|
996ttalot
1,745 posts
44 months
|
graemel said: An absolutely fantastic achievement Ken. I am no expert but my own experience of what I perceive to be factory boost control produces inconsitancies in performance. Having owned a 993 with K24's with new turbo actuators and a fresh map. The performance was very variable. Sometimes it would absolutely fly and other times it would only feel quick. A reliable fixed boost control makes total sense. This was the one issue that really spoilt my enjoyment of such an incredible machine. 993 turbo are very difficult. We had a similar issue that you described and ran both fixed and factory boost controls with varying results. What we found is that they were extremely sensitive to too much boost, incorrect cracking pressures both of which caused intake temps to rise above what is a lower level than a 996/997 counterpart. In the end we found a combination of boost and cracking pressure that worked consistently with the remap. Less power but always reliable which should be the priority. The 993 is very different in being air mass driven against boost mass driven in the 996 onwards. I thought that we could make say 500hp but I quickly came to realise that this is not so simple - in the end we can make 450hp type performance consistently....a good improvement over standard. So we don't try on the 993 turbo to hit some of the hp numbers talked of frequently because frankly we could not, despite our best efforts and weeks of work achieve this with what I consider to be basic changes like remap, exhaust and hybrids. The concept of fixed boost is interesting as Toby alluded to - we have had many chats on this subject. Our (9e) approach is current with fixed boost but importantly we gradually build through testing the boost until we find a level at which ignition, iats and fueling are good.. Even with going past that level the dme will use its controls to change ignition and fuelling to a safe level. The key question is if the car continues to provide those fixed boost levels what happens when you continue to run the engine at high speed. We have a little development on the way at the moment to adjust boost based on other parameters but ideally to do so only when running endurance. We plan to test this shortly. The reality is that too much fixed boost will generate too much heat reflecting in higher iats which reflects in loss of power. The key with fixed boost is to find the right boost level based on conditions and a boost controller allows that flexibility. I suppose you are giving a little control to the owner - some don't like the idea of boost controllers so you run a lower fixed boost map that caters for all conditions. Personally I like the idea of being able to set the level based on what I am doing - think of it this way - on a hot day I might run lower boost because I know the ambient temp is higher against a car that starts at its target boost level and then reduces boost based on conditions such as iats, egt and so on. You could argue that by running lower to start with and then switching to higher that it might be a faster run say in the instance of a vmax type run - that is part of what we are testing soon - which way gives better results. Anyway I need sleep now
|
|
|
911Viking
Original Poster
156 posts
13 months
|
TB993tt said: StuB said: Where's the dyno plot/v-box figures (I know Ken doesn't like this sort of dirty numbers)?
Matching the 3.9 GT2 really is something special. Henrik's car is f  king fast  It wears full 996GT2 bodywork so is only slightly less draggy than mine, I calculated at 197mph mine needs 22hp more to be running at that speed (so less left over for acceleration) - so pretty closely matched in the aero dept. From my data logging, from observing the boost I was being allowed (by my Motronic program) and comparing it to my DIN engine dyno numbers I reckon Henrik's was running at about 680PS which is absolutely incredible from a K16 based turbo.... I have still to come to terms with this fixed boost method of tuning since the serious German tuners all use factory boost control which will reduce boost for example when the turbos heat up - the VTG engine's have lots of temperature sensors on the VTGs and will richen mixture and pull boost when this gets high like it does over 250kph on full bore. Who knows how hot the K16 is getting but proof of the pudding is that Henrik beat my top speed and nothing's melted yet ! In fact, Craig told me they had "a silver Porsche at 199mph" but I only data logged 197mph from all my runs so I reckon it was Henrik doing the 199  It is great to see Ken at 9E pushing the envelope and bringing these US tuning philosophies into reality over here and with his (and his savvy customers') being totally transparent.... I'm so impressed that I will be testing some of his shiny stuff  Thanks Toby, looking forward to duel next time... Still though a little concerned you played me and are lining up a lesson down towards the speed traps ;-) Cheers, HH
|
|
|
911Viking
Original Poster
156 posts
13 months
|
TB993tt said: StuB said: Where's the dyno plot/v-box figures (I know Ken doesn't like this sort of dirty numbers)?
