First of all that 9.5 was not at a sanctioned track.... it was at a airfield. LOL
secondly, I am not showing everything that I have done... includiing my 60 to 130s... thirdly , I am not a tuning company with resources... fourthly, how much do you want to bet that my car can beat that time? $10 20 30 40 50K? Im willing to put my cash where my mouth is... are you?

ps I am not impressed that a tuner( one of the best in Europe) has a light 4.0L car with probably crazy drag racing gearing and only ran 9.5...
Bobby and I fiddle around in his garage and we are trapping 150s LOL on a 3.6 L with a stock tranny.... thats my point of this conversation...

 

Oh snap....but true, the 1300 is claimed. Protomotive has tunde 2 cars (Robs and Alexes) that have dynoed over 1K and Marks and Scotts (former) car have the fastest verified 60-130 times.

9ff has produced not the fastest proven Porsche by any means. In fact the Europeans seem to be a step behind.

 

Not to mention that EVOMS ran a 9.67 and 150mph (At a NHRA sanctioned track) over a year and a half ago. Markski and Bobby also went into the 9's shortly after that and Switzer did it several months ago. The european tuners should have beat those times a long time ago but it's taken them this long and they are running a car with .4L larger displacement (And close to twice the HP the EVOMS car ran). As far as I am concerned, this 9ff 996TT is the ONLY car over there that is running in the 9's, otherwise we would have seen it by now. And the DIY 1/4 track in an open airfield times are questionable to say the least.

 

Hmmmm Just have all those Euros bring their P cars to the Supra Nats. I am certain that many of our street legal cars could justify our claims as being fast and liveable on a daily basis.

 

16Xmph is no joke, I would have to say that that is the fastest Porsche till prove other wise. Who care if its a 4.0 and light weight, if you have a problem with it then beat it and prove it! Don't beat around the bush, competition only make people faster.
Matt

 

I dont have to prove anything.... Im not selling anything like 9ff... I did not go out and build a 1/4 track car to show to the world- they did...

 

which brings up another point, the 9ff is clearly a drag car. it lacks wing and other stuff. The cars here are not just drag cars, they have all the work they need to go around a track.

 

I don't think EVOMS 9.6 car is lighter , re geared or even use methanol injection like 9ff cars.

Not fair comparing i guess.....EVO , Marek , Switzer...etc all still can be street/track cars

This 9ff car is RACE CAR %100!!!

 

And if Todd had turned the boost up on my car to the same levels that Mark's and Rob's were, it have made close to or over 1k rwhp as well.

Proto makes some monster cars. It all comes down to how much $$ do you want to spend and how much risk you want to take.

As far as the 9ff car, it's pretty sweet...but I'd personally rather stick to a US tuner.

 

Well it is quite a disappointment to see that this 9FF car weighs only ca. 2600lbs and has special gearing and it was never mentioned before.

However, it still is the fastest watercooled quartermile car that we have seen, whether people like it or not..

No one seems to care what Eddie Bello does to get his times and the record car that did a 166mph trap was reported to be 2200lbs. His current 964 has much better aerodynamics than this bastardized 9FF 996 and is lighter, well at least IMO and irrespective of what "insiders" might say.

9FF have done more stupid things than good ones, but they do have some fast cars no doubt about it, doing it with a 4.0 ltr engine should be seen as an achievement IMO rather than a criticism, at least they tried, and it works. Others before them had done 4.6 ltrs engines and they worked too and had excellent performance, and they were praised for it. They use Woessner pistons that are reputed to be of outstanding quality in professional Porsche racing circles, similar to OEM.

Some 9FF "close to stock" weight street cars with stock gearing have certified 0-186mph in ca. 20s for instance, which I have not seen in any US watercooled car still, even though I am sure Markski's car and quite a few others here would definitely beat by a margin, but it still has NOT been seen. Gemballa had done 0-186mph in 21s+ back in 2001 already with 750bhp and that was at 1.4 bar with stock gears, almost stock weight, and awful aerodynamics from its huge wing. VRAlex's car seems to be the fastest watercooled we have seen in the mile trap, but I have personally not seen PBox data for it from 0-186mph, I guess it must have been quite faster than 20s.

As a side note, it is amazing that after all this time and number of events that were run, no serious magazine interested only by performance rather than advertising $$$ from tuners (maybe ala R&T), have vetted all the performance and specifications data, from boost, to weight, tire sizes, times and speed!

 

Jean,

Yes, people over here have experimented with 4.0L motors. All the ones we have seen arrive at the displacement by increasing the bore size to 104 or 104.4 mm. That is nice, but they can't really improve the torque as much as they can by upping the mm's on the stock 76.4 stroke.

I would beat that 9ff has combined a 80.4 mm crank with 102.4 (or 102) mm pistons. By doing this the acceleration will go up significantly compared to a bore increased only motor.

