Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner

1 - 20 of 102 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I always wanted to validate how my car is power wise after many extensive modifications on the car. I currently have IPD Comp Plenum with GT3TB, EVOMS intake (de-snorked), Fabspeed Sports headers with 200 cell cats, Fabspeed Maxflo 2 exhaust & Fabspeed race exhaust (track use only - not used today in dyno runs)

My car has posted some impressive qtr mile figures in the past and runs well against other cars in rolling start accelerations. But something has always wanted me to check power, especially as I have a Softronic tune and FVD tunes to compare.

This is not a witch hunt purely my dyno runs performed this morning to validate power...one vs. another vs Standard map.

I had the Softronic tune in my car already so that was run first, then changed to the standard Porsche map and then finally the FVD tune. 2 runs for each and best run taken - 2 hours of Dyno time and a $$ investment made by me.

Results are attached below..Draw your own conclusions and let the debate roll as I am sure others will have very different results to show/prove their points - But these are my findings. It could be our fuel vs other fuel overseas but here is my high level conclusion:-

RWKW Max Result -

Softronic - 202
Standard Map - 201
FVD - 199

FVD runs more aggressive timing throughout the runs but runs much leaner than even standard tune and makes less power as a result.

Softronic only just marginally better than standard power map in places with ever so slightly timing differences and slightly richer fuelling.

I have reached out to both Softronic and FVD....
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
329 Posts
Thanks for the investment Mungee; it's really great to get more data points for the community - it's a shame it came at such a personal expense but it's well worth the knowledge gained!

For reference this mimics my and a few other people from the UK's experience.

Get yourself a custom tune :)

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
548 Posts
Be careful, you might get yourself into trouble by starting threads like this....

Question: was the canned tunes made with the mods in mind i.e did you tell Softronic/FVD what mods you had prior to receiving the file?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,301 Posts
For anyone wondering about the three power figures given in Mungee's pdfs, I've found this
GoodSpeed Performance Lab Dyno Sheet Explained if it's of any help in keeping the mysterious discussion of "horsepowers" on the same page.

For what little it's worth, I'd submit just sticking to the actual measured "wheel" number would make arguments across various platforms easier to moderate/understand - but that's me. It (sticking to a measured wheel value) doesn't help much when one hasn't pulled a baseline run for a car before making all or any of the modifications, because one is then stuck trying to work their way back to a published factory value. HTH


Mungee, thanks for posting the dyno sheets. You wouldn't have any printout which also chart the torque values? For example in BJR's case, I think his personal sense of greatly improved driving dynamics is more associated with the torque gain in the lower rpm range, than with his peak power numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike R.

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
For what little it's worth, I'd submit just sticking to the actual measured "wheel" number would make arguments across various platforms easier to moderate/understand.

Completely agree. Furthermore, dynos are comparative only on the same machine, and in a perfect world, the same day, similar temps, etc. Even "corrected" dynos are imperfect, imo. But again... "in a perfect world". Why people don't do baselines is still beyond my comprehension.


Question: was the canned tunes made with the mods in mind i.e did you tell Softronic/FVD what mods you had prior to receiving the file?
This was the first thought across my mind as well. Especially with such a modded vehicle. You have a great set of mods (I would consider a similar set, personally), and much improved breathing/flow than what a factory stock car is capable of, even an "R". I would think a basic tune expecting a minimally modified Cayman would not take full advantage of those mods.

Thanks for taking the time to dyno and post results. :cheers:
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
I always wanted to validate how my car is power wise after many extensive modifications on the car. I currently have IPD Comp Plenum with GT3TB, EVOMS intake (de-snorked), Fabspeed Sports headers with 200 cell cats, Fabspeed Maxflo 2 exhaust & Fabspeed race exhaust (track use only - not used today in dyno runs)

My car has posted some impressive qtr mile figures in the past and runs well against other cars in rolling start accelerations. But something has always wanted me to check power, especially as I have a Softronic tune and FVD tunes to compare.

This is not a witch hunt purely my dyno runs performed this morning to validate power...one vs. another vs Standard map.

I had the Softronic tune in my car already so that was run first, then changed to the standard Porsche map and then finally the FVD tune. 2 runs for each and best run taken - 2 hours of Dyno time and a $$ investment made by me.

