GT4 or modded Cayman R
Discussion
fioran0 said:
Trev450 said:
Yes its great to see that the Cayman is starting to be considered as a real contender and as a result, ongoing development is gaining in pace.
Indeed, or at least that it can be gotten out there and done something with. In the context of this thread what is of interest also is the 997 GTS that won the GS class. That class is similar to GT4 in terms of the cars (there were GT4 class cars running in GS yesterday). It will be interesting to see how close the upcoming Cayman GT4 is on paper then to the performance levels of a 997 GTS once the final details of the road variant are released.
Edited by fioran0 on Saturday 24th January 11:00
Slippydiff said:
As I understand it the warranty issue is different in the US. In essence you can modify your car with an upgraded suspension kit, big brake kit, anti roll bar kit, exhaust, seats, wheels etc etc etc, and if you have a an issue with your water pump, your warranty is still valid, only if it can be proved that the fitment of an upgraded part was the cause of the water pump's failure, will your warranty be voided.
From the interweb :
Aftermarket parts or modifications: This aspect of warranty coverage has a great deal of gray area. Although many dealers would have you think otherwise, simply having an aftermarket part or modifying your vehicle cannot void your warranty.
Some dealerships may say, for example, that just because you have a performance part such as a cold air intake on the car that the whole vehicle warranty is void, says Loren Wong, a car enthusiast and a former warranty administrator for BMW and Acura. "That's not true," he says.
The saving grace for consumers is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. The act states that a dealer must prove that aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before it can deny warranty coverage.
However, if the reason for a parts failure is unclear, a dealer will usually charge you to diagnose the vehicle. If the aftermarket part was not properly installed or a modification led to a component failure, it is within the dealer's right to void the warranty for that part, and you will have to pay for the repairs out of pocket. If the aftermarket parts had nothing to do with the repairs in question, you will be refunded the fee for the diagnosis.
Any aftermarket performance parts on your vehicle can cause a dealer to suspect that you either drive the car hard or possibly race it. "Although they may not void warranties," Wong added, "modifications may raise a red flag when vehicles are in for service. If consumers who mod their cars do a little research, they may find certain dealerships that are a little more 'mod-friendly.'"
Best make yourself a cup of tea for this one :
http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/ftc/warrantie...
Cheers Henry, never mind the tea - I've opened a nice 1973 Beaujolais Nouveau to see me through .... ;-)From the interweb :
Aftermarket parts or modifications: This aspect of warranty coverage has a great deal of gray area. Although many dealers would have you think otherwise, simply having an aftermarket part or modifying your vehicle cannot void your warranty.
Some dealerships may say, for example, that just because you have a performance part such as a cold air intake on the car that the whole vehicle warranty is void, says Loren Wong, a car enthusiast and a former warranty administrator for BMW and Acura. "That's not true," he says.
The saving grace for consumers is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. The act states that a dealer must prove that aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before it can deny warranty coverage.
However, if the reason for a parts failure is unclear, a dealer will usually charge you to diagnose the vehicle. If the aftermarket part was not properly installed or a modification led to a component failure, it is within the dealer's right to void the warranty for that part, and you will have to pay for the repairs out of pocket. If the aftermarket parts had nothing to do with the repairs in question, you will be refunded the fee for the diagnosis.
Any aftermarket performance parts on your vehicle can cause a dealer to suspect that you either drive the car hard or possibly race it. "Although they may not void warranties," Wong added, "modifications may raise a red flag when vehicles are in for service. If consumers who mod their cars do a little research, they may find certain dealerships that are a little more 'mod-friendly.'"
Best make yourself a cup of tea for this one :
http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/ftc/warrantie...
fioran0 said:
Indeed, or at least that it can be gotten out there and done something with.
In the context of this thread what is of interest also is the 997 GTS that won the GS class. That class is similar to GT4 in terms of the cars (there were GT4 class cars running in GS yesterday). It will be interesting to see how close the upcoming Cayman GT4 is on paper then to the performance levels of a 997 GTS once the final details of the road variant are released.
