This theory of yours that a standalone can make big power safe for a stock engine was DEBUNKED/BLOWN in a huge fashion recently. Plus it was the same standalone you run with same failsafes. Please stop passing this along the forum because it is bad knowledge and unproven. Maybe it works for your engine right now and you have squeaked by but don't set it as a precedent that works. A lot of people read this forum especially someone with your post count and longevity.

 

care to elaborate? myself and many others don't consider 650 rwhp to be anywhere near big power. as for my proefi i said it before and will stand by my post. it can and has more safeguards than the dme will ever have. since I'm at 60% idc and timing isn't close to borderline and run cooler fuel thinking I'm "squeaking" by is wrong . the "precedent" was set when 5 or more 996 tt cars run proefi and truly make BIG POWER and run just fine. it also was set when dozens of supras american muscle and bmw run proefi and do it safely.

also until you actually grab a wrench and get some dirt under your nails you are simply repeating what someone else told you and you take it as gospel. built not bought will always prevail

what you failed to understand in my previous post was not that a standalone was the only way to make power but rather that your choice of tuner will determine how much SAFE power you can get. with any motor that has miles on it from a previous owner then you start to add power can fail at any time.

 

It's not my place to give anything but I will give u that he made high 600's on a dyno. You have proclaimed this in a lot of threads in the past to further extremes even though this is just a branch to your main point that it works, which it doesn't. The tuning was done by a very gifted and proven tuner.

I'm proud I can pay for someone who worked on Porsche race teams to build my engine because I work hard at my career considering I have 10 years of experience at the age of 31 and went to a top 15 academic college in the country.

You're just mad because your theory has been proven wrong because you are so self indulged that you think whatever u do with ur car and on this platform is right. Too much ego on this forum, that's why I try to stay away.

 

so i see people argue here too lol. guess ill fit right in hahahaha

 

you totally just edited your "you're" and "mad" haha

almost had ya

 

iPhone issues lol......I surely don't use proper grammar during texts so it autocorrects to the wrong thing lol.

 

what a hunk of **** right! or when u ask your mother whats for dinner sunday and all the sudden the iphone responds with "i wanna blow on your **** and watch it drip down to your meatty axe wound"

damn phone!

 

never said i couldn't afford to have someone do the work for me just that you will never learn by doing this. again please elaborate. never have i said that a standalone engine couldn't fail only that it takes more abuse than a dme controlled car on stock internals.

had you read any of my threads you would quickly see i have made many mistakes on this platform. thats how i learned. as i wrench farther into this car my mistakes diminish and my confidence grows. I'm no expert. but agin i don't crap in the cheerios of the proven experts on here

 

The engine is only as strong as its weakest part. Your buddy found that weakest part in his engine.


What I recall is the race engine from which the Turbo engine was derived was putting out another 100HP but did so with titanium rods (and bolts too IIRC). This suggests to me the rods (and bolts) are the weakest link in the Turbo engine up to a certain HP point, then pretty much every thing is...


I mean I guess one could up the HP to say 100hp over stock and run with the stock rods/bolts but my WAG is the engine is on borrowed time.


Really though the engine is on borrowed time even stock. I remember reading about a Boxster owner who tracked his car a lot and at over 200K miles a rod bolt failed. Had he not tracked the car the engine might have lasted double that 200K miles.


The same for the Turbo engine. I know of (have read posts by) one Turbo owner who put over 400K miles on his Turbo and its engine. He pulled the engine to address some leaks and to do a rebuild, thinking the engine was worn out, but upon teardown found no appreciable wear.


'course, there is no way to look at say the rod bolts and determine how much life they may have had left.

 

I can appreciate what u do and more so I respect that. If I had a garage at my home I would do more so myself but that will change soon for me since this one is up for sale. I used to do all bolt on stuff myself but I don't trust myself to do a full engine build.

 

Just as a side note, the boxster and the 996 turbo motor don’t have much in common other than general layout, in some cases (oh the pun) the blocks weren’t even cast in the same country if I remember correctly.

I would imagine that with proper tuning, almost any engine can handle a substantial increase in power, the 996 turbos certainly included in that.

 

Watch out you will be called a bad name lol with a point taken off your cred score if you upset the children.

 

That very thing has happened I think, along with points increase for providing helpful info in the past. Pretty amusing honestly.

 

well tuned i say you can hit 800crankhp 750 cranktq with a max rev 7200rpm ! finding a good tuner is your key.
GL

 

How much power do you put down to trap 138?