Results are attached below..Draw your own conclusions and let the debate roll as I am sure others will have very different results to show/prove their points - But these are my findings. It could be our fuel vs other fuel overseas but here is my high level conclusion:-

RWKW Max Result -

Softronic - 202
Standard Map - 201
FVD - 199

FVD runs more aggressive timing throughout the runs but runs much leaner than even standard tune and makes less power as a result.

Softronic only just marginally better than standard power map in places with ever so slightly timing differences and slightly richer fuelling.

I have reached out to both Softronic and FVD....
Unfortunately he contacted us after business hours on Friday at another email and asked for input on running the car and then ran and posted Monday prior to me getting back to him and Softronic opening.

He was also sent another file in which he didn't run, yet posted these figures. This file he ran was from Feb 2012. I had suggested that he run the car for a base dyno and then with a mod etc as he ran the car with all the mods and then with the different files. Not a very accurate way to check as all mods do not exactly add power and some often inhibit it etc. The car that ran 387 on a DynoPack was posted with race fuel, complete exhaust only. The other with the same file and exhaust ran on the DynoPack yet with plenum added to it ran 380 ..... More mods yet less hp ....

One could also mention that the run on the stock file with the mods was lower than what it should be by other dyno posting ???? 332BHP with headers, Plenum with TB, De Snork and filter assembly corrected on a car that came with 330BHP? Now granted they are BHP derived from WHP by the Dyno yet look to convert from the KW to those figures. So basically he was saying the car had been fast and posted other times yet by the dynos one would think it was a stock car run on the dyno. With or without custom tuning its low everywhere .

Best,
Scott
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
548 Posts
I think we can disregard the dyno reading low, whp vs crank hp and whatnot, because that's really not the interesting part. Regardless of his tuned files being "old" or not, shouldn't he be making at least some power from the tunes?

The interesting part is the delta, which isn't there. Why is that? I am actually surprised of the outcome, 3kw between the three is negligible. And peak HP is the important thing in this case, because that is what is being advertised - not "driveability" or anything else. From what I can gather all three files were run under similar (I will not say equal or exact to avoid being mis-quoted) conditions. This is as fair an "apples to apples" comparison one can make. And even more importantly - it is an unbiased comparison.


Anyways, another couple of questions to mungee: were the fuel trims monitored? Did you reset the LTFT's between the three "tunes" ?
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
I think we can disregard the dyno reading low, whp vs crank hp and whatnot, because that's really not the interesting part. Regardless of his tuned files being "old" or not, shouldn't he be making at least some power from the tunes?
I think it has a lot to do with it and offers some in site . Lets say I ran a car with bad gas or a lower octane fuel etc you are not going to generate higher results with a 100 octane file 96 or 93 being used or if the car has another issue. So what delta would you be looking at on any of the files then? The car came in at a number of 332bhp with all the mods and stock file. Would you suggest it should have dyno at 300BHP all stock and the mods added to get to a stock or close number of 332BHP? This number may be reflective of a limiting factor that none of the files could overcome. Or that the mods and flashes added nothing? Or the Dynos are off... 201.4 KW equals 273.8WHP and drive loss by the Dyno is at 332BHP uncorrected.

The speed time he posted also of about 113MPH 1/4 mile in 12.29 would also be indicative of close to 360BHP or so.

There would not be any LTFT's to reset either as they reset when flashed.

Best,
Scott
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
548 Posts
The speed time he posted also of about 113MPH 1/4 mile in 12.29 would also be indicative of close to 360BHP or so.
I totally agree with you. But the power increase might as well have come from the other mods he had. The plenum/TB is a proven power adder, as is headers. Even without tune.

I still don't get why the dyno numbers as such are interesting, it could just as well be reading really low (i.e Dyno Dynamics). I still insist that the delta is the important thing. And then to find out why no power increase happened with the different tunes. If it was "bad gas" shouldn't we see the DME pulling timing to compensate and avoid knock?

There would not be any LTFT's to reset either as they reset when flashed.
I did not know this. Is this Porsche specific? Softronic specific? Both open and closed loop?



The reason I asked is because people often comment on the car being "stronger" a while after the flash, often being attributed to the DME "adapting" or updating the LTFT table. A "clean" table should be giving the most power, or am I wrong?
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
I totally agree with you. But the power increase might as well have come from the other mods he had. The plenum/TB is a proven power adder, as is headers. Even without tune.

