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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

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

 

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" ?

 

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

 

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...

 

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....

 

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.

 

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:

 

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

 

TheBob, if you can post the excel file for the data, I may have some time to generate area under the curve graphs. I cannot migrate from pdf to excel.

 

Hi Altheg,

Thanks for putting in additional leg work; my work PC was recently updated and I currently don't have the software to help me analyse the data (or currently the know-how to do it manually). The data was typed out manually - that should tell you all about how desperate my situation currently is

If the formatting transfers properly (it has from where I am sitting) then you should be able to copy/paste this directly in to Excel, SPSS Statistics, Graphpad or any other similar product:

EDIT: Got bored trying to battle formatting, heres a google doc with the data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvtSpmMA8EWsdFVjRnlhQmlIVkxoLTVYWm9ubHlsZ1E&output=html

I did not include the decimal places for the torque figures as at this point I was getting a little bored of manual input

Thanks again to both you, Mungee and everyone else who has contributed to this thread! (Which is all of you to be honest, fantastic thread).

 

Ok I made an attempt. Hopefully the image gets included (first time for me).

I calculated incremental torque in each 100 rpm band and kept runningsum of the cumulative value.
I plotted on log scale otherwise the max to min ratio of the data is too large for viewing.
Net result is very little difference between tunes (did not have Softronic torque data avaialble to include).
For instance at 6000rpm FVD cumulative torque value is 1163.5 vs. 1159 for stock.
Excel plots are not very good for viewing details, lines and symbols are large.

The cumulative Wheel HP are even closer.

 

Hi Altheg,

Sorry about the incomplete data! I obviously didn't select the whole table. The google doc has been updated to include the Softronic torque data if it is a simple process for you add - if not its no problem.

While its not the area, the average M(Morm) of the torque plots shows that:

Stock: 303.8
FVD: 310.98
Softronic: 310.127

Showing that the aftermarket tunes are generally providing more torque, even if at some revs the stock file generates the same or more.

Just a quick note since I've probably got more dyno time than almost anyone here. I would not take these three dyno runs as being defacto factually accurate without at least one or two more independent dynos done of the same ECU tunes. I'm also aware that ECU tunes have the ability to adjust parameters within certain ranges over time as the ECU receives more data over time and adjusts accordingly. In other words not only would it be interesting and important to see another set of back to back fresh flash runs but also a set of runs where each flash had been allowed to adapt. We are also missing data on engine temps and whether or not any heat soak had occurred, etc.

So again while these runs are interesting, I want to caution people not to jump to conclusions which will likely be erroneous given the circumstances of what we have here. I wish there was a much passion about calculating the area under the curve for some prior dyno runs from other members that have been posted previously.

Sent from my Galaxy Prime Windows Mobile 8.5 Phone via TapaTalk

I agree that these dyno's should not be taken as defacto factually accurate - they should be taken as Mungee's personal experience and thus a data point for future customers - exactly what his stated intention was - he may feel slighted, firstly because of the financial sting to have (potentially) nothing to show for his efforts but secondly because some people instantly disregard it as him doing something wrong. This is the exact same reason I haven't been voicing my full opinion - I don't want to add coal to the fire and ruin what is I feel a great thread.

The problem that I am seeing is that this is that these or similar results - dyno, V-box from other owners - are a common enough occurence among the community that there are only three viable conclusions that are possible (and I make no comment to which is correct):

Using the assumption that we are a vocal minority and not the majority (though for 987.2's I don't think there is enough data either way):

1) The users who have had these experiences have conducted their tests poorly/incorrectly and thus received erroneous results.
- Conclusion: People should not hesitate to purchase the product, over time positive reviews of the 987.2 software will drone out the negative.

2) The users who have had these experiences have conducted their tests well/correctly, but the results are erroneous due to a variable product (some experience gains while others do not)
- Conclusion: Buyer beware; you are paying a large sum of money for what is essentially a gamble.

3) The users who have had these experiences have conducted their tests well, and the product is the subject to standard marketting hype.
- Conclusion: Buyer beware; this product may not be all it claims to be.

I don't claim its one or another, but there is certainly enough data out there to call in to question the validity of some claims and thus spur further investigation.

