This black on black 2010 Porsche Panamera Twin Turbo came into us straight from one of our local dealerships to have the EVOMSit performance software installed for additional power and response.

Arriving with 500hp....


The installation is very simple and requires only a few minutes-worth of unplugging and plugging connectors in the engine bay:


The EVOMSit brain:


The car is now ready to go with a nice 50-80hp power boost:



An interesting chart showing the performance data of the "before" and "after":

 

Nice gains, but still don't understand the conservative times, they seem so far off most of the tests shown in every magazine review I've ever read.

 

I made this comment on Rennlist:

"Am I missing something, isn't this about the performance boost provided by the Sports Chrono in a Turbo?

The Porsche literature states 0-60 without as 4.0 s and with Sports Chrono as 3.8 s.

I only have a P4S and turned a 4.3 s measured with a calibrated Gtech Pro and a 1 ft rollout . Porsche's published performance number are generally conservative."

 

No I understand what you're saying but the comparison is flawed... Try doing the same thing with a more accurate Pbox (GPS data based) vs the G-Tech.. I've pulled 2.3 0-60s with that thing before But in reality if you tried with the P-box and in the same location (Arizona, high-heat etc... and 91 octane) vs the magazines with 93 and cooler weather it's not really comparable. We're doing the same car, same gas and same location comparisons.. Also having more power doesn't always translate to quicker "launches" with tires spinning etc...
Hey CVPRez see above.... We'll do some in Norcal and in 93 perhaps and just like the Cayenne stuff we did

 

The Gtech was calibrated as I stated, and I was running 91 octane in the summer with temperatures at 90+F. And, did you turned off the traction control? My P4S didn't spin tires in my run. And I also understand the difference between "power" as in horsepower and torque since power at the top end doesn't necessarily translate into low end acceleration.

 

If my PTT did 0-60 in 4.3, I'd be happy...although I could probably achieve that now with the EvomsIT I did about a month ago. The weather has been in the low 30s here and the PTT responds very well, although tires are having hard time gripping. In stock form I always thought my PTT felt more like a 4.5 car to 60 when I got it. NOthing close to the 3.4 the rags are claiming. To this day, I don't know how they get those figures, after all, it is a 4000+ lb car.

 

I don't want to discourage you from using a G-Tech but if you look at all the industry-wide and respected tools the G-Tech really isn't one of them. Nobody trusts that thing for accuracy..... And even the stock PTT spins tires from a launch but with the EVOMSit

 

Yep I hear you man... Sometimes different conditions etc... real world etc... Heck maybe they were using a G-Tech

 

Perhaps. My PTT felt nothing like the TurboS when accelerating. While 3.4 is great to brag about, I'm realistic and I don't believe my PTT can beat a GT2 off the line to say 60

 

Yep real world vs magazine tests lol Plus it's not like we're trying to kill the trans either... Just like with the GTR's... I'm sure all manufacturer's give magazines "cooked" versions at times...

 

If you didn't want to kill the transmission when doing the tests isn't that a potential form of sandbagging? Just how do you quantify less than maximum acceleration in two independent set of trials?

You may not agree with my Gtech numbers, but I have a hard time justifying a "hop-up" to the turbo when Porsche's Sport Chrono gives the same performance boost and it's verified by the manufacturer.

 

I'm not saying I don't agree with your gtech... However as a tool nobody takes those things as being accurate... Also I don't see the 0-60 time as being valid since you stated "I only have a P4S and turned a 4.3 s measured with a calibrated Gtech Pro and a 1 ft rollout". If you're "rolling out" vs launching from a dead stop that's very different from a 0-60 isn't it? I would say we are just not overly abusing or trying to get the craziest 0-60 times. More remarkable is the fact that EVOMS picked up an additional 8-9mph in the standing mile at Texas last year with this mod.

I'm more concerned with what a normal person would do and consistently and more so on what happens after the launch. We're not going for crazy 60 foots here... Those are indeed key as far as bettering 0-60 times and more power obviously doesn't mean more traction. Yes the "launch control" is decent but it's also limiting in some ways. The tires spin more with additional power and it's hard to get better times. And since we're not letting air out of tires or doing any other drag racing type of stuff etc... Also which size wheels and tires are being used and by whom? 20s vs 19s makes a difference. Obviously so does gas, temps and road surfaces. We are just showing what can be done on the same car, launched the same way with this change. It's very easy to launch the same way, rpms etc... with the PDK trans so you can keep it to an apples to apples comparo. There are a lot of folks with this modification that have also verified similar times. There are also people with before and after experiences at the track and it just works well. Also, as you can see not all of them are getting the same numbers as the magazines. They are however always getting better numbers than stock with the evomsit.