I still don't get why the dyno numbers as such are interesting, it could just as well be reading really low (i.e Dyno Dynamics). I still insist that the delta is the important thing. And then to find out why no power increase happened with the different tunes. If it was "bad gas" shouldn't we see the DME pulling timing to compensate and avoid knock?
The timing numbers are low for all the files and the stock file that he has in the car should not be different in AFR's than the Tuned file from 2012. The newer files that I make are different in many other attributes though. Another interesting item is how the throttle was reading. It shows around 87% and not at or close to 100%?? This may be incorrect data and its 87 degrees in which it opens up to 90 degrees.

The dyno numbers may be reading low yet they would still be at a given loss and the dyno is showing close to 17% by it own figures. So the 360BHP number the dyno should run around 300WHP and its at 273.8 with the mods and stock file then. The Dyno Dynamics runs at about the same losses.



I did not know this. Is this Porsche specific? Softronic specific? Both open and closed loop? ?
The fuel trims are reset when flashed along with other tables and is Porsche or generally specific when re-writing a file. The DFI cars typically take a couple runs on a dyno to settle in yet are better when spirited driving to learn such as on a race track. The cars at Sebring as an example dial in after several runs around the track.



The reason I asked is because people often comment on the car being "stronger" a while after the flash, often being attributed to the DME "adapting" or updating the LTFT table. A "clean" table should be giving the most power, or am I wrong?
The clean table would basically be at a 1.00 on correction as the base yet the car would then add fuel such as a 1.10 or subtract fuel as a .90 in which would affect the overall performance as an example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Be careful, you might get yourself into trouble by starting threads like this....

I can only print what my results show..No hidden agenda or need to portary a certain aspect..I don't run a business to sell product...I am just an enthusiast wanting to generate postive fruitful discussion that is all. Others have other agendas...

Question: was the canned tunes made with the mods in mind i.e did you tell Softronic/FVD what mods you had prior to receiving the file?
If you read FVD's points around thier tune they claim that the tune has hundered of maps to take advantage of any new parts you add, ie. Exhaust plenum. They claim the tune adjusts to suit. But to answer your question yes all my mods were advised to both of course.

Unfortunately he contacted us after business hours on Friday at another email and asked for input on running the car and then ran and posted Monday prior to me getting back to him and Softronic opening.

He was also sent another file in which he didn't run, yet posted these figures. This file he ran was from Feb 2012.
Yes as the new file was sent by Softronic but recieved 18 hours after I run the car, an issue of living on opposite sides of the globe - so I did not have it to run. But I do now and cannot wait to run it. However Feb 2012 was the tune that you sold to me, it shows a slight improvement over stock map. I still believe our 98RON fuel may cause some issues compared to US fuel..I may be wrong. We now also have a 100RON (10% ethanol fuel) @ pump available to use moving forward and I can always use this but it will change one more parameter.

I think we can disregard the dyno reading low, whp vs crank hp and whatnot, because that's really not the interesting part. Regardless of his tuned files being "old" or not, shouldn't he be making at least some power from the tunes?
I could not agree more its all about the wheel hp over the run - the softronic tune has delivered a very slight improvement across the board basically, FVD went the other way across the board.

My intent was always just to run the 3 maps to compare against each other that is all - more than highlight power figures as you cannot compare one dyno vs another across the globe.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
I could not agree more its all about the wheel hp over the run - the softronic tune has delivered a very slight improvement across the board basically, FVD went the other way across the board.

My intent was always just to run the 3 maps to compare against each other that is all - more than highlight power figures as you cannot compare one dyno vs another across the globe.
While the intent was good it causes more questions than answers as I have pointed out. FVD makes their own flashes and I know Emir and others there and I have never seen results from all 3 that close "Stock, FVD, Softronic". I would also say the same for Giac, Evo, Revo and many others I know of and I have seen them all in race compliancy checking that I perform. This is not to say mine should be better or worse or theirs either yet they have always shown more of a difference in testing and especially over a stock file as a whole in gains. I personally make these for Softronic and all the race teams etc . I was surprised by many things not only on the Softronic and FVD flash yet stock with the mods given the 1/4 mile posting. Around 360BHP would be required to do it, yet it is still at about stock BHP by these runs no matter the tune or mods. In my honest opinion should I have been looking at the dyno's with no other info I would have guessed a CaymanR run 3 times after a stock re-flash or reset. I look at hundreds of dyno's, data logs and other data a year from all over the world for many other groups, shops, race teams, Race series for compliance and more . I would most likely think it was a fuel , dyno or some other issue causing the results.
Best Regards,
Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Scott Let me ask this one - Why is my graph climbing all the way to cut out and all of your tunes including on "R's" on the graphs you have been posting show peak power in the mid/high 6k rpm and then drop away?