There may be politics going on here with the 981/991 which it has been alleged Porsche have pressured organisers to raise roll bar installation issues which have dissuaded Cayman teams developing 981/991 based race cars. We shall see if GT4 based cars with factory installed roll bars and fixing points will be allowed in.In the context of this thread what is of interest also is the 997 GTS that won the GS class. That class is similar to GT4 in terms of the cars (there were GT4 class cars running in GS yesterday). It will be interesting to see how close the upcoming Cayman GT4 is on paper then to the performance levels of a 997 GTS once the final details of the road variant are released.
Edited by fioran0 on Saturday 24th January 11:00
fioran0 said:
...The fastest lap for a Cayman was 2.05.493
The race itself was won by a 997 Carrera GTS with a fastest lap of 1.57.964 ...
The difference in lap times strikes me as rather large - would the 997 be running so much more power or are there other issues? Tyre size, less set-up development for Cayman etc?The race itself was won by a 997 Carrera GTS with a fastest lap of 1.57.964 ...
braddo said:
fioran0 said:
...The fastest lap for a Cayman was 2.05.493
The race itself was won by a 997 Carrera GTS with a fastest lap of 1.57.964 ...
The difference in lap times strikes me as rather large - would the 997 be running so much more power or are there other issues? Tyre size, less set-up development for Cayman etc?The race itself was won by a 997 Carrera GTS with a fastest lap of 1.57.964 ...
Grand Sport (GS) - As with all Continental Tire SportsCar Challenge cars, GS class cars start out as stock, production model cars that race with minor modifications only. The GS class contains the top performing cars and include the Aston Martin Vantage, BMW M3, Chevy Camaro GS.R, Ford Mustang Boss 302 R, Nissan 370Z, Porsche 911 and Subaru WRX-STI. The engines are tuned to produce between 350 and 405 horsepower and are cabable of speeds in excess of 160 mph.
Street Tuner (ST) - The ST class is also production based with much of the car using the same stock parts you would find on your passenger car. This class is limited to four- and six-cylinder and rotary engines. The ST class includes the Audi S3, BMW 128 and 325, Honda Civic Si, Hyundai Genesis, Mazda MX-5, Nissan Altima and Porsche Boxster and Cayman. The engines are tuned to produce between 170 and 240 horsepower and are capable of speeds in excess of 135 mph.
braddo said:
The difference in lap times strikes me as rather large - would the 997 be running so much more power or are there other issues? Tyre size, less set-up development for Cayman etc?
As with (British) touring cars and GTs the lap times have almost nothing to do with stock cars capability because the regs are "tuned" to give (more-or-less) equal performance to all the cars in the same class. If a car is too fast they will slow it down - just as they do by tweaking the boost pressures, restrictor plates, changing the ride height or splitter regs on British touring cars.It might be nice for 997 owners to think their cars are superior to Caymans, or that Caymans are superior to other GTS cars - but, in reality it's just a function of the regs.
PR36 said:
J-P said:
So Scuderia Systems reckons the full capristo exhaust and ECU map increases power by about 45bhp. That's a pretty epic gain!
If true…!J-P said:
PR36 said:
J-P said:
So Scuderia Systems reckons the full capristo exhaust and ECU map increases power by about 45bhp. That's a pretty epic gain!
If true…!http://www.planet-9.com/porsche-dyno-charts/96561-...
PR36 said:
J-P said:
PR36 said:
J-P said:
So Scuderia Systems reckons the full capristo exhaust and ECU map increases power by about 45bhp. That's a pretty epic gain!
If true…!http://www.planet-9.com/porsche-dyno-charts/96561-...
braddo said:
The difference in lap times strikes me as rather large - would the 997 be running so much more power or are there other issues? Tyre size, less set-up development for Cayman etc?
The ST class Cayman is running a class below the 997, being in ST rather than GS. The ST class Caymans use the 2.9L engine though get to run at around 2870lbs weight versus the 3050/3150lbs the 997 needs to run at. The level of spec isn't hugely different between GS and ST though with respect to allowed mechanical changes.In 2013 the Cayman cars with the 3.8L engines ran in GX class - the class above GS, being a mini GT class and taking part in the full 24hr race itself. Both the GS 997 and the GX 3.8 Cayman took part in the "Roar Before the 24" sessions.
