Stop talking already. You've done all of your best runs in your 350lbs lighter RWD TT with 0 shifts on race gas. Your car is not impressive. Further, you apparently don't understand the difference between crank hp (aka BHP), and whp (awhp or rwhp).

800 "crank HP" (which is what AMS is claiming), is around 660 awhp using 17.5% drivetrain loss for a AWD car. So the AMS car is making approximately the same wheel horse power that you are, weighs 350 lbs more, has increased parasitic drag from turning 4 wheels instead of 2, and still beat your time even with the .2 -.3 second disadvantage of a shift during the run. I'm not sure why you brought Switzer into this, as they went 4.25 with 1 shift at 850 whp in a full weight 997 on the stock motor 5 years ago.

You need to change your signature. You no longer hold the record.

 

Anybody know what Nissans racing history is ? lol

 

I raced a 300zx turbo back in 1987 with my 1986 GSXR1100? Wasn't much of a race...

 

Actually, pretty good!

 

You are 100% right.

1. Switzer, AMS and other board vendors are beyond reproach and their

claims should never be questioned.


2. It is shameful to reduce weight in any form of race car for acceleration

purposes and it is a badge of honor to produce acceleration figures

with a full weight car. ( Ideally, one would put a couple hundred extra

pounds of lead weights in the bonnet for bragging rights using this logic)

3. Tuners can produce dynographs that imply wheel horsepower and

other similar methodologies, at their discretion, to market their services

4. Using a 0 shift strategy, even in a circumstance where it is the superior

strategy, detracts from the performance capabilities of the car. Using

this logic means that 5 shifts would be ideal.


Have a little patience with me, I've only been a member of 6 speed

for less then a year. I've been driving Porsches since 1993 and I've

got a lot of unlearning to do so I can adopt your thinking style.

But you're right.

 

And neither should 911tuning.


There is nothing wrong with reducing weight on a performance car. It's perfectly appropriate. What is not appropriate, however, is trying to extrapolate HP numbers using acceleration times from cars that have a 350 lb weight difference between them. It only makes you look ridiculous.

Correct. Conversely, tuners can also understate their HP numbers in order to make their setups seem more potent than they actually are.

However, in this case, AMS claims 800 hp (660 whp) and you claim 650 whp (790 crank hp)...so the HP levels are essentially the same.

Using the 0 shift strategy is just that. A strategy. It's a strategy used to get the fastest 60-130 time possible. But it doesn't translate to real-world conditions as much as runs with shifts do. Of course, shifting 5 times wouldn't accomplish that either.

So for comparison's sake (which is what you are doing now, comparing your time to AMS' time), your 0-shift run doesn't provide accurate data points. If we subtract .25 seconds, (the time for the average shift) from AMS' run, that puts them at 5.1...on pump gas, in a car that weighs 350 lbs more than yours. Which makes your setup seem even less impressive than it looks now.

In other words, your "strategy" backfires when doing comparisons to runs with shifts.

What you are, I suspect, is a guy who now owns his first 'fast' Porsche. Someone who's been driving Porsches for 20 years, yet who still doesn't understand the difference between HP at the crank and HP at the wheels. But you're now in the right place. Pay attention and you'll eventually learn a thing or two.

Glad to help.

 

Oh crap..that stings...

 

Thank you for clarifying these points. Pferdestärke is complicated and

I'm probably better served leaving that to the marketing geniuses of

AMS and Switzer.

Lee Hurley told me that chassis dynos were about as accurate as a tarot

card reading and furthermore, there's about an 8-9% drivetrain loss in

99% of cars. Porsche, he said, was on the very low side of that.

But again, you're right and I hope I can adopt your paradigm that 911

turbos take 6 months to a year for a rebuild. There are massive

drivetrain losses in Porsche cars and these losses are stratospheric

when measured in awd. Switzer, AMS and other tuners are really more

knowledgeable then their detractors who say that they're full of BS.

Even if these "detractors" have raced on the world stage and some of

them for the factory. Porsche cars, when measured against other Porsche

cars, should be judged primarily on their 1/4 mile performance.

The former is a reference to you setting that silly European guy straight

when a car at the Moscow Unlimited posted a lackluster 1/4 mile time.

I must adopt these ideas and I'll be a good soldier. Ok

 

The most ironic part of all of this is the fact that 911 tuning markets their kits the same way. A Ski850gt "Big Dog" package produces 720whp on race gas at 1.4 bar. Yet it is called the 850gt package based on BHP. Oh, and it only ran a 5.54 60-130 with 70 more whp than you. This kit also costs almost the exact same price as the AMS one that somehow, for you, was unreasonably priced. Maybe you should address this since you are such a dedicated consumer advocate. This was in no way a dig at 911 tuning. I haven't ever said a bad word about them and fully understand all the variables at play. I'm simply pointing out that understanding how products are marketed is crucial.

The only reason I have even taken time out of my day to address this is because I hate hypocrisy more than just about anything. You got raging gorilla pissed when your tuner was critiqued. When people started ragging on you for bringing up racing heritage when it was unrelated, you brought up freedom of speech and how important an open forum is. You claim you wanted people to break your record. Yet you chose the very moment you found out your record had been broken to become a dynamometer detective. Step one in proving you aren't butthurt is pulling your head out of your *** and giving it time to heal. Admitting you probably shouldn't be trying to question the integrity of companies without knowing even half the facts would be step two.

 

Only posting to clear one topic up, which would be drivetrain loss. I've been in charge of a local LS1/Mustang shops Dynojet 248X since the day it was installed when it comes to setup and any major software updates, etc. My brother and I also own our own personal Dynojet 248 (3000lb x2 rollers so our config file we received from Dynojet can hit 2000rwhp/2000rwtq).