Matching the 3.9 GT2 really is something special. Henrik's car is f king fast It wears full 996GT2 bodywork so is only slightly less draggy than mine, I calculated at 197mph mine needs 22hp more to be running at that speed (so less left over for acceleration) - so pretty closely matched in the aero dept. From my data logging, from observing the boost I was being allowed (by my Motronic program) and comparing it to my DIN engine dyno numbers I reckon Henrik's was running at about 680PS which is absolutely incredible from a K16 based turbo.... I have still to come to terms with this fixed boost method of tuning since the serious German tuners all use factory boost control which will reduce boost for example when the turbos heat up - the VTG engine's have lots of temperature sensors on the VTGs and will richen mixture and pull boost when this gets high like it does over 250kph on full bore. Who knows how hot the K16 is getting but proof of the pudding is that Henrik beat my top speed and nothing's melted yet ! In fact, Craig told me they had "a silver Porsche at 199mph" but I only data logged 197mph from all my runs so I reckon it was Henrik doing the 199 It is great to see Ken at 9E pushing the envelope and bringing these US tuning philosophies into reality over here and with his (and his savvy customers') being totally transparent.... I'm so impressed that I will be testing some of his shiny stuff Thanks Toby, looking forward to duel next time... Still though a little concerned you played me and are lining up a lesson down towards the speed traps ;-) Cheers, HH
|
|
|
TB993tt
1,079 posts
110 months
|
graemel said: An absolutely fantastic achievement Ken. I am no expert but my own experience of what I perceive to be factory boost control produces inconsitancies in performance. Having owned a 993 with K24's with new turbo actuators and a fresh map. The performance was very variable. Sometimes it would absolutely fly and other times it would only feel quick. A reliable fixed boost control makes total sense. This was the one issue that really spoilt my enjoyment of such an incredible machine. This is exactly the reason why Porsche map the 450PS K24 version of the 993 turbo how they do and "only" give you 450hp. I seem to remember your remap showing 490hp on a chassis dyno ? 993 turbos are very sensitive to heat (much more so than the water cooled 911s) and your remap just adds more heat which may well show the 490hp for a well cooled rolling road run but as you found out, put some heat into it and the program will look after the engine by reducing the boost and retarding the timing hence your "variable" performance. Fixed boost takes away the ECUs ability to reduce the boost so it is timing retard only, this will still work to protect the engine to a degree (if the intake air gets too hot the program applies an ignition cut out, feels similar to a rev limiter) but prolonged use of too high boost will lead to warped heads and oval bores, I seem to remember John (ex 993 GT2, now with the CTG) had to buy new heads after his 9M overboosted 993 GT2 did what I describe.
|
|
|
TB993tt
1,079 posts
110 months
|
911Viking said: Thanks Toby, looking forward to duel next time... Still though a little concerned you played me and are lining up a lesson down towards the speed traps ;-)
Cheers,
HH No sand bagging here mate, I was flat out and still only 197 I look forward to our next session 
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
911Viking
Original Poster
156 posts
13 months
|
996ttalot said: JBL930 said: Have to admit if i had a 996 turbo i'd be bolting this stuff on, you're going to be a very busy chap Ken....... Good on you mate!!