ECU learning is a subtle process which adapts to changing conditions within the engine - this happens quite fast - a few runs from idle to the red line will tell the engine everything it needs to know as far as knock or ignition timing are concerned for dyno runs. Sure it may take a few tens of kilometers in order to fully populate a new table of adaptations for the full range of driving conditions, but you certainly won't be seeing significant differences - otherwise during the tuning process you would need to test each parameter (each degree of ignition for every rev range or change to the fuel mapping) change for ~100km worth of distance before moving on to the next change? Thats simply not done and so its either as a result of every tuning company in the world having terrible engineering practices or that it isn't necessary. You may test the stability of a finalised tune over those distances, but certainly not for each facet.

The heat soak comment I agree with, but as Mungee said this would negatively impact the stock/FVD tune more than the Softronic tune (unless he just drove off track after a few hot laps... who knows right )

What we really need is to find someone willing to conduct these tests (hint hint Mungee) and get members of the community to partly fund these experiments (as agreed by the community aka your comment that we should measure the engine temp) - I for one would donate to such a cause.

 

Just a quick note since I've probably got more dyno time than almost anyone here. I would not take these three dyno runs as being defacto factually accurate without at least one or two more independent dynos done of the same ECU tunes. I'm also aware that ECU tunes have the ability to adjust parameters within certain ranges over time as the ECU receives more data over time and adjusts accordingly. In other words not only would it be interesting and important to see another set of back to back fresh flash runs but also a set of runs where each flash had been allowed to adapt. We are also missing data on engine temps and whether or not any heat soak had occurred, etc.

So again while these runs are interesting, I want to caution people not to jump to conclusions which will likely be erroneous given the circumstances of what we have here. I wish there was a much passion about calculating the area under the curve for some prior dyno runs from other members that have been posted previously.

Sent from my Galaxy Prime Windows Mobile 8.5 Phone via TapaTalk

 

Just a quick note since I've probably got more dyno time than almost anyone here. I would not take these three dyno runs as being defacto factually accurate without at least one or two more independent dynos done of the same ECU tunes. I'm also aware that ECU tunes have the ability to adjust parameters within certain ranges over time as the ECU receives more data over time and adjusts accordingly. In other words not only would it be interesting and important to see another set of back to back fresh flash runs but also a set of runs where each flash had been allowed to adapt. We are also missing data on engine temps and whether or not any heat soak had occurred, etc.

So again while these runs are interesting, I want to caution people not to jump to conclusions which will likely be erroneous given the circumstances of what we have here. I wish there was a much passion about calculating the area under the curve for some prior dyno runs from other members that have been posted previously.

Softronic was already in the car - does not need to ADAPT!!! So based on your theory then the "heat sock" worse run actually affected the STANDARD tune which was 2nd run as it was sitting on the dyno whilst I re-mapped back to standard, it had no chance to adapt either, then that really that should be showing more!!!

But if I use your theory FVD was the hardest done by.

I appreciate your knowledge but those are my findings and that is what I have always stated...

 

I would agree with everyone in the posts made as of late: we should not jump to conclusions. But that door swings both ways. This thread seem to "sting" some peoples eyes because it is not all that positive. In my opinion that's missing the point of it. People can (and will) still believe what they want, and are free to spend their money on whatever mods they see fit, regardless of the results.

Would it be the same heated debates if someone would to have done a comparison on, say three different exhausts instead?
Wouldn't it be followed with the same interest?

Point is:
Mungee has at (great) personal expense done something no-one else has ever done; an unbiased comparison of three tunes. Maybe that's why people are so interested? I know that's the reason for me. I would have been equally interested if he had compared three cat-backs, three headers etc. Kinda like BJR did in the 981 forum with his plenum thread...

What we really need is to find someone willing to conduct these tests (hint hint Mungee) and get members of the community to partly fund these experiments (as agreed by the community aka your comment that we should measure the engine temp) - I for one would donate to such a cause.

I was actually thinking the same thing. I would be more than willing to chip in as well as adding my own dynos. Unfortunately I only have FVD's tune so it cannot be a three-way comparison. And again - that's the reason why this thread is so unique.

 

Well it would appear to me that there is something strange going on. That an ECU tune from Softronic that is in the car previously for some time is driven up to a dyno and lays down numbers (I didn't see how many runs for each tune) then overwritten with a stock tune then an FVD tune and all produce nearly identical numbers. That flies in the face of prior experiences with both Softronic and FVD tunes from dyno runs conducted by many of our members, myself included over the years.

While I'm sure Mungee tried his best to do the testing accurately, I don't think we have enough info to go on to be certain these results are even valid. There are many things that could be going on here such as:

1- his car has never really been flashed, meaning that his ECU is not being overwritten with different values even though it appears to be successfully flashed in the software. Only an analysis of the actual data in the ECU for each run would tell us if in fact the ECU was successfully flashed.