The fastest GX class Cayman 3.8L at the "Roar" had a lap time of 1.56.167.
the GX class BGB Cayman 3.8L had a fastest lap time of 1.56.492.
The GS class 997 had a fastest lap time of 1.57.307.
The fastest GT class Porsche (being a Grand-Am spec 997 Cup - no series merged running yet) had a lap time of 1.48.569
Thats probably more useful if you want to look at comparatives between the two platforms in the way your post sounds like you were doing since both cars had the same engine in there.
GX was a decent step up from GS in terms of the car spec. Its very much on the GT class spectrum, though GX still had to use a manual gearbox rather than a sequential. GS class also runs a regular manual gearbox.
Here is a 3.8L GX Cayman from the "Roar":
Here is a 3.8L GS 997 from the "Roar"
Since I said I would post up on engines, and the post by J-P sort of opened that door again...
This will really be a two part post. I will get round to thoughts later as it relates to this thread and to the GT4 but for starters; and as a way to frame what will hopefully follow I wanted to put this in here.
Some years ago, I built out an early M96 engine for myself with the simple enough objective of seeing just what it could be made to do.
The engine was one of those times when there is no limit placed on a project. There were no end use limitations and no restrictions on what could be done. One simply ran with it to see how high the bar could be put.
I am not going to pile through it all in detail as I have no desire to step on anyones toes with this. It was a one time deal dabbling with an M96 that I won’t be repeating and in some ways stands as my dirty little secret. The point of this post also isn’t really about the engine in the end, the engine is simply a mechanism to put across one guys opinion (and its nothing more than that) in the wider context of the GT4 and this thread.
The engine itself though was certainly something as M9X units go. There were significant components used that were designed and manufactured purely (or for the first time) for this engine; unique work done with parts and every single thing done that could be applied. The engine was also worked on with respect to making it as bullet proof as possible. It got several changes that were done to address what were considered areas of question including oiling system changes. Anything that could be lightened or improved was and the pile of original internals and components sitting ready for scrap once it was completed was jaw dropping. It was also built with an ethos that goes with any race motor. There was no compromise left in there to dull it down in any way and no compromise with respect to cost over reliability. It was an M9X engine fully let rip and fully capable.
In the end the engine stood at near enough 4L capacity, completely NA and the cost to build it was sobering. It made absolutely no sense in any measure at all.
Below is where the numbers ended up. Those are uncorrected, raw dyno numbers. Don’t get too crazy about the absolute numbers, a dyno is what it is in the end but its fair enough to say that it was doing more than it originally did.
This will really be a two part post. I will get round to thoughts later as it relates to this thread and to the GT4 but for starters; and as a way to frame what will hopefully follow I wanted to put this in here.
Some years ago, I built out an early M96 engine for myself with the simple enough objective of seeing just what it could be made to do.
The engine was one of those times when there is no limit placed on a project. There were no end use limitations and no restrictions on what could be done. One simply ran with it to see how high the bar could be put.
I am not going to pile through it all in detail as I have no desire to step on anyones toes with this. It was a one time deal dabbling with an M96 that I won’t be repeating and in some ways stands as my dirty little secret. The point of this post also isn’t really about the engine in the end, the engine is simply a mechanism to put across one guys opinion (and its nothing more than that) in the wider context of the GT4 and this thread.
The engine itself though was certainly something as M9X units go. There were significant components used that were designed and manufactured purely (or for the first time) for this engine; unique work done with parts and every single thing done that could be applied. The engine was also worked on with respect to making it as bullet proof as possible. It got several changes that were done to address what were considered areas of question including oiling system changes. Anything that could be lightened or improved was and the pile of original internals and components sitting ready for scrap once it was completed was jaw dropping. It was also built with an ethos that goes with any race motor. There was no compromise left in there to dull it down in any way and no compromise with respect to cost over reliability. It was an M9X engine fully let rip and fully capable.
In the end the engine stood at near enough 4L capacity, completely NA and the cost to build it was sobering. It made absolutely no sense in any measure at all.
Below is where the numbers ended up. Those are uncorrected, raw dyno numbers. Don’t get too crazy about the absolute numbers, a dyno is what it is in the end but its fair enough to say that it was doing more than it originally did.
fioran0 said:
and in some ways stands as my dirty little secret.