One quick question, is the above car on stock internals? I only ask because otherwise this is basically 'bolt on' stuff, except cams etc..... Which if true is bloody astonishing, it's giving me ideas of letting the 930 go....... Thanks for the kind words Jon. Hope you are progressing well with your car. Currently this package is running on stock internals. I think it is worth pointing out that the k1639 cars that are already running, run boost controllers. For normal usage 1.25 bar is perfect, extremely fast and fun. We run the turbos at 1.51 bar (the gauge will show 1.6) for maximum attack mode like vmax etc, and the reason I am precise with the boost amount is that this is near the limit, although within safe boundaries, of the fuel system. It seems that most customers run them always in maximum attack mode I suppose we can call it "bolt on" if we take that to be non built motor. The last delivered version was 110 hours of work, is an engine out etc. There were hours within that for brake and suspension upgrades. I don't know how many 320kph runs have been done in the car in the last month, but I suspect it has been over 50 at least including many runs in excess of 340kph together with this run of 354kph yesterday. I don't beleive another customer would push the car to this extreme. So it is an interesting and useful exercise with Henrik - he accepts that when you push the boundaries, you may find a limit. We already have a project planned this year with Henrik for more power, using different package. We have imo reached the limit with the turbo k1639 in the sense that running further serves no real purpose -the gains you get would be minimal for the extra expense. We continually refine the package based on datalogging and again will be making a few changes in the coming weeks to see if they are beneficial. Let's catch up when I get a spare minute, something there does not seem to be many of at the moment. Having closely followed 9E building the car and been the pilot on large parts of the testing, I can confirm this is not just a bolt on job. We took Ken's full K1639 package and stretched it to the max. I asked Ken to build a car that handles like a gokart and goes like a rocket. In fact, I think my words were down the line of no matter what power you come up with, it will be too little, but I still want the gokart feel. First time on Brunters for testing, I actually thrashed it around the little gokart track in the wet while we waited for a 737 to land on the bigger playground ;-) We did initially discuss whether we should go straight to a build higher revving engine, but as we were a little short of time, the compression test came out as 100% on all cylinders, it didn't eat any oil and looked/sounded in perfect health, we decided to kick the project off with the current internals. Maybe it will break, maybe not. So far she just laughs at the abuse aimed at her and cry for more, at least that's the only thing I am hearing when putting her to work... Like all little eager girls; more more more ;-) I have a tendency to break toys, so it will most likely break if it turns out we are pushing the boundaries too far... Then she goes on a recovery van heading direction Gatwick and for a while I jump in my hairdresser 911, or on one of my bikes, LOL Have a nice WE, HH
|
|
|
911Viking
Original Poster
156 posts
13 months
|
TB993tt said: 911Viking said: Thanks Toby, looking forward to duel next time... Still though a little concerned you played me and are lining up a lesson down towards the speed traps ;-)
Cheers,
HH No sand bagging here mate, I was flat out and still only 197 I look forward to our next session We'll see buddy, we'll see... Just can't believe Ken and his 9E guys have build a K16 car that can hit or at least get close to 210 mph on a Vmax day with no head wind. I am having your 209 mph run in mind every time I think of the perfect run in a 911 
|
|
|
TB993tt
1,079 posts
110 months
|
911Viking said: We'll see buddy, we'll see... Just can't believe Ken and his 9E guys have build a K16 car that can hit or at least get close to 210 mph on a Vmax day with no head wind. I am having your 209 mph run in mind every time I think of the perfect run in a 911 It is worth noting that the vmax carbon timing beams were not in the same position as the 209 run, the vmax day for the 209 had about another 40 metres (according to my GPS) and there was a tail wind as I recall, there were some unlikely cars passing 200 that day 
|
|
|
911Viking
Original Poster
156 posts
13 months
|
TB993tt said: 911Viking said: We'll see buddy, we'll see... Just can't believe Ken and his 9E guys have build a K16 car that can hit or at least get close to 210 mph on a Vmax day with no head wind. I am having your 209 mph run in mind every time I think of the perfect run in a 911 It is worth noting that the vmax carbon timing beams were not in the same position as the 209 run, the vmax day for the 209 had about another 40 metres (according to my GPS) and there was a tail wind as I recall, there were some unlikely cars passing 200 that day Then Craig needs to step up and sort out next Vmax a little more favorable, its all down to planning and logistics... 8c, no sun, but crispy dry, big tailwind, speed traps placed all the way back for panic breaking, then I might just challenge your 209 run 
|
|
|
JBL930
1,837 posts
85 months
|
911Viking said: 996ttalot said: JBL930 said: Have to admit if i had a 996 turbo i'd be bolting this stuff on, you're going to be a very busy chap Ken....... Good on you mate!!
