IPDs - do they work on N/A - let's find out
Discussion
Ken, you'll need to run one car in the same trim before and after as a control, as I'm sure you are aware even morning to afternoon can have a difference in dyno results.
I am holding a dyno day all day on the 25th at Charlies so there will be plenty of cars there to use if that works for you.
I am holding a dyno day all day on the 25th at Charlies so there will be plenty of cars there to use if that works for you.
Some times even no BHp gain can trandsform the car.
Take a look at my Cayman dyno, or just drive a Cayman, it has a nasty flat spot.
Even with no gains just clearing the flat spot would have been worth while.
Caymans & boxster should be able to get to just about 350BHp which you really feel in those cars.
I am very much thinking about doing it to a 987.2 car now when the new IPD comes out which take the GT3 throttle.
that would take my Spyder to a bigger Bhp/ton figure than a 996 GT3 RS :-).
Take a look at my Cayman dyno, or just drive a Cayman, it has a nasty flat spot.
Even with no gains just clearing the flat spot would have been worth while.
Caymans & boxster should be able to get to just about 350BHp which you really feel in those cars.
I am very much thinking about doing it to a 987.2 car now when the new IPD comes out which take the GT3 throttle.
that would take my Spyder to a bigger Bhp/ton figure than a 996 GT3 RS :-).
AdrianPattisson said:
There was a chap on boxa.net who modded his 986S with an ECU reflash, IPD, underdrive pulley, intake and full exhaust. The result of that lot was 19bhp. Will be interesting to see how this goes.
Is that a 19BHP peak gain?What were the gains in the mid-range on BHP and torque.
Sometimes people look far too much at peak figures, on the road you don't constantly drive your car at 6000+rpm, as such modifications can sometimes give far greater gains in the mid-range which transform how a car drives or even remove flat spots which were previously there due to emissions rules etc.
996ttalot said:
The IPDs are somewhere in customs at the moment 
Also we are looking at another car as well with bigger TB to add to the test, since IPD has just produced their competition IPD.
Patience.
You got a 997 for testing the motorsport plenum and GT3 on m8, I know a willing donor car. Also we are looking at another car as well with bigger TB to add to the test, since IPD has just produced their competition IPD.
Patience.
From first hand experience, I can absolutely confirm that the IPD Plenum DOES NOT work on the 997S.1. I bought one of these items a couple of years ago and fitted it to my then 997S.1 Looking forward to the 'significant midrange gains of up to a gazillion HP' I went for a long hoon round the fantastic country lanes of my native Cheshire. Boy did I go home disappointed. Far from a more muscular, torquier midrange and freer revving top-end, the engine had definitely lost some mid range pull.
Many forum hours later - mostly on 6speed - I had confirmed that I'd fitted the part correctly and everything was properly aligned. I also reset the car's ECU (battery -ve terminal disconnected overnight). The following day, after a few miles to let the ECU re-adapt, the results were just the same. Flatter through the mid with what felt like a tiny bit more top end (though this was probably just the contrast between the flatter mid-range and the same top end performance the car had always had). Simply the product didn't work. I replaced the Porsche plenum and immediately the mid-range performance was back to normal.
When I reported this back on 6speed, it caused a firestorm. When American tuner AWE subsequently got exactly the results I'd felt on their dyno (reduced mid, no increases anywhere) all hell broke loose! The thread went to silly numbers of pages.
My advice, for what it's worth, from first-hand experience and having wasted several hundred £££s on the plenum is to stay well away unless you really want a very expensive Porsche-inlet-shaped paperweight.
Over the course of a couple of years I also tried several other mods on my 997S.1 and had a custom remap done by (no less than)Wayne Schofield at Chip Wizards. I'll summarise the results below for anyone thinking of going down this route:
1) The remap made 12HP. There was no more to be had period. As standard the car ran a little rich at full power. This was corrected. Thereafter, changing the full throttle lambda value up or down from optimal decreased power (obviously) and adding-in any more timing than +2 degrees from standard resulted in it being taken out again by the knock sensors. Anyone claiming +25-40BHP from a remap on an N/A Porsche engine is an idiot.
2) 200-Cell catalysers. These provided the only really noticeable increase in performance I got on the M97 3.8 engine. Extra push in the back through the mid range that you could really feel.
3) 'Bunch of bananas' exhaust manifolds (AWE to match the cats I had). Lost a lot of low end torque (under 2700 rpm) - I'd guess due to the increased pipe diameters. The engine became noticeably freer revving above 5000rpm though. This is an interesting trade-off that depends on how you drive the car.
4) Silencers. No increase or decrease in performance - sound-only mod.
5) BMC-F1 filter element. This was the surprising one. Little absolute performance increase, but made a BIG difference to the way the car felt. Much crisper throttle response throughout the rev range. It was most noticeable when going back to a paper filter - the car felt like the handbrake was permanently engaged. I think the filter area with the stock paper element is very marginal and the cotton/gauze element resolves this nicely.