 

Well said Jean. I am surprised at those here criticizing 9ff, rather than giving the company its due praise. They built what appears to be the fastest ¼ mile 996TT in existence. Yes, they increased the displacement of the engine. So have several folks here. Yes, they lightened the car. So have several folks here. Yes, they took certain steps solely intended to improve the ¼ mile time, even though those same tweaks arguably compromise the street-ability of the car. So have several folks here. 9ff had a goal – a really fast ¼ mile time. They achieved that goal. Some here suggest that building a car specifically for the ¼ mile is somehow unfair or cheating. Yet, many here have gone to extraordinary lengths, and spent gobs of money, primarily to improve the ¼ mile performance of their 996TTs. Some here have an insatiable desire to improve the ¼ mile stats for their cars, and to extract every tenth of a second, even when their car is already stupid fast and far beyond the point of diminishing returns. Quarter mile times have been a major focus of this forum for years, as evidenced by the pinned thread at the top of the forum. Remember all the attention and discussion when EVOMS first broke the 9 second barrier? Remember all the additional attention and praise when Mark also dipped into the 9s. These achievements did not happen by accident. Rather, a great deal of effort went into these cars. Moreover, and more importantly for this discussion, the owners of both these cars had as their goal a 9 second pass. They modified their cars with the express goal of breaking into the nines, not unlike 9ff.

There is NOTHING wrong with the foregoing. There is nothing wrong with pursing faster ¼ miles times. There is nothing wrong with taking extraordinary steps to extract a few extra tenths out of your car. There is nothing wrong with tweaking a car specifically to run faster down a ¼ mile track. My only point is that 9ff’s goal is not dissimilar to the goals of many here, and 9ff should not be criticized for pursuing (and achieving) a fast ¼ time. Yes, 9ff’s car is something of a single purpose car. On the other hand, it would not take much to return 9ff’s car to an all-purpose vehicle (e.g., slap a wing on, and remove the slicks). EVOMS and Mark both specially configured their cars for their ¼ miles runs, and those special tweaks had to be undone in order to return the car to all-purpose status. It would not have taken much for either EVO or Mark to remove their wing for their ¼ mile run (and replace it with a used, scrap NA engine lid), then slap the wing back on the next day. I suspect both EVOMS and Mark would have done it had they thought of it (and/or believed it would improve their time). Give credit to 9ff for thinking of it.

Once again, the “shop“ car excuse is also being bandied about. This is really a weak criticism. I doubt 9ff spent much more on their car than Mark has spent on his, or Joe has spent on his, or Rob has spent on his, or Alex has spent on his. Moreover, I highly doubt 9ff spent more time building their car, considering that each of the foregoing cars took over a year to build, and each of the foregoing cars has gone through several iterations and evolutions. Furthermore, whether they admit it or not, many of the fastest cars here on 6Speed have VERY close ties to their builders and, while not technically owed by the tuner, are as close to a shop car as could be without being owned by the tuner. Likewise, many of the fastest cars here are promotional vehicles for particular tuners, with corresponding quid-pro-quo.

My point is that we should be universally applauding 9ff’s achievement, just as we applaud stateside tuners for producing fast cars. Ill bet it will not be long before we see a 996TT ripping down a US ¼ mile track without a wing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr_jitsu

Protomotive has tunde 2 cars (Robs and Alexes) that have dynoed over 1K

I vaguely recall seeing what was identified as a dyno graph for Alex’s car, but I definitely do not recall seeing a dyno graph for Rob’s car. When was that posted? Do you have a link? I know Rob has repeatedly posted that his car dynoed over 1,000 RWHP (and I remained silent), but I have not seen a graph verifying this impressive achievement. If I missed it, please post a link. Moreover, I have never seen any performance data for Rob’s car – not one verified time. Again, if I missed the thread, please post a link. With 1000 RWHP, he should be running low 4 second 60-130s and low 9 second ¼ mile times at over 160 mph. Is that what his car is doing? If so, that is mighty impressive!

Quote:

Originally Posted by robmd99

Hmmmm Just have all those Euros bring their P cars to the Supra Nats. I am certain that many of our street legal cars could justify our claims as being fast and liveable on a daily basis.

In order for that invitation to have any merit or consequence, you would have to be willing to run your car against one of the “Euro P cars” in a verified, objective setting. Thus far, you have conveniently declined to subject your car to objective performance testing. In fact, you have showed up at at least two different performance events, but declined to run your car each time. If I had a 1000+ RWHP 996TT (your claim), I would relish the opportunity to run it and obtain objective performance data. Isn’t that what its all about. Therefore, unless and until you are willing to actually run your car in an objective performance setting, you probably should not taunt the Euro tuners and invite them to come here for a race that you yourself will not participate in.

Regards,

Craig

 

I wish to see that 9ff monster on REAL 1/4 mile track

 

It would go faster, a prepped track helps a hell of alot!
Matt

 

Craig,

When you urge Rob to get some verified data (namely a 60-130) for his car you are preaching to the choir (me). However I know someone who witnessed the 1k dyno pull. Again, why Rob refuses to get a verified time, only he knows. The car does make the claimed power, that is a fact.