I've watched a C6 Z06 that had the engine dyno'ed on the engine dyno make ~755hp on an engine dyno with all the hardware that was going in the car, including a stock ECU powering it. The engine was installed in the car and after all said and done made 620-625rwhp on the DynoJet 248X (the one I take care of the hardware side). I was told back in 2002-2003 that the C5 Vettes with 6speeds lost about 17% and automatics were 19-20% on average. The same held true for the C6 Vettes. Mustangs and F-bodies all lose about 13-15% typically with a manual transmission and on normal tires. Automatics typically 2-3% more (can be higher if you have a Powerglide or something with a major converter). Tire type and size makes a huge difference as well. When I got my car home from Boost Logic a few weeks went and I had put my CCW's on the back 27.4" tall 295/16 tire and went to the dyno at G-force (we didn't have our own yet). The car at same boost we made 1040rwhp on BL's dyno we made 1002rwhp on the drag radials at 20lbs of air pressure in the tires. I went back a few days later with no changes except my 19s and made 1035rwhp on the exact same boost in Summer weather. My 19s are your standard Nitto INVO 315/25/19s.

I've been told by a few Porsche tuners that a Porsche in RWD on a Dynojet dyno (non-load bearing) loses about 13% with a 6speed. Now if you use a Superflow, Dynapack, Mustang Dyno, etc. that have load bearing capabilities you will see even more "loss". Regardless a dyno is by no means anything more than a tool used for tuning. I was happy with my numbers but it wasn't until I got it to track and out on the street to do some 60-130s to really prove that it has a HUGE bite not just a HUGE bark.

Now I like the idea of 60-130 but I am still not a major number I think is huge. It is very dependent on gearing and shifts. A 6speed car with equal power as a Automatic/egear/GTR Trans (forgot name)/etc. because there is no downtime between shifts with boost. If I had the option to do a 0 shift 60-130 I'd have .4 or .5 off my 60-130 because you can see on my graph where my shift and respool were about that time (Scott or Mike would have to look at graph but I think it was about that). I shift 2nd to 3rd and having literally turned my 3rd gear into a idler pulley vs a gear I still get gun shy shifting 3rd hard. No matter how fast a car spools if it has a manual it will have downtime in between shifts because you lose forward momentum. Look at all of the 6speed cars, even Lambos, etc. you will see the lateral G's shoot down and then right back up. Look at an automatic type transmission it is no where to be seen, so unless you don't have to shift you will always be a step behind.

 

Now that was an informative post. I really don't know the mechanics of

dynometers and I can only regurgitate what I read or hear that sound like

a logical rationale. I think most hardcore race guys have very rigid opinions

especially about gauging the power output of their product lol.

It only makes sense that a tuner would publish power numbers in favor

of their product or service. I have a sales marketing company and I tend

to accentuate the positive aspects our our service when speaking to clients.

Again, cool info and even though I'm catching hell, and creating the hell

for the most part, but things are being learned. It's hard to learn and grow

when everybody agrees with you.

 

You'd be better served to stop posting on this topic before you make yourself look even more clueless than you already have.

Lee is incorrect. Porsches are at the 12-13% level in RWD and 17% or so in AWD. Tips are much worse.

Using pre-manufactured, off-the-shelf parts on the stock motor (like what's on your car) should only take a couple of weeks. So, no need for you to switch paradigms. However, when you actually try building something custom that's never been done before, come talk to me about timeframes. Lol

See above.

If you're the detractor, then yes..they are significantly more knowledgable than some guy on the internet who's never built anything and who admits in another post that he's not even adept enough at driving his car to run a proper 1/4 mile time.

E.T. is mostly a function of launch, not power. A bone stock 460whp 997TT S using LC will run a quicker 1/4 mile time than you will in your modified 650rwhp 996TT on the same tire, so no....Porsches should absolutely not only be compared by using 1/4 mile performance. Trap speed definitely can definitely show overall power, but that's as far as it goes when you consider the weight of the car, transmission type, tire, driver ability, location of the dragstrip, etc.

You mean the same Moscow Unlimited that Switzer has won multiple times over in the last 5 years in both their Porsches and GT-Rs? The same Moscow Unlimited that AMS won this year?

 

It doesn't make sense at all. Why? Because people on forums like these take the cars and run 60-130 and 1/4 mile runs with them and if the numbers don't jive with the HP claims, the tuner loses all credibility and is essentially done in this business. You would think a professional marketer would understand the power of credibility.

 

Don't feel bad Randy...it's clear no one agrees with you...

 

I do understand how products are marketed. That's what I do for a living.

As for Markski, I never claimed that Marek was a saint lol. During the

week I spent with him in Chicago, I fantasized about throwing him off the

Sears tower. He is a salesman in a business of smoke and mirrors. I just

consider him the leper with the most fingers.

Tim was following threads and bashing him at every opportunity. I don't

even disagree with Tim that the X design is suitable for high Hp applications.

I'm selling my setup in favor for a set of straight pipes. I'm doing a big

hp job right now.

I sent the formula for my 16 billet and 28 car out to everyone who pm'd

me. I wanted to contribute and I'll be happy to forward those to you if

you doubt me. I wanted peeps to understand tht you could peel some

unnecessary weight off the car. That strategy saves money buying more

mods, that may or may not work, and it puts less stress on drivetrain

and engine. Bragging about a full weight car is idiotic. That's like saying,

" I ran a 5 minute mile and before the run, I had someone kick me in

the shins a couple times."

You are correct that I shouldn't have questioned their integrity in the way

that I did it. Regardless of their tactics, I could have handled it much much

better and for that, I apologize