If Porsche was to believed the R is supposed to peak up top at 7300ish and my graphs show that across all runs?

Also my Qtr Mile time was with "no Plenum & TB" but all other mods. New headers were fitted 5 months ago also so no blocked cats?? Blocked air filter? I have cleaned it recently...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Time cost and no availability of Dyno to run PDK cars in Sydney...$300 per dyno run - 2 hours drive there and back...1 hour while you are there. logistically for me to do this each mod would be almost impossible. But in theory you are 100% correct and I could not agree with you more...I would have loved too

Why people don't do baselines is still beyond my comprehension.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
548 Posts
Also my Qtr Mile time was with "no Plenum & TB" but all other mods. New headers were fitted 5 months ago also so no blocked cats?? Blocked air filter? I have cleaned it recently...
Then that time is even more impressive!


Other than that, all I can say is that the answers given so far are just as, if not more, confusing than the questions they were meant to answer. But maybe that's just me being Swedish....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
Guys,

Need to pick up on a number if statements made in these posts for accuracy's sake

Number 1. These numbers are from a High quality dyno. Not your average run of the mill. Please Research Maha Dyno's I can provide links if required.

The Engine Crank power is not derived, calculated or achieved in any arcane fashion. It is measured. I have posted ad nauseum on the subject.

The measured transmission loss from Mungee's car is identical to that "measured on mine" My stock cars Dyno runs posted all over this site on this dyno are within 1.5 HP of the Porsche spec so these numbers of this dyno are very accurate. So the Crank power can be believed.

Dont dismiss this data off hand as Dyno issues.

Number 2. I believe that the spec of a 997.2 Cayman R is 330 HP PS, these numbers for power at the crank are BHP. So about 325 BHP?

My data has shown that the gains on a 981 with Headers (Fabspeed) and GT3 Throttle and various plenums show a minimal peak HP gain (Without an accompanying tune). However they do alter the curve and give benefits in performance on the road that are not indicative of the gains if you look just at peak. Particularly from the exhaust system.

The Stock run in these charts are consistent with my experience. While this is a 997.2 the results are still consistent.

Number 3. The fuel in OZ 98 RON is good quality I expect better than most US pump fuels, zero ethanol, but has additives i.e. cleaners . The pump 10% ethanol here is not 100 RON it is 91 RON. Mungee, don't even think about it. :) I would not even put in my lawn mower (if I had one) :hilarious:

I do not believe that Fuel is in any way an issue.

Number 4. The throttle opening shown on these charts are 100% throttle opening. The signal from the car OBD port to the dyno showing 87.5% is a relative number. This has also been discussed many times on this board.

Number 5. I will have to tell that guy in his Lotus that waxes my tail down the strait at SMP that he must be lying to me when he says he has less HP than me. Really? stating that 360 HP is required to post the Qtr times is an "unusual" defence statement on this cars measured performance data. I though other factors like Aero and Weight does in fact make a difference. (Apologies for the snarkiness if this one but it really gobsmacked me.) Mungee has an R and I think they are lighter than an S? Also peak HP is not a good measure to determine a cars performance. So If I had a car that had 300 HP flat from 1000 revs to 7400 revs I would be beaten by a car that had 360 HP peak and nothing anywhere else?

Number 6. I don't understand how "generic" tunes can be called custom. To me a "Custom" tune is one that is done on the car, not pre canned. Maybe I don't understand American English. :) But I suspect that tuners when publishing numbers do an actual Custom tune on the car being measured. Then canned and distributed. Hopefully the car used was indicative of all the cars this tune is subsequently installed on. ??. Given most tuners would only have 1 or 2 mules to test and that these cars would be under continual modification. I hope baseline quality control actually exists? Maybe this is a better reason for the results?

Number 7. Sticking to Wheel HP is actually the worst way to measure from dyno to dyno. As this is an impossible number to validate. The RWHP on the dynos can be "Adjusted" to anything you like. Its only when you can "validate" the RWHP numbers via "measuring" the transmission loss and comparing to manufacturers spec, that you can actual meaningfully use the RWHP numbers.

Mungee's car and mine are measuring almost identical transmission loss (PDK) at 7300-7400 revs. Roughly 60 HP. So if you use this with other RWHP dyno graphs you will get the picture of just how far out of whack the RWHP numbers are that are posted around the place in literature.

So add 60 HP to the RWHP people publish as baselines and see if it is close to the Porsche Crank spec.

Anyhow.

Thanks for Publishing Mungee. There are a few of us now that have put the hands in the pocket to disseminate data on Mods.

We all seem to end up with the same results.

The best way to sum it up is from a saying we use a lot in the IT industry.

"Never confuse sales / marketing with delivery"

I will get off my. :soapbox:

There are benefits in mods and tunes etc. Not always evident from comparing Peak HP numbers. Its a pity that the focus from vendors is all about Peak numbers and not about the value of the curve.

I guess they just market to the audience. (yea I know thats what marketing is all about) :). Time to educate the market. :)

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,301 Posts
Guys,

Need to pick up on a number if statements made in these posts for accuracy's

Number 7. Sticking to Wheel HP is actually the worst way to measure from dyno to dyno. As this is an impossible number to validate. The RWHP on the dynos can be "Adjusted" to anything you like. Its only when you can "validate" the RWHP numbers via "measuring" the transmission loss and comparing to manufacturers spec, that you can actual meaningfully use the RWHP numbers.



Anyhow.


:cheers:
I guess well have to agree to disagree about this Brian. Unless you take the motor out of the car, the wheel is your primary and initial point of measurement. Everything else you measure comes off the circumference of that wheel, it's coefficient of friction, slippage and dyno variables like slippage, tie down and tire creep, expansion etc. etc. etc. Best, Mike.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBob

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Not always evident from comparing Peak HP numbers. Its a pity that the focus from vendors is all about Peak numbers and not about the value of the curve.
Yep - anybody who really knows what they are doing, knows to ignore peak numbers and compare areas under the curve under target rpm ranges. Unfortunately, this concept usually escapes the mass market.

Remembering way back to my calculus days... there ARE ways to measure area under the curve for a given rpm range. People go around quoting peak T and HP, but these data points are simply tiny snapshots in time along a very large range that is commonly used (say 4000 - 7000 rpm for instance).

Granted, it would be impossible to "standardize"... but a common algorithm that computes the DELTA in areas under the curve for different runs, for given RPM ranges, would be hugely beneficial. This is what race teams look at, not peak numbers at ~ redline. I don't care if I can get an extra 5 HP from 7000 - 7200 rpm, if I can get 5 HP from 5000 - 7000 rpm instead.

Anyway, I've always felt strongly about this, as the curve area matters, and it would force a baseline or "reference" dyno to be performed/compared.

Yes, anything can be skewed... but at least, a dyno used for performance comparisons should be laid over a baseline dyno, and an rpm range compared, especially above 4000 rpm (or whatever the preferred RPM range is for the vehicle given shift points and torque curves). Using 2 separate dyno plots makes it really hard to compare small differences along the range; it's much easier visualized when overlaid.

Alas... in a perfect world...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandR and BJR

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
329 Posts
Yes, anything can be skewed... but at least, a dyno used for performance comparisons should be laid over a baseline dyno, and an rpm range compared, especially above 4000 rpm (or whatever the preferred RPM range is for the vehicle given shift points and torque curves). Using 2 separate dyno plots makes it really hard to compare small differences along the range; it's much easier visualized when overlaid.

Alas... in a perfect world...
We don't live in a perfect world; but we do live in one where the data points for every 100rpm are be recorded and displayed at the end of each document in tabular format.

Use the standard power run as a baseline and plot the points against each other for a comparison - Think before your calculus days all the way to your statistics days :)

If noone else does this and I have a bit of free time at lunch tomorrow I might even do it just to boost discussion - either way Mungee has provided the raw data, we can hardly ask for more!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
548 Posts
Guys,

Need to pick up on a number if statements made in these posts for accuracy's sake

Number 1. These numbers are from a High quality dyno. Not your average run of the mill. Please Research Maha Dyno's I can provide links if required.

