Evoms
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 176
From: Stockton, CA
Rep Power: 29
As a new guy I appreciate all the valuable information contained in this thread as it pertains to upgrading my TT in the future. Kudos to all of you who have been objective in presenting the information. To many of us, cost, reliability, and proven customer service is greatly important. Sometimes performance data will take a back seat to the aforementioned factors especially when it comes from "mine is better than yours" mindsets. I believe that this thread has maintained a respectful and civil tone for the most part. Keep up the good info.
Originally Posted by RESQ911
As a new guy I appreciate all the valuable information contained in this thread as it pertains to upgrading my TT in the future. Kudos to all of you who have been objective in presenting the information. To many of us, cost, reliability, and proven customer service is greatly important. Sometimes performance data will take a back seat to the aforementioned factors especially when it comes from "mine is better than yours" mindsets. I believe that this thread has maintained a respectful and civil tone for the most part. Keep up the good info.
I will say the Bay Area is getting ridiculous. Today I had a Stage IV guy complain that he got "his *** spanked" by another 996TT... Once I got a full description of the car, I proceeded to tell him it was a GT700 that we had done so he needen't worry! Two years ago I remember a situation where a customer with a GT700 was on the 101 and posted seeing two silver turbos (we found out they were stage IIs) racing and then seeing a cop-car pull them over. Turned out none of the three knew each other but we knew all of the cars
. All of this brings me to my next point, when shelling out a lot of money on something (whether it's kit a, b or c from whichever company), you really ought to spend some extra time (and perhaps money if you don't live in the Bay Area for example) to get rides in cars that already have what you're looking for installed on them already.
I forgot to say guys, since that list has been put up there with my car showing a GT800- that was incorrect. At the time (August 05) my car was still a GT750 because I did not have the new fuel system and was missing a couple of other bits.
I agree with Alex as well.... spend a few hundred dollars on a plane ticket.. arrange a drive in the car with the tuner and or private person... maybe hit two tuners if possible... and that's it....
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Originally Posted by MARKSKI
I agree with Alex as well.... spend a few hundred dollars on a plane ticket.. arrange a drive in the car with the tuner and or private person... maybe hit two tuners if possible... and that's it....
)
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 498
From: Atlanta, GA
Rep Power: 41
Originally Posted by Craig
You lost me??? Yes, the comparison is of the mph picked up by certain cars during the second 1/8 mile. My point is simply that slower cars to the eighth will have an easier time picking up mph during the second eighth simply because their starting mph at the eighth marker is lower. Use your GPS device and measure your acceleration from 30 to 60, then from 100 to 130. The 30 mph delta is the same, but Im confident that you will cover 30 to 60 considerably faster. Thats why cars trapping 150 mph in the 1/4 mile are still below 200 mph at the 1/2 mile marker. The first 150 mph is achieved faster than the next 50 mph.
Craig
Craig
Cleve
P.S. The car may not be sold. The winning bidder wants to trade a Defender 90 + Cash...I don't think that is what I had in mind.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,509
From: Virginia, USA
Rep Power: 789
Originally Posted by Craig
Joe, I am a complete novice next to you and I have immense respect for your vast motorsports experience, but I respectfully disagree with your emphasis on ETs and traps to the exclusion of 60-130 mph measurements conducted using an AX22. Yes, the vast majority of the world focuses on 1/4 mile stats. However, the mere fact that the masses ascribe to a particular school of thought does not make it right or superior (throughout history, the masses have ascribed to beliefs that are now demonstrably false).
If one is trying to measure a car's true performance, devoid of launch and tire variables, I personally believe a 60-130 mph time is a better indicator than a ¼ mile ET or trap. As discussed above, ¼ mile runs are subject to several important variables that can profoundly impact ETs and traps. A 60-130 mph run retains some of these same variables (e.g., temperature, humidity), but eliminates others (tires, track prep, launch ability, etc.). The beauty of the 60-130 mph measurement is that even an idiot like myself can mash a gas pedal and hold on for 70 mph of acceleration. In contrast, there is a great deal of skill that goes into achieving good ¼ mile stats. Two different drivers can achieve vastly different ¼ mile stats running the same car. On the other hand, the delta in 60-130 mph times for those same two drivers will likely be far less. Therefore, while most of the world exalts the mighty ¼ mile ET and trap, and I too have cited to such figures many times, I personally believe the 60-130 mph measurement is deserving of greater emphasis among informed car enthusiasts who understand the various factors in play.