2- the procedure used to dyno the car is inaccurate in some way, such as when PDK cars first came out and dyno operators couldnt get them to dyno properly.

3- some other factor(s) in the car are limiting the ECU from gaining any more power regardless of what the settings are in the ECU. In this case we know we are already seeing a car that has other modifications. At some point an engine would reach Max efficiency and any further tuning would have no effect. Since we don't have scientific data on the efficiency of this particular engine we don't know what other factors outside of the ECU tune may be affecting the ability of any tune to make a difference.

There are other possibilities as well as to why these results are the way they are but I don't need to list an ad nauseum list.

(BTW for the record my car usually took at least 5 dyno runs to settle in on a number but sometimes up to 10, thankfully they charged by the session not the individual run)

So while I think Mungee's results are interesting because they are unexpected and not typical, I think something else is going on here to cause such results and to truly get to the bottom of what is going on either Mungee's car needs to be dyno'd again with greater analysis such as having the individual tuners read details from his car between runs, or we go get another Cayman R in the US and take it to each tuner and do detailed analysis runs. Of course that doesn't rule out any issues between US and Euro spec cars being somehow different, but would at least provide for a potentially more accurate analysis of what is really going on. I don't think your option 3 is realistic and if it is option 2 then more data is needed to understand why some people see gains and others like Mungee do not.

Sent from my Galaxy Prime Windows Mobile 8.5 Phone via TapaTalk

 

While I'm sure Mungee tried his best to do the testing accurately, I don't think we have enough info to go on to be certain these results are even valid.

I can say exactly the same thing about all of your data that you keep referring too...you keep commenting on your experience..how do I know you have done anything correctly....I am one of very few who have no "hidden agenda" !!! Just a consumer that wanted to see what he bought

There are many things that could be going on here such as:

1- his car has never really been flashed, meaning that his ECU is not being overwritten with different values even though it appears to be successfully flashed in the software. Only an analysis of the actual data in the ECU for each run would tell us if in fact the ECU was successfully flashed.

Each load says its been successful...

2- the procedure used to dyno the car is inaccurate in some way, such as when PDK cars first came out and dyno operators couldnt get them to dyno properly.

No one seems to have an issue with BJR...Same dyno...same Operator who has had that Porsche shop for 30 years

3- some other factor(s) in the car are limiting the ECU from gaining any more power regardless of what the settings are in the ECU. In this case we know we are already seeing a car that has other modifications. At some point an engine would reach Max efficiency and any further tuning would have no effect. Since we don't have scientific data on the efficiency of this particular engine we don't know what other factors outside of the ECU tune may be affecting the ability of any tune to make a difference.

most valid comment you have made to date...

 

Mungee you missed or misunderstood some of my points.

Sent from my Galaxy Prime Windows Mobile 8.5 Phone via TapaTalk

 

Missed yes...misunderstood I do not think so

 

So question is do I remove the whole exhaust, remove the plenum, put standard air filter back (easiest of the lot) and start again...

 

BTW I did not know BJR went to the same place so that would tend to rule out the operator or dyno if he has the exact same car as you, does he? I don't recall. Please read my past experiences with dynos before you criticize as you are making yourself look foolish by doing so. Please note that while I believe the software told you it completed successfully, don't always believe what software tells you.

Trust but Verify...

Sent from my Galaxy Prime Windows Mobile 8.5 Phone via TapaTalk

 

BTW I did not know BJR went to the same place so that would tend to rule out the operator or dyno if he has the exact same car as you, does he? I don't recall. Please read my past experiences with dynos before you criticize as you are making yourself look foolish by doing so. Please note that while I believe the software told you it completed successfully, don't always believe what software tells you.

Trust but Verify...

You must have misunderstood me! Foolish...again your opinion...You should not make this personal should you..as you have NO idea my experience or who/what I do...

Thread has basically gone as expected and was warned by a few not too post

BJR has a 981 Boxster S.

 

So on the same dyno his 981 Boxster S showed gains but your 987.2 Cayman R did not?

Sent from my Galaxy Prime Windows Mobile 8.5 Phone via TapaTalk

 

Well actually yes and no as I understood it. Both cars have showed little to no effect in terms of power gains as a result of tuning (alone). BJR used a piggyback (Unichip) and Mungee has the SW flashes. Which is a comment I made a while back ago, in this thread. Anyways, yes BJR's 981BS made power....330-ish as well iirc.