One quick question, is the above car on stock internals? I only ask because otherwise this is basically 'bolt on' stuff, except cams etc..... Which if true is bloody astonishing, it's giving me ideas of letting the 930 go....... Thanks for the kind words Jon. Hope you are progressing well with your car. Currently this package is running on stock internals. I think it is worth pointing out that the k1639 cars that are already running, run boost controllers. For normal usage 1.25 bar is perfect, extremely fast and fun. We run the turbos at 1.51 bar (the gauge will show 1.6) for maximum attack mode like vmax etc, and the reason I am precise with the boost amount is that this is near the limit, although within safe boundaries, of the fuel system. It seems that most customers run them always in maximum attack mode I suppose we can call it "bolt on" if we take that to be non built motor. The last delivered version was 110 hours of work, is an engine out etc. There were hours within that for brake and suspension upgrades. I don't know how many 320kph runs have been done in the car in the last month, but I suspect it has been over 50 at least including many runs in excess of 340kph together with this run of 354kph yesterday. I don't beleive another customer would push the car to this extreme. So it is an interesting and useful exercise with Henrik - he accepts that when you push the boundaries, you may find a limit. We already have a project planned this year with Henrik for more power, using different package. We have imo reached the limit with the turbo k1639 in the sense that running further serves no real purpose -the gains you get would be minimal for the extra expense. We continually refine the package based on datalogging and again will be making a few changes in the coming weeks to see if they are beneficial. Let's catch up when I get a spare minute, something there does not seem to be many of at the moment. Having closely followed 9E building the car and been the pilot on large parts of the testing, I can confirm this is not just a bolt on job. We took Ken's full K1639 package and stretched it to the max. I asked Ken to build a car that handles like a gokart and goes like a rocket. In fact, I think my words were down the line of no matter what power you come up with, it will be too little, but I still want the gokart feel. First time on Brunters for testing, I actually thrashed it around the little gokart track in the wet while we waited for a 737 to land on the bigger playground ;-) We did initially discuss whether we should go straight to a build higher revving engine, but as we were a little short of time, the compression test came out as 100% on all cylinders, it didn't eat any oil and looked/sounded in perfect health, we decided to kick the project off with the current internals. Maybe it will break, maybe not. So far she just laughs at the abuse aimed at her and cry for more, at least that's the only thing I am hearing when putting her to work... Like all little eager girls; more more more ;-) I have a tendency to break toys, so it will most likely break if it turns out we are pushing the boundaries too far... Then she goes on a recovery van heading direction Gatwick and for a while I jump in my hairdresser 911, or on one of my bikes, LOL Have a nice WE, HH HH, I'm not really taking about your car specifically, I'm talking about the engine/power package is basically a bolt on job... I know you have better brakes, GT2 body kit, suspension etc etc..... But the engine isn't a 'built' engine, it's a stock motor with bolt on parts, which is what makes this achievement so astounding! I know Fearnsport worked extensively over many years and many Vmaxes to get a certain customers 996 up to 200, and it never happened, no matter what they did it always fell short. Then Ken comes along and puts a package together that on the right day will do around 210 without 'huge' work and expense, and seams to do it over and over again....... The difference between 198mph and 209mph at Bruntingrhorpe with that surface and the short distance is 'monumental'..... The difference between 198 and 201 is big enough!!!! Hats off to you Ken, top work!! 50+ runs at 200mph+ and no issues, I think it would have shown its weaknesses by now!
|
|
|
JBL930
1,837 posts
85 months
|
TB993tt said: graemel said: An absolutely fantastic achievement Ken. I am no expert but my own experience of what I perceive to be factory boost control produces inconsitancies in performance. Having owned a 993 with K24's with new turbo actuators and a fresh map. The performance was very variable. Sometimes it would absolutely fly and other times it would only feel quick. A reliable fixed boost control makes total sense. This was the one issue that really spoilt my enjoyment of such an incredible machine. This is exactly the reason why Porsche map the 450PS K24 version of the 993 turbo how they do and "only" give you 450hp. I seem to remember your remap showing 490hp on a chassis dyno ? 993 turbos are very sensitive to heat (much more so than the water cooled 911s) and your remap just adds more heat which may well show the 490hp for a well cooled rolling road run but as you found out, put some heat into it and the program will look after the engine by reducing the boost and retarding the timing hence your "variable" performance. Fixed boost takes away the ECUs ability to reduce the boost so it is timing retard only, this will still work to protect the engine to a degree (if the intake air gets too hot the program applies an ignition cut out, feels similar to a rev limiter) but prolonged use of too high boost will lead to warped heads and oval bores, I seem to remember John (ex 993 GT2, now with the CTG) had to buy new heads after his 9M overboosted 993 GT2 did what I describe. I believe Graeme had a Fearnsport map on his GT2, I had one on my engine too, It never ran right, not once!! It cost me a lot of money too, they 'rebuilt it' which cost almost the same as a new ECU, mapped it and mapped it and mapped it again at my expense, and it never worked..... In fact it's sat on my kitchen work top now, it won't even start the car anymore...... Go figure Thought I'd add, the only way forward really with the 993 turbo and sticking with the stock MAF set up is the RSTuning kits through Cargraphic, which have been developed with years of racing knowledge and on their engine dyno?... Not just someone reflashing a chip and hoping for the best.... Or Ruf with the TurboR package.....