The foregoing is written with the following caveat: I am by far the least knowledgeable of those who have participated in this thread, so take my novice observations with a hearty grain of salt.
Craig
There is one thing that bothers me about this tool though; and that's the fact that the driver is in complete control of it. A driver could easily measure his times with one while going downhill and none of us would ever know. NHRA dragstrips are always perfectly flat...so this could never be an issue.
Or maybe the driver could input incorrect information into the AX22 which would make his runs read quicker than they actually were (I'm not really sure about this last point, since I've never meessed with an AX2). But again, NHRA dragstrips remove the driver's ability to skew his own results from the equation.
Last edited by Divexxtreme; Sep 28, 2006 at 11:15 PM.
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
There is one thing that bothers me about this tool though. And thats the fact that the driver is in control of it. A driver could measure his times with one while going downhill and none of us would ever know. NHRA dragsdytips are always perfectly flat...so this would never be an issue.
Or maybe the driver could input incorrect information into thr AX22 which would make his runs read quicker than they actually were (I'm not really sure about this last point, since I've never meessed with an AX2). But again, NHRA dragstrips remove the driver's ability to skew his own results from the equation.
Or maybe the driver could input incorrect information into thr AX22 which would make his runs read quicker than they actually were (I'm not really sure about this last point, since I've never meessed with an AX2). But again, NHRA dragstrips remove the driver's ability to skew his own results from the equation.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,245
From: CT
Rep Power: 289
Originally Posted by MARKSKI
Both kits seem to produce the same trap speeds at the 1/4 mile.. 135 mph.
Apparently Divirexxtreme(protomotive) is the fastest documented stock internals 1/4 car running 10.67.. meanwhile sharky ran a 10.65 on a gt800(built bottom end)... most evoms gt700s run 10.8s ... excluding gt2s... Joe I think ran a 10.7 in his gt2 ... however, divirexxtreme is RWD.
Im trying to be a open minded as possible... so I think if you want the car fast.. like in a week or so... protomotive can not beat the delivery date... you have to ship the car to protomotive... so evoms set up would be the wise choice... With the Proto set up you get a custom tuned car with controllable boost dependent on octane.... with all hard piping, custom ICs, Y pipe, 76 mm TB and splitter, maf and maf housing- protomotive does not use the stock MAF.
both set ups have no TB shut down... nice.
I did notice that the protomotive set up runs less boost... and yet its pretty strong.
On the other hand, evoms is using garrett turbos- very nice ...
Proto uses very affordable k24s worked up with a 18g mitsubishi compressors... yet can also do garrett gt30rs worked with the k24s....
Evoms, from what I hear has less lag... but the protomotive set up I hear pulls harder up on top...
If you factor in the evoms ICs... 75 mm TB with Y pipe.. thats an extra $6300 I think... thus bringing up the bill from $28900 b4 install to about $35000. On the other hand the protomotive set up can be done for considerably less with the ICs, 76 mmTB, splitter, and Y pipe...
but then you , as I said b4, have to ship the car to Arkansas... and thats about a month of waiting and extra shipping costs...
I'm partial since I have protomotive... but Im trying to be as open minded as possible... I gave you the facts that I know.. and some hear say that I heard as well.
you can't go wrong with either set up....
good luck,
markski
Apparently Divirexxtreme(protomotive) is the fastest documented stock internals 1/4 car running 10.67.. meanwhile sharky ran a 10.65 on a gt800(built bottom end)... most evoms gt700s run 10.8s ... excluding gt2s... Joe I think ran a 10.7 in his gt2 ... however, divirexxtreme is RWD.
Im trying to be a open minded as possible... so I think if you want the car fast.. like in a week or so... protomotive can not beat the delivery date... you have to ship the car to protomotive... so evoms set up would be the wise choice... With the Proto set up you get a custom tuned car with controllable boost dependent on octane.... with all hard piping, custom ICs, Y pipe, 76 mm TB and splitter, maf and maf housing- protomotive does not use the stock MAF.
both set ups have no TB shut down... nice.