It's a pity that so much energy is wasted defending the different companies claims. I would say this is harder for me to grasp than actually putting an effort in to understanding the data posted in this thread.

If the intention is to truly understand, and not undermine, the data then I think we need to be just as openminded to the possible option that Softronic/FVD is selling snake-oil as Mungee and his dyno operator have no clue what they are doing. These are the two extremes opposite the same scale. I think we can all agree that neither extreme case is true. And as the saying goes "the truth lies somewhere in the middle".

For this reason I really liked TheBob's post: personally I think it's a mix of this:

2) The users who have had these experiences have conducted their tests well/correctly, but the results are erroneous due to a variable product (some experience gains while others do not)
- Conclusion: Buyer beware; you are paying a large sum of money for what is essentially a gamble.

3- some other factor(s) in the car are limiting the ECU from gaining any more power regardless of what the settings are in the ECU. In this case we know we are already seeing a car that has other modifications. At some point an engine would reach Max efficiency and any further tuning would have no effect. Since we don't have scientific data on the efficiency of this particular engine we don't know what other factors outside of the ECU tune may be affecting the ability of any tune to make a difference

 

One thing for sure, the Maha Dyno is very accurate as it can measure the transmission and tyre losses as well as WHP. Both cars were done on the same dyno. This Dyno is the one car manufacturers develop on and use. I seriously doubt any tuner ever tested on one of these.

One thing that I can say is that after reflashing you need to do a minimium of 3 pulls in order for the software tuning data points to re adapt in the ECU algorithim. Some people have said that takes longer (100 miles etc), that is rubbish, 3 to 4 pulls to redline is enough. 1 pull is no good.

 

Hallonz I'm not defending anyone nor persecuting anyone but do take exception to some items being stated as fact when they aren't. I think I'm on record as saying that these are data points but that we cannot draw definitive conclusions from them. In my personal opinion both Softronic and FVD should work with Mungee to try to uncover why he got the results that he did as there is a reason in there somewhere. Last I saw Softronic was sending him another flash to try. Let's see what happens with that. My gut tells me that some other modifications he has made has caused him to reach Max efficiency in his engine and no matter what the ECU tune is he won't get more power, but if Softronics new flash produces more power then I'd be wrong and some item still wasn't optimized.

Sadly as has been pointed out, no bone stock dyno run was ever done. For all we know his car could have been making 100 hp less than it is now

On a side note, although several people have put a lot of effort into trying to interpret these readings I can tell you from the server logs only 59 people have read this topic, so this isn't as popular of a subject as some might think

Sent from my Galaxy Prime Windows Mobile 8.5 Phone via TapaTalk

 

Sigh. There goes my tilt switch.

My gut tells me that some other modifications he has made has caused him to reach Max efficiency in his engine and no matter what the ECU tune is he won't get more power, but if Softronics new flash produces more power then I'd be wrong and some item still wasn't optimized.

He has the same mods as me effectively and the Softronic tune produced significantly lower numbers in a back of back session consisting of at least twenty runs over the course of a day (with steps to prevent heat soak).

The odds of his engine reaching max efficiency with those tunes is considerably lower than any other outcome.

http://www.planet-9.com/members/thebob-22790-albums-mods-picture45402-cayman-r-mase.jpg

As i'm sure someone will try to bring it up - no, this graph cannot ascertain the impact of the Softronic tune when compared with stock as an initial baseline pre-mods was not taken.

But it is perfectly valid to compare the two tunes, using the original (Softronic) as the baseline.

Sadly as has been pointed out, no bone stock dyno run was ever done. For all we know his car could have been making 100 hp less than it is now

Irrelevant even in the event his car was making 100HP less than it is now - this is a tune comparison using his car (mods and all) as a baseline - Yes, this means we can't comment on the efficacy of his other modifications, but it can be used to comment on the benefit of these tunes in conjunction with these modification. The conclusion drawn from this data in isolation (though I stress this is not necessarily the truth) is that a remap has no significant effect on power or torque. Which frankly can't be right - hence the confusion.

On a side note, although several people have put a lot of effort into trying to interpret these readings I can tell you from the server logs only 59 people have read this topic, so this isn't as popular of a subject as some might think

What on earth does this have to do with anything? Combine this statement with your post in Softronics advertisement within the dyno forum:

Quick someone compute the area under the curve for this one!

Why would we bother putting effort in to analysing what is essentially a glorified advert when the claims of said advertiser are currently the source of some concerns? Least of all we can't possibly analyse said results without the data tables associated with the graph.

Its stuff like this that makes people distrust the sponsorship system here which is an absolute tragedy, because you have assembled a fantastic community, an absolutely quality group of sponsors and a knowledge base which would rival Porsche engineers.

For every valid argument such as perhaps the ECU hasn't tuned properly (despite the rev limiter seemingly being raised) there are three utterly ridiculous claims such as "to get your quarter mile times you have to be running 360HP" - When you see patently false statements like that under the guise of 'industry knowledge' all it does is make us think we are being hustled.

You know what would have happened to this thread if Softronic hadn't decided to post counter dyno's in three additional threads and defend it with outrageous statements like the one above? It would have faded in to obscurity as an anomaly.

The only thing that has been accomplished by attempting to devalue Mungee's results is that you have ostracised a quality member of the community who was trying to do us all a favour by sharing his experiences - just that, not conclusions or false accusations; just experiences - why would he ever bother again after a reception like this?

 

Wow thebob it looks like you have an axe to grind against softronic, but since I'm remote at the moment I will wait to comment in detail when I get back in front of a PC.

Sent from my Galaxy Prime Windows Mobile 8.5 Phone via TapaTalk

 

If I don't use an example in my post, most of my statements will just seem vague or rambling - if I don't use my own personal experience with one of the tunes in question then how can I justify my opinions?

I have an axe to grind with duplicity - it just so happens that in my opinion there are too many false statements or half truths, or totally unverifiable claims told to let other members hear without the counter.

If I really had a personal issue with the company, I would post proactively, rather than reactively - but I don't, I only counter what I disagree with.

I have repeatedly stated on NUMEROUS occasions on this forum that Softronic make a good product and recommended it to users who are looking for certain applications. Are those the actions of someone who has an axe to grind?

 

Yikes...

Only thing I have to add is that if it indeed is true that private messages are disclosed in the way described above then it's really a new low. And breaking one's own rules as well if I have understood them correctly. "Do as I say, not as I do" ?

To be honest, a lot of these public posts could have been better off not being written at all...or at least in private. Or does that only apply for forum members and not admin/mods? I'm trying to understand the rules here...

*sigh*
The intention of this thread seem to have been evaporated long ago. If people want to believe that a software tune alone gives them 40 more HP on a small displacement N/A engine then I say let them. Even better if there is a "dyno" of it. Free will and all of that. There are also tunes on Ebay available for cheap: Performance Chip Tuning Box OBD II 2 PORSCHE Petrol Remap | eBay

 

Yikes...

Only thing I have to add is that if it indeed is true that private messages are disclosed in the way described above then it's really a new low. And breaking one's own rules as well if I have understood them correctly. "Do as I say, not as I do" ?

To be honest, a lot of these public posts could have been better off not being written at all...or at least in private. Or does that only apply for forum members and not admin/mods? I'm trying to understand the rules here...

Private messages are not read or monitored by the staff of this site. However, if one or more members choose to forward me or members of the staff a private message that they have received and ask us to look at it, we will.

 

Oh and one last FACTUAL thing: A stock Cayman R PDK is fully capable of 12.7 secs 1/4 mile @111MPH. Mungee's trap is only ~2mph higher. With a well prepped track, excellent launch and weather conditions it would be totally plausible to run low 12's as well. It's all about the first 60ft. Just sayin...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDP7Pty8Qnw (3:46)

 

Yes for Motor Trend in optimal conditions they turned a 12.7 @ 111mph with a Cayman R. Totally possible to run low 12's? You mean like:

911 GT3 RS - 11.9 @ 120.7 mph
Mustang Boss 302 Laguna Seca - 12.4 @ 115 mph

I don't think you are getting anything better than 12.6 out of a stock Cayman R, now if you drop weight or add more power then sure you could get down to 12.2. I don't think Mungee dropped any weight so that would seem to say that he added power.
That Mustang Boss 302 has 444 HP and 3641 lbs. (8.2 lbs/hp)

I see the 997 GT3 RS listed at one site as 410HP and 3025+ lbs. (7.37 lbs/hp)

The Cayman R on the same site is listed as 330HP and 2904+ lbs. (8.8 lbs/hp)

So the power to weight ratios seem to stack up in terms of how fast each car was in the 1/4 mile. So to get the Cayman R down from 8.8 lbs/hp to say 8.2 lbs/hp we'd simply have to increase the power (again assuming weight was unchanged).
The result would be 354.14 HP to match the Mustang's 12.4 time, or roughly a gain of 25 HP.