|
|
|
996ttalot
1,745 posts
44 months
|
JBL930 said: TB993tt said: graemel said: An absolutely fantastic achievement Ken. I am no expert but my own experience of what I perceive to be factory boost control produces inconsitancies in performance. Having owned a 993 with K24's with new turbo actuators and a fresh map. The performance was very variable. Sometimes it would absolutely fly and other times it would only feel quick. A reliable fixed boost control makes total sense. This was the one issue that really spoilt my enjoyment of such an incredible machine. This is exactly the reason why Porsche map the 450PS K24 version of the 993 turbo how they do and "only" give you 450hp. I seem to remember your remap showing 490hp on a chassis dyno ? 993 turbos are very sensitive to heat (much more so than the water cooled 911s) and your remap just adds more heat which may well show the 490hp for a well cooled rolling road run but as you found out, put some heat into it and the program will look after the engine by reducing the boost and retarding the timing hence your "variable" performance. Fixed boost takes away the ECUs ability to reduce the boost so it is timing retard only, this will still work to protect the engine to a degree (if the intake air gets too hot the program applies an ignition cut out, feels similar to a rev limiter) but prolonged use of too high boost will lead to warped heads and oval bores, I seem to remember John (ex 993 GT2, now with the CTG) had to buy new heads after his 9M overboosted 993 GT2 did what I describe. I believe Graeme had a Fearnsport map on his GT2, I had one on my engine too, It never ran right, not once!! It cost me a lot of money too, they 'rebuilt it' which cost almost the same as a new ECU, mapped it and mapped it and mapped it again at my expense, and it never worked..... In fact it's sat on my kitchen work top now, it won't even start the car anymore...... Go figure Thought I'd add, the only way forward really with the 993 turbo and sticking with the stock MAF set up is the RSTuning kits through Cargraphic, which have been developed with years of racing knowledge and on their engine dyno?... Not just someone reflashing a chip and hoping for the best.... Or Ruf with the TurboR package..... Interesting Jon because we have tried and tested the cargraphic 475 and 455 and the 455 worked better - 475 produced inconsistency again although faster of course We provide a 450-460 type package which is 16/24s Turbo s cooler kit Sports cats or full system 5bar fpr Remap I cannot remember the performance figures from 60-130 ( i have posted the data before) but it is a good increase and as stated consistent performance. The real trick seems to be the cracking pressures - it took us a lot of testing to find at what point too high a pressure caused inconsistency in conjunction with remap etc. Certainly takes longer on a 993 turbo to get a good set up once all the hardware is attached compared to later models.
|
|
|
Mc F
301 posts
132 months
|
TB993tt said: 911Viking said: We'll see buddy, we'll see... Just can't believe Ken and his 9E guys have build a K16 car that can hit or at least get close to 210 mph on a Vmax day with no head wind. I am having your 209 mph run in mind every time I think of the perfect run in a 911 It is worth noting that the vmax carbon timing beams were not in the same position as the 209 run, the vmax day for the 209 had about another 40 metres (according to my GPS) and there was a tail wind as I recall, there were some unlikely cars passing 200 that day So considering carbon had 20MPH+ head winds, wet conditions, 40metres less of track would it be fair to assume there could be another 5MPH to be had? Vmax at Carbon for me was GPS 185.3MPH  192 clock. A real 190 would be nice!
