information about that test or the resulting data, so I can't comment. I trust my data - it's consistent with what I would expect as a fluid dynamicist, and it's consistent with the 4HP difference that was found between the basic IPD plenum and the stock Cayman plenum in back-to-back testing at RSS's dyno day last summer.

Really appreciate you taking the time to do this comparison. Good to see both plenums validated as solid products.

Good stuff Fort - exactly what I expected - not just from the two products, but from you, too... smart, well thought out, and above all, impartial.

Hat's off - you may now add "Uber" to your "Geek" moniker...

brad

__________________
22-year PCA Member
PCA DE Instructor

Kudos to FF, this is above and beyond the call of duty. Impartial back to back testing, with no agenda to push either product.

Thanks,
Chuck

The same data and dyno sheet was posted here last week until one of the expert Moderators didn't like that it mentioned competing sponsors and it was taken down.
It has an additional variable, a custom ECU Tune on the dyno, not quite apples to apples.
http://www.planetporsche.net/site-ve...te-2-09-a.html

The car used is a Cayman Club members, JCay.

__________________


DISCLAIMER: I'm not an engineer, I just play one on the internet.
BBI Under-Drive Pulley V2 | BBI Roll-Bar
BBI Brake cooling package | GT3 Lower control arms
GT3 Front Sway bar | Tarett Rear Sway bar
Tarett Drop links Front & Rear | Tarett Rear Toe arms
Quaife TBD | Hossier| PSS9

Hello Fort,

I would personally like to thank you for a very accurate and unbiased test on both the plenums and find your results credible and what I would expect. You have not only shown a dyno on the results, yet more importantly described the process and backed it with the data.



Best Regards,
Scott Slauson

Chad - This had to do with more than someone "not liking" that it mentioned competing sponsors. We took it down because we didn't think it was fair for any sponsor to directly compare the results of their product to the results of a competitor's similar or same product in the forums of the Cayman Club. If vendors want to post their results compared to the stock version of that car, that's fine... if they want to compare their modification results to the results of another similar product, that has to go in their own marketing materials or their Web site, not here on the Cayman Club forum. A new rule stating this policy has been issued, and all of the sponsors (including BBI) have agreed that this is a good policy.

Members will have to dig up the reported results from stock of these various products and "do the math" themselves. We're hoping this will stop some of the fanboy flaming about these products.

Because we deleted this dyno chart before, and Betim was supposed to post a new one (he hasn't yet) I'm going to have to edit this one out, too. Sorry.

brad

__________________
22-year PCA Member
PCA DE Instructor

Question: I thought the torque dip that occurs at 5200 rpms was related to the OEM plenum distributor flap actuation, yet it shows up in both aftermarket plenums - any explanation?

__________________
Andrew My Blogs My Garage My Articles
2006 Cayman S Tiptronic (Year-round Daily Driver & Part-time Track Toy)
Mods: SRP, DREAM-1, VentureShield, Xpel Headlamp shields, 35% Tint, MotorDrive Front Mesh Grills, Bumperplugs..
Track Prep: Pagid Yellows, Champion RS98s/R-S3s, Deka ETX14 Battery, CG-Lock, Extinguisher, Rennline towhook, BBI Harness/Rollbar

Well, one of the flaps is still present. Could that be the cause?

Fort...

Many thanks. Nicely done!

Brad
So if JCay the owner of the car posts the dyno sheet as fort did its ok?
I believe that the rule that you are referring to is new and was changed after the thread was started.
BBI is not the producer or distributor of either of the products that were originally tested and tested them at the owners request. BBI posted their findings on another forum and before they posted them on the CC one of our moderators went to that forum and did everything they could to discredit BBIs results by accusing them of doctoring the dyno results.
Hmm fan boy for the losing product, maybe?


If you would like to see the fanatical posts PM me and I will direct you to the thread.

So as BBI continued to look for more power by doing a custom tune for their customer, posted their results here on the CC they are met with skepticism and posts implying their results are falsified and I can't help but feel that this is due to the prior events I stated above.

The guys at BBI have a vast amount of knowledge and talent and have no need to falsify anything, Betim worked at Porsche Motorsports for over 4 years, and with ALMS and Grand AM teams. Joey was on 5 Championship winning ALMS teams. Jared has been building race engines for the ALMS, Grand AM and Motorcycles for quite some time.
Their business is not run with smoke and mirrors.

So I am waving the fanboy flag now, and with good reason BBI does excellent work has helped me win two Championships with the Porsche Owners Club and 11 out of 13 events in 2008.

__________________


DISCLAIMER: I'm not an engineer, I just play one on the internet.
BBI Under-Drive Pulley V2 | BBI Roll-Bar
BBI Brake cooling package | GT3 Lower control arms
GT3 Front Sway bar | Tarett Rear Sway bar
Tarett Drop links Front & Rear | Tarett Rear Toe arms
Quaife TBD | Hossier| PSS9

Chad - I understand your relationship with BBI, and that's great - great shops should have very satisfied customers... I've seen the threads on the other site, and know all about what happened, and yes, the rule came about because of Betim's post here. Nobody is attacking Betim in this, and in fact there's been a lot of talking with both Betim and other sponsors behind the scenes that you are not privy to, so please believe me when I say this has been worked out to everyone's satisfaction, including Betim's - at least that's what he's told us. In fact, he admitted there were problems with that dyno chart in question, was OK with taking it down, and said he would post another one, but hasn't yet. We're just trying to keep the playing field level for everyone with this new rule, and keep vendors and their fans from sniping at each other, which does no one any good.

I'd like to keep this thread on-topic, it's in danger of becoming a thread not unlike the one with fanatical posts you mention. Let's just please move on - Betim doesn't need to be defended here because, once again, he's not being attacked. If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me, Ken, or Santa Fe... or all three of us. Let's let this thread continue on topic.

brad

__________________
22-year PCA Member
PCA DE Instructor

Chad,

No one is claiming that BBI does not do excellent work. I have talked to Betim on at least 2 occassions about this dyno chart over the phone. I have told Betim that if he wants to post a new dyno chart showing his ECU tuning vs. stock ECU tuning he is more than welcome to do so. That's what he is trying to show isn't it? With regard to showing BBI ECU tuning vs. EVO tuning vs. Softronic tuning vs. REVO tuning, etc. he is not allowed to do so unless the other sponsor(s) agrees to it.

Betim is free to post his dyno chart on other sites or his own website and post a link to it, but we do not allow direct sponsor comparisons without all sponsors being involved. We have witnessed too many flame wars, name calling and other less than desireable actions from individuals who get bent out of shape when this type of information is posted. Imagine if you will for a moment that a competitor to your business (whatever business you happen to be in) takes out an ad in the USA Today showing their product or service is clearly better than yours. How would you feel? Especially if you thought your competitor wasn't playing fairly? (BTW I am NOT suggesting that Betim wasn't playing fairly in the instance you mentioned above, only citing an example that has occurred in the past when these sorts of things get posted.)

Now as the USA Today they don't care, they have their ad money they run, they are on to the next paying client, in fact they probably hope that you will also want to take out a full page ad to "counteract" your competitor's ad as the newspaper is the one who ends up winning, but what happens to the buyers of those products? They are left with fear, uncertainty and doubt - FUD. We hold ourselves to a higher standard that USA Today and we are not about to spend my time or moderator's time babysitting any sponsor(s) who are upset with another sponsor over some comparative test.

If sponsors want to compare themselves to each other they have the following options:

1) All parties agree to the comparison test, testing methods, facility, etc. and all agree that the results that are posted are whatever was achieved.

2) Where parties do not agree the sponsor can still post the information on their own website, just not this one. If GM wants to say they are better than Ford, nothing stopping them from doing so on their own site.

This all comes down to trying to maintain neutrality and a lack of bias and only presenting the information as can be independently factually verified. We have seen a rash of guerilla marketing on other automotive forums recently and we will not tolerate that here. Universally the sponsors of this site applauded our decision to implement this new rule and quite honestly couldn't believe we had the guts to do it. They had suffered so long at other sites where there is a lot of FUD or where a sponsor is also a moderator and has more "power" and influence so that they can direct sales their way, that our new rule and implementation was a refreshing change for them and one they welcomed. It was also the only "fair" thing to do.

Now if a sponsor says to me "Well I can't advertise my products on your site the way I want to so I'm not going to be a sponsor" I will tell them. "I understand and if you cannot advertise by our rules then yes it is best that you advertise elsewhere". Advertisers who are legit, who aren't trying guerilla tactics, who have good solid proven products will have no problems sticking around and playing on a level playing field for all sponsors. I would hope that would describe ALL of our current sponsors and any that we add in the future.

Fort did an independent test of two plenums and both parties represented in the test agreed to have him look into it and he did a fine job of documenting it. That is a totally separate subject and circumstances. Fort was not paid by either party to do the test, he was not given free product, he has no vested stake. He fully documented his process and procedures and accurately depicted the results. Even the sponsor whose product produced the lower numbers has applauded his independent effort and work. Fort's activity is exactly that type of activity that we are trying to promote.

If Betim wants an independent 3rd party to test his software he only needs to ask in the forum and see if someone will take him and other parties up on an independent test where all sponsors are agreeable to the terms and outcome of the test. We certainly have moderators and senior members here whose testing methods are proven to be reliable and are looked upon by the community as being independent and objective.

In closing, I did speak to Betim in depth about what he did to get very good results for his ECU tuning and I do think he should post both his methods (to the extent they wouldn't give any competitors any inside info) as well as a comparison between a stock Cayman and a modified one to show what his tuning is capable of.
If you have questions let me know!

__________________

My Garage | My Gallery | My Articles | My Blog |My Classifieds
K-Man S

Nice work Fort. As all of us expected, really a pretty small difference. I personally would have liked to see the comparison with stock headers (for selfish reasons) and suspect that would have resulted in an even smaller difference.

Again, nice work!


timbucthree