But if Mungee can get down to 12.2 time that's 2/5ths of the way down to the GT3's time and 2/5th of the .83/lb/hp that separates those times is .332 so 8.2 minus .332 = 7.868 lbs/hp. 2904/7.868 = 369.08 HP
I think Scott said he'd have to be making around 360HP to turn a 12.2 time and that was a pretty close estimate.

So yeah, I'd say Mungee's car is making pretty good power, perhaps as much as 40hp over stock. I'd be happy with that on a naturally aspirated flat 6....

 

Lets not forget that a PDK car is measurely quicker than a manual even though the power is the same and it is heaver than a manual.
A Cayman R already has factory tuning so an aftermarket tune will produce a minimal improvement.

I'd expect any manual modified 987x (flash/filter/TB/Plenum/pulley/exhaust etc) to be able to get at best a 12.6 to 12.5 second run. So a 12.2 for the same with PDK sounds correct. It wont be any more powerfull than my old 987.1 and certainly wont be making 369HP, but it will be quicker.
In any case, a quarter mile run is all about the initial hookup. Its very difficuilt to get the perfect hookup, even for a PDK car. A PDK car might be more consistant, but a PDK does not have an optimal launch control for drag racing.

 

You guys crack me up, I post solid EXAMPLE math and no one wants to believe it. Perhaps I should throw in some division by Zero as well while I'm at it. It's clear this topic has run its course and no matter what anyone posts certain individuals will simply disagree with anything posted. At this point Mungee needs to work with various parties to uncover any issues. He can report his findings later and we can discuss those at that time.

Sent from my Galaxy Prime Windows Mobile 8.5 Phone via TapaTalk

 

I don't know why this got opened again, and if it's all that good of an idea. Frankly I just see one end result; people's toes will be stepped on and the thread discussion will end up in bickering between members/vendors/admins again because we simply do not want to share the same viewpoint. That's not good, regardless how you look at it. I also think that the members that have contributed already are quite stomped with some of the last posts (I know I am) and then finally closing of the thread. For no apparent reason other than frustration. I am still not clear of the rules: are we allowed to discuss this topic openly without braking them? What if findings continue to show that the canned tunes do not deliver compared to how they are advertised? Are we allowed to question mods/admins/vendors?

How come we were allowed to have a, sometimes heated, debate in the 981 forum of BJR's thread but not in this case? For me it's the same, regardless of the name of the vendor is TPC or Softronic. I am not convinced anyone is having a personal vendetta, and even so - don't you think the forum members would see that and ask that person kindly to leave or stop? We are not teens, most of us are grown up adults....even if we don't always behave like that.

Data and math have been presented, and as such there is nothing wrong with them. Looking at isolated calculations etc they make sense. Put them into the big picture and you will see that they don't add up. That's called logic. As an example to guesstimate HP based on 1/4 mile ETs. The same goes for looking at dyno printouts and ONLY looking at the last 500 rpm's in the rev range (i.e peak power). I can understand that some have monetary interest of showing peak HP gains as a way to sell more product. I can understand if some are feeling "tricked" by a product not owning up to all of its claims. This is not the base for which I myself decided to buy a canned tune; I wanted the driveability. Peak HP is not what Porsches are about anyways, neither is dragracing. Why even use those two as a measure of a well performing Porsche is honestly beyond me.

I truly wish it would not be about comparing peak HP, because as BJR said and I think everyone can see for themselves, the curves are totally different. In the best of worlds I would have wanted FVD's curve in the beginning, stock in the middle and Softronic's in the top end. Which is basically achieveable with a custom tune for that particular car being measured. But is that the only way? Clearly not. That's not the discussion either. The only instance I would care if the car made 330hp or 360hp is if it was advertised as giving such PEAK gains. That might be what is causing such emotional reactions. But again - how is this any different from BJR's thread about the "350 HP" pack only delivering ~330HP ?



All that being said, if this thread continues and doesn't close again I will add my own data to aid the community. I've found a 4-wheel dyno that should work, I have a canned tune. Similar mods as mungee. No PDK though for me. If it will end up like the last couple of posts with personal attacks I will not post dyno sheets. Or anything at all for that matter. That type of community is not something I would want to be apart of. I realize I myself have been putting my foot in my mouth in some posts, I can only blame the language barrier and I am trying my best not to offend and be as clear as I can even though I am not as eloquent as some of you guys. I would think evolved human beings should be able to take critique and/or questions without being overly defensive or aggressive. Unless there are other motives that I don't understand.