Wow, you really did keep that a secret - I don't recall you ever mentioning this before. Look forward to part 2.On the subject of UK vs US attitudes to mods, I can only echo the views. When I moved to Dubai 15 years ago smack bang in the middle of a nascent motorsport scene, it was interesting to note other GT3 owners insisting that I hack apart my 996 to take it racing in the pilot touring car series. As a Brit, at first I was horrified. Where in the UK sellers of used cars proudly proclaim 'all original panels, no paintwork!', in Dubai sellers claim 'front end resprayed for stone chips every year!'. There doesn't seem such a hangup about having the original paint code sticker under the bonnet or the holy C16 country code (honestly, why does it matter SO much?).
So having watched three other GT owners take a blowtorch and hacksaw to their interiors, I did the same, and still own the car today. Glad I did - it's unique, it's mine, and it's never getting sold. ('Hardly any original panels, loads of paintwork, two engine rebuilds, all track miles').
fioran0 said:
.... if you want to look at comparatives between the two platforms ...
That is indeed what I am curious about, thanks for the info. I guess that until the two platforms run in the same class, with similar setups, tyres and power-to-weight ratios, there is no clear answer.
I have no preference either way - there is no doubt the Cayman/Boxster is a superb platform, but I have also found it very interesting to learn in recent years how the 911 platform's unusual weight distribution may make it ultimately faster than the conventional mid-engined layout.
fioran0 said:
Since I said I would post up on engines, and the post by J-P sort of opened that door again...
This will really be a two part post. I will get round to thoughts later as it relates to this thread and to the GT4 but for starters; and as a way to frame what will hopefully follow I wanted to put this in here.
Some years ago, I built out an early M96 engine for myself with the simple enough objective of seeing just what it could be made to do.
The engine was one of those times when there is no limit placed on a project. There were no end use limitations and no restrictions on what could be done. One simply ran with it to see how high the bar could be put.
I am not going to pile through it all in detail as I have no desire to step on anyones toes with this. It was a one time deal dabbling with an M96 that I won’t be repeating and in some ways stands as my dirty little secret. The point of this post also isn’t really about the engine in the end, the engine is simply a mechanism to put across one guys opinion (and its nothing more than that) in the wider context of the GT4 and this thread.
The engine itself though was certainly something as M9X units go. There were significant components used that were designed and manufactured purely (or for the first time) for this engine; unique work done with parts and every single thing done that could be applied. The engine was also worked on with respect to making it as bullet proof as possible. It got several changes that were done to address what were considered areas of question including oiling system changes. Anything that could be lightened or improved was and the pile of original internals and components sitting ready for scrap once it was completed was jaw dropping. It was also built with an ethos that goes with any race motor. There was no compromise left in there to dull it down in any way and no compromise with respect to cost over reliability. It was an M9X engine fully let rip and fully capable.
In the end the engine stood at near enough 4L capacity, completely NA and the cost to build it was sobering. It made absolutely no sense in any measure at all.
Below is where the numbers ended up. Those are uncorrected, raw dyno numbers. Don’t get too crazy about the absolute numbers, a dyno is what it is in the end but its fair enough to say that it was doing more than it originally did.
Very interesting Neil. Would you mind saying what was done? I'm erring very much on the side of modding the R and getting exactly what I want. That capristo exhaust sounds awesome even if it doesn't deliver 45bhp gains with a map. The other thing I was going to ask you, is. Do you think it's worth getting a deeper oil pan? Or getting the engine dry-sumped? I'm likely to buy stickier rubber and don't want to suffer oil starvation issues.This will really be a two part post. I will get round to thoughts later as it relates to this thread and to the GT4 but for starters; and as a way to frame what will hopefully follow I wanted to put this in here.
Some years ago, I built out an early M96 engine for myself with the simple enough objective of seeing just what it could be made to do.
The engine was one of those times when there is no limit placed on a project. There were no end use limitations and no restrictions on what could be done. One simply ran with it to see how high the bar could be put.