|
|
|
JBL930
1,837 posts
85 months
|
996ttalot said: JBL930 said: TB993tt said: graemel said: An absolutely fantastic achievement Ken. I am no expert but my own experience of what I perceive to be factory boost control produces inconsitancies in performance. Having owned a 993 with K24's with new turbo actuators and a fresh map. The performance was very variable. Sometimes it would absolutely fly and other times it would only feel quick. A reliable fixed boost control makes total sense. This was the one issue that really spoilt my enjoyment of such an incredible machine. This is exactly the reason why Porsche map the 450PS K24 version of the 993 turbo how they do and "only" give you 450hp. I seem to remember your remap showing 490hp on a chassis dyno ? 993 turbos are very sensitive to heat (much more so than the water cooled 911s) and your remap just adds more heat which may well show the 490hp for a well cooled rolling road run but as you found out, put some heat into it and the program will look after the engine by reducing the boost and retarding the timing hence your "variable" performance. Fixed boost takes away the ECUs ability to reduce the boost so it is timing retard only, this will still work to protect the engine to a degree (if the intake air gets too hot the program applies an ignition cut out, feels similar to a rev limiter) but prolonged use of too high boost will lead to warped heads and oval bores, I seem to remember John (ex 993 GT2, now with the CTG) had to buy new heads after his 9M overboosted 993 GT2 did what I describe. I believe Graeme had a Fearnsport map on his GT2, I had one on my engine too, It never ran right, not once!! It cost me a lot of money too, they 'rebuilt it' which cost almost the same as a new ECU, mapped it and mapped it and mapped it again at my expense, and it never worked..... In fact it's sat on my kitchen work top now, it won't even start the car anymore...... Go figure Thought I'd add, the only way forward really with the 993 turbo and sticking with the stock MAF set up is the RSTuning kits through Cargraphic, which have been developed with years of racing knowledge and on their engine dyno?... Not just someone reflashing a chip and hoping for the best.... Or Ruf with the TurboR package..... Interesting Jon because we have tried and tested the cargraphic 475 and 455 and the 455 worked better - 475 produced inconsistency again although faster of course We provide a 450-460 type package which is 16/24s Turbo s cooler kit Sports cats or full system 5bar fpr Remap I cannot remember the performance figures from 60-130 ( i have posted the data before) but it is a good increase and as stated consistent performance. The real trick seems to be the cracking pressures - it took us a lot of testing to find at what point too high a pressure caused inconsistency in conjunction with remap etc. Certainly takes longer on a 993 turbo to get a good set up once all the hardware is attached compared to later models. Ken, when you are talking about cracking pressures, are you talking about the watergate actuators? If so, then whether you are using the stock X50 450 HP set up, or any of the RSTuning set ups, the waste gate actuators should open at 0.5bar if they are connected directy to manifold pressure, then when you put the N75 valve (boost frequency valve) back in, the ECU will behave like it was tuned to do..... Sticking 1.0bar actuators, or trying to mess about with either the Porsche 450 map or any of the RSTuning kits by messing with the opening pressures of the Wastegates will just cause the inconsistencies you are talking about. You should have stock diverter valves, stock waste gate actuators set to stock settings (easiest was is to test as I mentioned above by bypassing the N75 valve temporarily to check that you are getting exactly 0.5 bar max), and whatever else is in the kit. Fixed boost controllers will wreak havoc with the 993 turbo, unless you are building a race car, and you're running Motec and you are setting it up each time for each race and the subsequent conditions..... The whole point of the Motronic MAF set up is that it will vary boost depending on ambient temps, it can't do this I you force it to stick to a higher boost level. You'll find the car pulling timing and even cutting spark all together if it gets too hot... I've been down this route, I know the pit falls... By the way, you don't need a better intercooler until you're up to over 520bhp, even MODs yellow 993 is mapped at near 540hp and for a stock intercooler, he fitted the Secan just for a safety margin..... Smart move if you have the money . The Ruf TurboR uses the 16/24's, good for around 490bhp, I had a set on my car but never had the right map for them due to dicking around with amature tuners who didn't have a clue...... When you say you tested the 475 kit Ken, did you fit the full kit on a stock engine? Or did you just have the ECU and tested it on a car with 16/24's?
|
|
|
911Viking
Original Poster
156 posts
13 months
|
Mc F said: TB993tt said: 911Viking said: We'll see buddy, we'll see... Just can't believe Ken and his 9E guys have build a K16 car that can hit or at least get close to 210 mph on a Vmax day with no head wind. I am having your 209 mph run in mind every time I think of the perfect run in a 911 It is worth noting that the vmax carbon timing beams were not in the same position as the 209 run, the vmax day for the 209 had about another 40 metres (according to my GPS) and there was a tail wind as I recall, there were some unlikely cars passing 200 that day So considering carbon had 20MPH+ head winds, wet conditions, 40metres less of track would it be fair to assume there could be another 5MPH to be had? Vmax at Carbon for me was GPS 185.3MPH 192 clock. A real 190 would be nice! A 190+ with top down would have been impressive and you would have passengers 
|
|
|
911Viking
Original Poster
156 posts
13 months
|
JBL930 said: 911Viking said: 996ttalot said: JBL930 said: Have to admit if i had a 996 turbo i'd be bolting this stuff on, you're going to be a very busy chap Ken....... Good on you mate!!
One quick question, is the above car on stock internals? I only ask because otherwise this is basically 'bolt on' stuff, except cams etc..... Which if true is bloody astonishing, it's giving me ideas of letting the 930 go....... Thanks for the kind words Jon. Hope you are progressing well with your car. Currently this package is running on stock internals. I think it is worth pointing out that the k1639 cars that are already running, run boost controllers. For normal usage 1.25 bar is perfect, extremely fast and fun. We run the turbos at 1.51 bar (the gauge will show 1.6) for maximum attack mode like vmax etc, and the reason I am precise with the boost amount is that this is near the limit, although within safe boundaries, of the fuel system. It seems that most customers run them always in maximum attack mode I suppose we can call it "bolt on" if we take that to be non built motor. The last delivered version was 110 hours of work, is an engine out etc. There were hours within that for brake and suspension upgrades. I don't know how many 320kph runs have been done in the car in the last month, but I suspect it has been over 50 at least including many runs in excess of 340kph together with this run of 354kph yesterday. I don't beleive another customer would push the car to this extreme. So it is an interesting and useful exercise with Henrik - he accepts that when you push the boundaries, you may find a limit. We already have a project planned this year with Henrik for more power, using different package. We have imo reached the limit with the turbo k1639 in the sense that running further serves no real purpose -the gains you get would be minimal for the extra expense. We continually refine the package based on datalogging and again will be making a few changes in the coming weeks to see if they are beneficial. Let's catch up when I get a spare minute, something there does not seem to be many of at the moment. Having closely followed 9E building the car and been the pilot on large parts of the testing, I can confirm this is not just a bolt on job. We took Ken's full K1639 package and stretched it to the max. I asked Ken to build a car that handles like a gokart and goes like a rocket. In fact, I think my words were down the line of no matter what power you come up with, it will be too little, but I still want the gokart feel. First time on Brunters for testing, I actually thrashed it around the little gokart track in the wet while we waited for a 737 to land on the bigger playground ;-) We did initially discuss whether we should go straight to a build higher revving engine, but as we were a little short of time, the compression test came out as 100% on all cylinders, it didn't eat any oil and looked/sounded in perfect health, we decided to kick the project off with the current internals. Maybe it will break, maybe not. So far she just laughs at the abuse aimed at her and cry for more, at least that's the only thing I am hearing when putting her to work... Like all little eager girls; more more more ;-) I have a tendency to break toys, so it will most likely break if it turns out we are pushing the boundaries too far... Then she goes on a recovery van heading direction Gatwick and for a while I jump in my hairdresser 911, or on one of my bikes, LOL Have a nice WE, HH HH, I'm not really taking about your car specifically, I'm talking about the engine/power package is basically a bolt on job... I know you have better brakes, GT2 body kit, suspension etc etc..... But the engine isn't a 'built' engine, it's a stock motor with bolt on parts, which is what makes this achievement so astounding! I know Fearnsport worked extensively over many years and many Vmaxes to get a certain customers 996 up to 200, and it never happened, no matter what they did it always fell short. Then Ken comes along and puts a package together that on the right day will do around 210 without 'huge' work and expense, and seams to do it over and over again....... The difference between 198mph and 209mph at Bruntingrhorpe with that surface and the short distance is 'monumental'..... The difference between 198 and 201 is big enough!!!! Hats off to you Ken, top work!! 50+ runs at 200mph+ and no issues, I think it would have shown its weaknesses by now! Jon I am not arguing that you can refer to "bolt on", essentially all tuning is more or less "bolt on". Some tuners are better at bolting things together than others, as you pointed out, and IMO 9E are in the bracket of the few really impressive ones. But I wanted to point out how far we have stretched 9E's K1639 configuration as well as how much work we have put into the car to make it handle and go like it does. Whether we had build the engine or not during first phase, wouldn't really have made a significant cost difference to the overall build cost. It would though have delayed completing the car. Only reason why we didn't build the engine initially, was because I was impatient and didn't want to wait. Since I can't possibly treat her harsher than I already do, there is a fair chance that she actually can handle the power without melting or breaking, which in itself is pretty amazing. Regardless, the engine wont be around for any longer than to the upcoming ski season. By then (if she doesn't break earlier), 9E will get her back and we can give her the high revving build engine she really wants  Cheers, HH
|
|
|
JBL930
1,837 posts
85 months
|
911Viking said: essentially all tuning is more or less "bolt on" That's my point, most tuning isn't bolt on, getting big power from these engines usually requires a lot of machining, work on the case, balancing the crank, stronger rods and bolts, porting, special valves, guides and springs, among many other things...... The fact that you can get an engine to perform as well as Ken has with yours without splitting the case, and just having some well matched bolt on pieces is awesome...... I have nothing but respect for the car and what Ken has achieved with it, it's great news for 996 turbo owners who want a rocket ship without going for a full tear down job. Hope this time you get my point?
|
|
|
911Viking
Original Poster
156 posts
13 months
|
JBL930 said: That's my point, most tuning isn't bolt on, getting big power from these engines usually requires a lot of machining, work on the case, balancing the crank, stronger rods and bolts, porting, special valves, guides and springs, among many other things...... The fact that you can get an engine to perform as well as Ken has with yours without splitting the case, and just having some well matched bolt on pieces is awesome...... I have nothing but respect for the car and what Ken has achieved with it, it's great news for 996 turbo owners who want a rocket ship without going for a full tear down job. Hope this time you get my point? Think we are saying the same... It was the "just" bolt on and indication of inexpensive, which I struggled a little with  Its Fri eve, so time for a  Cheers, HH
|
|
|
JBL930
1,837 posts
85 months
|
911Viking said: JBL930 said: That's my point, most tuning isn't bolt on, getting big power from these engines usually requires a lot of machining, work on the case, balancing the crank, stronger rods and bolts, porting, special valves, guides and springs, among many other things...... The fact that you can get an engine to perform as well as Ken has with yours without splitting the case, and just having some well matched bolt on pieces is awesome...... I have nothing but respect for the car and what Ken has achieved with it, it's great news for 996 turbo owners who want a rocket ship without going for a full tear down job. Hope this time you get my point? Think we are saying the same... It was the "just" bolt on and indication of inexpensive, which I struggled a little with Its Fri eve, so time for a Cheers, HH Ha ha, I wasn't indicating you'd cut corners and gone for a cheap option, I was simply saying its great news that you can get the power you are getting without spending silly money...... I have receipts for over £100k on my car and it still needs more work, Toby can show you receipts that will make your eyes water, and James will show you receipts you probably would think have zeros added by mistake!!! Tuning Porsches is expensive, I don't doubt with everything you've done to your car you've spent a bloody fortune...... But for the engine package alone, in the whole scheme of things, is more accessible to the masses as it is basically bolt on! Absolutely no indication you're a cheap skate matey, don't be so sensitive :-) Beer time indeed, about to tuck into some gin. So my spelling will now get worse.....
|
|
|
ZeroH
2,493 posts
58 months
|
JBL930 said: Ha ha, I wasn't indicating you'd cut corners and gone for a cheap option, I was simply saying its great news that you can get the power you are getting without spending silly money...... I have receipts for over £100k on my car and it still needs more work, Toby can show you receipts that will make your eyes water, and James will show you receipts you probably would think have zeros added by mistake!!! Tuning Porsches is expensive, I don't doubt with everything you've done to your car you've spent a bloody fortune...... But for the engine package alone, in the whole scheme of things, is more accessible to the masses as it is basically bolt on! Absolutely no indication you're a cheap skate matey, don't be so sensitive :-)
Beer time indeed, about to tuck into some gin. So my spelling will now get worse..... You can buy bolt-on 800hp kits in the US for under $20k..... to ask a German tuner for similar power you can assume a chunky multiple to this number as many on here know only too well... doesnt make one tuning philosophy better or worse, just means that theres a different approach given different customer requirements. Big hp on stock block engines is only a novelty here, its been done and dusted for years in the US... up to 1000hp without splitting the case - its great that Ken is now offering a proven way of getting big power without German tuner bills. Of course, at the end of the day, there is no reliability substitute for splitting the case and building the engine, but the likes of Protomotive or Switzer have stock block tuning for big power down to an art enabling such packages to be offered for very modest outlay... as previously mentioned tho, most 996tt's will have a fair amount of spend on top of the engine work to ensure the car can handle it and is in a fit state to receive such tuning.
|
|