The Engine Crank power is not derived, calculated or achieved in any arcane fashion. It is measured. I have posted ad nauseum on the subject.

The measured transmission loss from Mungee's car is identical to that "measured on mine" My stock cars Dyno runs posted all over this site on this dyno are within 1.5 HP of the Porsche spec so these numbers of this dyno are very accurate. So the Crank power can be believed.

Dont dismiss this data off hand as Dyno issues.

Number 2. I believe that the spec of a 997.2 Cayman R is 330 HP PS, these numbers for power at the crank are BHP. So about 325 BHP?

My data has shown that the gains on a 981 with Headers (Fabspeed) and GT3 Throttle and various plenums show a minimal peak HP gain (Without an accompanying tune). However they do alter the curve and give benefits in performance on the road that are not indicative of the gains if you look just at peak. Particularly from the exhaust system.

The Stock run in these charts are consistent with my experience. While this is a 997.2 the results are still consistent.

Number 3. The fuel in OZ 98 RON is good quality I expect better than most US pump fuels, zero ethanol, but has additives i.e. cleaners . The pump 10% ethanol here is not 100 RON it is 91 RON. Mungee, don't even think about it. :) I would not even put in my lawn mower (if I had one) :hilarious:

I do not believe that Fuel is in any way an issue.

Number 4. The throttle opening shown on these charts are 100% throttle opening. The signal from the car OBD port to the dyno showing 87.5% is a relative number. This has also been discussed many times on this board.

Number 5. I will have to tell that guy in his Lotus that waxes my tail down the strait at SMP that he must be lying to me when he says he has less HP than me. Really? stating that 360 HP is required to post the Qtr times is an "unusual" defence statement on this cars measured performance data. I though other factors like Aero and Weight does in fact make a difference. (Apologies for the snarkiness if this one but it really gobsmacked me.) Mungee has an R and I think they are lighter than an S? Also peak HP is not a good measure to determine a cars performance. So If I had a car that had 300 HP flat from 1000 revs to 7400 revs I would be beaten by a car that had 360 HP peak and nothing anywhere else?

Number 6. I don't understand how "generic" tunes can be called custom. To me a "Custom" tune is one that is done on the car, not pre canned. Maybe I don't understand American English. :) But I suspect that tuners when publishing numbers do an actual Custom tune on the car being measured. Then canned and distributed. Hopefully the car used was indicative of all the cars this tune is subsequently installed on. ??. Given most tuners would only have 1 or 2 mules to test and that these cars would be under continual modification. I hope baseline quality control actually exists? Maybe this is a better reason for the results?

Number 7. Sticking to Wheel HP is actually the worst way to measure from dyno to dyno. As this is an impossible number to validate. The RWHP on the dynos can be "Adjusted" to anything you like. Its only when you can "validate" the RWHP numbers via "measuring" the transmission loss and comparing to manufacturers spec, that you can actual meaningfully use the RWHP numbers.

Mungee's car and mine are measuring almost identical transmission loss (PDK) at 7300-7400 revs. Roughly 60 HP. So if you use this with other RWHP dyno graphs you will get the picture of just how far out of whack the RWHP numbers are that are posted around the place in literature.

So add 60 HP to the RWHP people publish as baselines and see if it is close to the Porsche Crank spec.

Anyhow.

Thanks for Publishing Mungee. There are a few of us now that have put the hands in the pocket to disseminate data on Mods.

We all seem to end up with the same results.

The best way to sum it up is from a saying we use a lot in the IT industry.

"Never confuse sales / marketing with delivery"

I will get off my. :soapbox:

There are benefits in mods and tunes etc. Not always evident from comparing Peak HP numbers. Its a pity that the focus from vendors is all about Peak numbers and not about the value of the curve.

I guess they just market to the audience. (yea I know thats what marketing is all about) :). Time to educate the market. :)

:cheers:
Easily the best post in this subject, across the different threads of late, made so far. And well deserved of a re-post/quote.

I am surprised items 5 and 6 haven't been met with the same fierce rebuttal as it did in the other thread. But maybe it's all about wording and how you put it. And of that you always do a brilliant job! Well, evidently better job than me at least. :)


BTW, isn't another interesting observation that both your car and mungee's made almost the exact same peak HP? One the same dyno if I interpret it correctly? Regardless of throttle opening differences etc between 981 and 987.2 ?
 
1 - 20 of 102 Posts
Top