I am not going to pile through it all in detail as I have no desire to step on anyones toes with this. It was a one time deal dabbling with an M96 that I won’t be repeating and in some ways stands as my dirty little secret. The point of this post also isn’t really about the engine in the end, the engine is simply a mechanism to put across one guys opinion (and its nothing more than that) in the wider context of the GT4 and this thread.
The engine itself though was certainly something as M9X units go. There were significant components used that were designed and manufactured purely (or for the first time) for this engine; unique work done with parts and every single thing done that could be applied. The engine was also worked on with respect to making it as bullet proof as possible. It got several changes that were done to address what were considered areas of question including oiling system changes. Anything that could be lightened or improved was and the pile of original internals and components sitting ready for scrap once it was completed was jaw dropping. It was also built with an ethos that goes with any race motor. There was no compromise left in there to dull it down in any way and no compromise with respect to cost over reliability. It was an M9X engine fully let rip and fully capable.
In the end the engine stood at near enough 4L capacity, completely NA and the cost to build it was sobering. It made absolutely no sense in any measure at all.
Below is where the numbers ended up. Those are uncorrected, raw dyno numbers. Don’t get too crazy about the absolute numbers, a dyno is what it is in the end but its fair enough to say that it was doing more than it originally did.
J-P said:
Very interesting Neil. Would you mind saying what was done? I'm erring very much on the side of modding the R and getting exactly what I want. That capristo exhaust sounds awesome even if it doesn't deliver 45bhp gains with a map. The other thing I was going to ask you, is. Do you think it's worth getting a deeper oil pan? Or getting the engine dry-sumped? I'm likely to buy stickier rubber and don't want to suffer oil starvation issues.
I haven't heard of any oil issues on gen 2 cars but there are probably better persons to advise than me. I have read your posts on here and agree its a good idea not to ruin the R by trying to change it into something its not or that will ruin its value if permanently changed. Why not just throw some bits at it which you can reverse and see what it feels like from there. Good quality set of coil overs, arb and geo by someone who knows what they're doing. Why not the carnewal exhaust, Gert will advise whether to do the headers or rear section first before you do the whole thing so you can try it in stages for your noise tolerance, it looks oem, no drone, relatively cheap, nice trip to belgium to have it fitted. You could do the ecu map yourself, but it seems debatable how much 'real' power you are actually going to squeeze from the R. Fit some pagid rs29 pads, wevo tran mounts, numeric cables with short short kit if you haven't already got it. Lwfw sounds right up your street but a little harder to reverse. All of this isn't going to break the bank relative to buying a GT4 and if you still want more of a track car, buy a Lotus or a GT3! Edited by PR36 on Monday 26th January 22:39
Harris_I said:
Wow, you really did keep that a secret - I don't recall you ever mentioning this before.
Yeah, i try to pretend it never happened lol. I occasionally wake late at night in a sweat and it all comes flooding back.I need to see that car of yours in the flesh some time. I like it more and more every time I hear about it.
braddo said:
That is indeed what I am curious about, thanks for the info.
I guess that until the two platforms run in the same class, with similar setups, tyres and power-to-weight ratios, there is no clear answer.
I have no preference either way - there is no doubt the Cayman/Boxster is a superb platform, but I have also found it very interesting to learn in recent years how the 911 platform's unusual weight distribution may make it ultimately faster than the conventional mid-engined layout.
I thought you may be I guess that until the two platforms run in the same class, with similar setups, tyres and power-to-weight ratios, there is no clear answer.
I have no preference either way - there is no doubt the Cayman/Boxster is a superb platform, but I have also found it very interesting to learn in recent years how the 911 platform's unusual weight distribution may make it ultimately faster than the conventional mid-engined layout.
The times from the "Roar" in 2013 are of partial interest then from that regard, since the Cayman was a higher spec than the 997 there but both used the same power unit but as you note its limited. It ends up "Top Trumps" anyways tbh though I admit to finding it all perversely interesting at times.I also have no axe to grind on the Cayman. There is plenty room for all to have fun with whatever they like and do so cordially.
The engine placement "insights" are often curious to behold. I had a 430 Challenge race car for a bit along side my various Cups and thoguth not a Cayman it is mid engined. There were times that the mid engine layout was clearly better, and times when I hated not having the engine out the back. One had to drive those cars very differently though thats for sure.
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff