evo SC vs. tpc SC
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,538
From: North Dakota
Rep Power: 504
karlooz, how about that overlay with the stock curve. that would be great for comparison between the three. it would be interesting to see where the evo and stock numbers are at on the bottom end.
i understand what 1999 is saying about the driveline loss. didn't figure it would be that signficant between 3 and fourth though.
i understand what 1999 is saying about the driveline loss. didn't figure it would be that signficant between 3 and fourth though.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 978
From: belmont, CA (bay area)
Rep Power: 62
Originally posted by deputydog95
karlooz, how about that overlay with the stock curve. that would be great for comparison between the three. it would be interesting to see where the evo and stock numbers are at on the bottom end.
i understand what 1999 is saying about the driveline loss. didn't figure it would be that signficant between 3 and fourth though.
karlooz, how about that overlay with the stock curve. that would be great for comparison between the three. it would be interesting to see where the evo and stock numbers are at on the bottom end.
i understand what 1999 is saying about the driveline loss. didn't figure it would be that signficant between 3 and fourth though.
do you get my point that the driveline loss is not linear and can be different in any given gear? that is the point i am trying to get across
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 978
From: belmont, CA (bay area)
Rep Power: 62
Originally posted by deputydog95
i'd love to see that top chart with the stock on there as well for comparison. looks like the evo makes nothing on the bottom end till you get high in the rpm range.
i'd love to see that top chart with the stock on there as well for comparison. looks like the evo makes nothing on the bottom end till you get high in the rpm range.
Last edited by karlooz; Sep 23, 2005 at 02:07 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 978
From: belmont, CA (bay area)
Rep Power: 62
Originally posted by deputydog95
although the stock HP looks kind of low, no?
although the stock HP looks kind of low, no?
250 RWHP / 0.83 (17% driveline transference) = 301.2HP
3.6 L stock looks kinda high
295.25 RWHP / 0.83 (17% driveline transference) = 355.7HP
evo does an 11.75% loss so...
295/.8825=334HP
Last edited by karlooz; Sep 23, 2005 at 03:57 PM.
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 851
From: Pacific Northwest
Rep Power: 56
Not that it is all that relevant, my car dynoed at 411 to the rear wheels which is close to 500 HP at the crank.
Regardless of what the dyno says, I am telling you my car is much faster at low end than it was before. Once I get up in the 4-5 powerband in 2 or 3rd gear, I can definitely feel more power. I don't need to go 90 before I feel this beast.
Regardless of what the dyno says, I am telling you my car is much faster at low end than it was before. Once I get up in the 4-5 powerband in 2 or 3rd gear, I can definitely feel more power. I don't need to go 90 before I feel this beast.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 978
From: belmont, CA (bay area)
Rep Power: 62
Originally posted by deputydog95
which ron are you talking about?
468? is that rwhp?
what the rwhp on a gt2?
which ron are you talking about?
468? is that rwhp?
what the rwhp on a gt2?
P1 911
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 296
From: Washington D.C.
Rep Power: 37
Originally posted by deputydog95
so the 3.6 should be well over 400 rwhp, right?
so the 3.6 should be well over 400 rwhp, right?
YES, the 3.6 kits from TPC typically make at least 400RWHP upto about 415 RWHP* (thats with NO other mods) With crazy torque (hence speed). I've personally been to TPC and have seen their dyno results of recent inhouse installs (the kit HAS to be tuned on the dyno so ALL the results are logged)Also, I personally feel/think 17% is waaay to high of a correction factor of the efficient rear engine RWD 911's powertrain (maybe ok for a Vipers drive train but not 911) 15% is far more appropriate and some say on 911's 12-14% is probably what is really is.
In conclusion; 3.6L 02'-UP 911 + TPC SC = **At least** 400RWHP * 1.15 = 460 BHP (no other bolts ons)
Last edited by Kevin D; Sep 25, 2005 at 10:09 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,538
From: North Dakota
Rep Power: 504
Easy there Kev 
When I looked at Rover Ron's is was 388.
I'm going to Sebring in the morning to check out Foreign Affairs (Pompano FL) TPC supercharged 996. I'll post my impressions.
When I looked at Rover Ron's is was 388.I'm going to Sebring in the morning to check out Foreign Affairs (Pompano FL) TPC supercharged 996. I'll post my impressions.
P1 911
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 296
From: Washington D.C.
Rep Power: 37
Originally posted by deputydog95
Easy there Kev When I looked at Rover Ron's is was 388.
I'm going to Sebring in the morning to check out Foreign Affairs (Pompano FL) TPC supercharged 996. I'll post my impressions.
Easy there Kev
When I looked at Rover Ron's is was 388.I'm going to Sebring in the morning to check out Foreign Affairs (Pompano FL) TPC supercharged 996. I'll post my impressions.
I am REALLY interested in hearing your reviews/impressions of TPC's kit...please indicate if it was a 3.4 or 3.6 too
I can't wait, thats the one thing I haven't had yet...my own test drive in one...