I did notice that the protomotive set up runs less boost... and yet its pretty strong.
On the other hand, evoms is using garrett turbos- very nice ...
Proto uses very affordable k24s worked up with a 18g mitsubishi compressors... yet can also do garrett gt30rs worked with the k24s....
Evoms, from what I hear has less lag... but the protomotive set up I hear pulls harder up on top...
If you factor in the evoms ICs... 75 mm TB with Y pipe.. thats an extra $6300 I think... thus bringing up the bill from $28900 b4 install to about $35000. On the other hand the protomotive set up can be done for considerably less with the ICs, 76 mmTB, splitter, and Y pipe...
but then you , as I said b4, have to ship the car to Arkansas... and thats about a month of waiting and extra shipping costs...
I'm partial since I have protomotive... but Im trying to be as open minded as possible... I gave you the facts that I know.. and some hear say that I heard as well.
you can't go wrong with either set up....
good luck,
markski
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 498
From: Atlanta, GA
Rep Power: 41
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
Craig, I completey agree that the AX22 is a awesome tool, and that it removes many of the variables that the dragstrip includes. I plan on getting an AX22 when I return home, without a doubt.
There is one thing that bothers me about this tool though. And thats the fact that the driver is in control of it. A driver could measure his times with one while going downhill and none of us would ever know. NHRA dragsdytips are always perfectly flat...so this would never be an issue.
Or maybe the driver could input incorrect information into thr AX22 which would make his runs read quicker than they actually were (I'm not really sure about this last point, since I've never meessed with an AX2). But again, NHRA dragstrips remove the driver's ability to skew his own results from the equation.
There is one thing that bothers me about this tool though. And thats the fact that the driver is in control of it. A driver could measure his times with one while going downhill and none of us would ever know. NHRA dragsdytips are always perfectly flat...so this would never be an issue.
Or maybe the driver could input incorrect information into thr AX22 which would make his runs read quicker than they actually were (I'm not really sure about this last point, since I've never meessed with an AX2). But again, NHRA dragstrips remove the driver's ability to skew his own results from the equation.
Cleve
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,753
From: North Scottsdale, AZ
Rep Power: 114
Originally Posted by sharkster
Scott, that's my concern with the tool too. I couldn't agree more... AX-22s, G-Tech's, etc... they're all very cool toys but they require the end user to be spot on. Now accounting for user-error or like you're saying "dishonesty" is always a possibility. The NHRA tracks remove that from the driver's hand. You run what you run on any given day.
Originally Posted by divexxtreme
Craig, I completey agree that the AX22 is a awesome tool, and that it removes many of the variables that the dragstrip includes. I plan on getting an AX22 when I return home, without a doubt.
There is one thing that bothers me about this tool though; and that's the fact that the driver is in complete control of it. A driver could easily measure his times with one while going downhill and none of us would ever know. NHRA dragstrips are always perfectly flat...so this could never be an issue.
Or maybe the driver could input incorrect information into the AX22 which would make his runs read quicker than they actually were (I'm not really sure about this last point, since I've never meessed with an AX2). But again, NHRA dragstrips remove the driver's ability to skew his own results from the equation.
There is one thing that bothers me about this tool though; and that's the fact that the driver is in complete control of it. A driver could easily measure his times with one while going downhill and none of us would ever know. NHRA dragstrips are always perfectly flat...so this could never be an issue.
Or maybe the driver could input incorrect information into the AX22 which would make his runs read quicker than they actually were (I'm not really sure about this last point, since I've never meessed with an AX2). But again, NHRA dragstrips remove the driver's ability to skew his own results from the equation.
Thank you!!! This is what I've been trying to say all along. The NHRA strip is the only worldwide neutral playing field...Rep for you both!!!
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,509
From: Virginia, USA
Rep Power: 789
Originally Posted by Craig
Speaking of which, I received a negative rep from this thread. WTH!!! I can't get this rep thing down right.
Craig
Craig
Last edited by Divexxtreme; Sep 28, 2006 at 11:34 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,509
From: Virginia, USA
Rep Power: 789
Originally Posted by KPG
Craig, I will agree that the 103-130 is apples to oranges, but how about both myself, Joe and Scott( on one of his runs) turning +28mph in the back half of the quarter.... Fair Comparison? Kevin