It's too bad Evoms hasn't yet released software for the s model so that you could try it etc and see with your gtech as I'm certain that there would also be somewhat of a delta there too (not as significant as on a tt obviously). The NA tuning is in the works though so for sure if you want to try it when available and see the before and after is with an apples to apples comparo that'd be neat and EVOMS would likely be up for that.

I think you are confusing what the sport chrono does vs what the evomsit is doing. The EVOMSit works in conjunction with all three modes and improves performance vs stock in all three.

Sorry if this is longwinded and for any typos as I'm using an iPhone on this post

 

I must apologize for my tenacity on this subject but my training has made me this way.
Your referred to your GPS based device as being more accurate than the Gtech and I must beg the differ. I'm not familiar with your particular instrument but I am familiar with GPS technology. One of the problems with GPS based measurements is called HDOP, horizontal dilution of precision. Briefly, what this means is that the location determined by the GPS is both a function of time averaging and satellite availability. The military has the most accuracy on secure satellite bands, the civilian availability is coarser even with WAAS enhancement. To give you an idea of the grossness of the civilian GPS location error; For measurements taken of a single location for time periods less than 10 minutes, the uncertainty can be 4 meters when fixes are taken every 2 seconds. If the time is much shorter,as in acceleration runs, this uncertainty can approach 7 meters. The process by which the measurements are used is the geometric averaging of lines of position from various satellites, this creates a multifaceted geometric space where the center is considered the location of interest. What this all means is that distances measured between two locations can vary by as much as 14 meters or 46 feet. So if the GPS based system is claiming a certain time to 60mph, the error can be as much as 10% because while the time provided is very accurate, the distance over which the test is conducted is uncertain.
My point being that while the Gtech has inertial uncertainty because the accelerometers must be accurately calibrated, your instrument has uncertainty because it uses GPS technology with inherent errors due satellite availability, positions and programmed inaccuracies.

 

This is indeed good discussion and your training must have served you (us all) well I'm not saying the G-Tech is junk (it's not, it's a neat/fun tool), it's just that none of the magazines, reviewers or the industry accept it as an accurate tool for measuring repeatable data. One can easily skew either of those units you're correct. Much depends upon the user and what they input etc... But when you use that to compare to a PBox and also the fact that you're using a 5 mph roll out vs the other tool and launching from standstill and on 19s vs 20s, I just don't think you can really compare numbers?

This is why more official independent testing such as the Texas Mile are a neat way to get data.

 

Looks like we have a data logging debate here The Driftbox is one of the most recognized and respected timing devices on the market. It does use satellite technology but pulls data from many satellites at once for reference. Perhaps some of the Driftbox Guru's can elaborate more about the technology.

Regarding the data obtained for our Panamera performance tests, I can assure the following:

1) The car was tested both stock and modified on the same day, same track and under the same conditions. Furthermore, the launch technique used was not intended to get the "best launch time" 0-60 but rather a more consistent approach for more repeatable results. On the Panamera turbo car, there can be a .4 or more second difference between a great launch and one that is not great. Furthermore, clutch and transmission temperature play a MAJOR factor in how fast the car goes from 0-60 which was not necessarily what we were trying to demonstrate with our upgrade. We opted for a more conservative and repeatable launch technique that gave us repeatable results and would allow the car to show its full potential after the first 60 feet. Furthermore we did not have the 1-foot roll out feature selected because this feature does not allow for a "TRUE" 0-60 time.

2) The atmospheric conditions were 99% the same between the different test runs

3) The octane level was 91 for all of the tests

4) Tire pressures were 100% the same for the start of all tests

5) Driver was the same for all of the tests

6) Launch technique and driving was the same for all of the tests

7) The Sport Plus mode was selected for all of the tests

8) TC was turned off for all of the runs

9) Automatic shifting was selected for all of the test runs

10) The top speed that the timing equipment at the event recorded matched 99.8% the top speed that the Driftbox recorded.

That’s all I have. Now back to the debate about the data loggers