I hope this info is of some use to someone, somewhere
Many forum hours later - mostly on 6speed - I had confirmed that I'd fitted the part correctly and everything was properly aligned. I also reset the car's ECU (battery -ve terminal disconnected overnight). The following day, after a few miles to let the ECU re-adapt, the results were just the same. Flatter through the mid with what felt like a tiny bit more top end (though this was probably just the contrast between the flatter mid-range and the same top end performance the car had always had). Simply the product didn't work. I replaced the Porsche plenum and immediately the mid-range performance was back to normal.
When I reported this back on 6speed, it caused a firestorm. When American tuner AWE subsequently got exactly the results I'd felt on their dyno (reduced mid, no increases anywhere) all hell broke loose! The thread went to silly numbers of pages.
My advice, for what it's worth, from first-hand experience and having wasted several hundred £££s on the plenum is to stay well away unless you really want a very expensive Porsche-inlet-shaped paperweight.
Over the course of a couple of years I also tried several other mods on my 997S.1 and had a custom remap done by (no less than)Wayne Schofield at Chip Wizards. I'll summarise the results below for anyone thinking of going down this route:
1) The remap made 12HP. There was no more to be had period. As standard the car ran a little rich at full power. This was corrected. Thereafter, changing the full throttle lambda value up or down from optimal decreased power (obviously) and adding-in any more timing than +2 degrees from standard resulted in it being taken out again by the knock sensors. Anyone claiming +25-40BHP from a remap on an N/A Porsche engine is an idiot.
2) 200-Cell catalysers. These provided the only really noticeable increase in performance I got on the M97 3.8 engine. Extra push in the back through the mid range that you could really feel.
3) 'Bunch of bananas' exhaust manifolds (AWE to match the cats I had). Lost a lot of low end torque (under 2700 rpm) - I'd guess due to the increased pipe diameters. The engine became noticeably freer revving above 5000rpm though. This is an interesting trade-off that depends on how you drive the car.
4) Silencers. No increase or decrease in performance - sound-only mod.
5) BMC-F1 filter element. This was the surprising one. Little absolute performance increase, but made a BIG difference to the way the car felt. Much crisper throttle response throughout the rev range. It was most noticeable when going back to a paper filter - the car felt like the handbrake was permanently engaged. I think the filter area with the stock paper element is very marginal and the cotton/gauze element resolves this nicely.
I hope this info is of some use to someone, somewhere
Edited by Ian_UK1 on Monday 6th February 11:53
Ian_UK1 said:
From first hand experience, I can absolutely confirm that the IPD Plenum DOES NOT work on the 997S.1. I bought one of these items a couple of years ago and fitted it to my then 997S.1 Looking forward to the 'significant midrange gains of up to a gazillion HP' I went for a long hoon round the fantastic country lanes of my native Cheshire. Boy did I go home disappointed. Far from a more muscular, torquier midrange and freer revving top-end, the engine had definitely lost some mid range pull.
Many forum hours later - mostly on 6speed - I had confirmed that I'd fitted the part correctly and everything was properly aligned. I also reset the car's ECU (battery -ve terminal disconnected overnight). The following day, after a few miles to let the ECU re-adapt, the results were just the same. Flatter through the mid with what felt like a tiny bit more top end (though this was probably just the contrast between the flatter mid-range and the same top end performance the car had always had). Simply the product didn't work. I replaced the Porsche plenum and immediately the mid-range performance was back to normal.
When I reported this back on 6speed, it caused a firestorm. When American tuner AWE subsequently got exactly the results I'd felt on their dyno (reduced mid, no increases anywhere) all hell broke loose! The thread went to silly numbers of pages.
My advice, for what it's worth, from first-hand experience and having wasted several hundred £££s on the plenum is to stay well away unless you really want a very expensive Porsche-inlet-shaped paperweight.
Over the course of a couple of years I also tried several other mods on my 997S.1 and had a custom remap done by (no less than)Wayne Schofield at Chip Wizards. I'll summarise the results below for anyone thinking of going down this route:
1) The remap made 12HP. There was no more to be had period. As standard the car ran a little rich at full power. This was corrected. Thereafter, changing the full throttle lambda value up or down from optimal decreased power (obviously) and adding-in any more timing than +2 degrees from standard resulted in it being taken out again by the knock sensors. Anyone claiming +25-40BHP from a remap on an N/A Porsche engine is an idiot.
2) 200-Cell catalysers. These provided the only really noticeable increase in performance I got on the M97 3.8 engine. Extra push in the back through the mid range that you could really feel.
3) 'Bunch of bananas' exhaust manifolds (AWE to match the cats I had). Lost a lot of low end torque (under 2700 rpm) - I'd guess due to the increased pipe diameters. The engine became noticeably freer revving above 5000rpm though. This is an interesting trade-off that depends on how you drive the car.
4) Silencers. No increase or decrease in performance - sound-only mod.
5) BMC-F1 filter element. This was the surprising one. Little absolute performance increase, but made a BIG difference to the way the car felt. Much crisper throttle response throughout the rev range. It was most noticeable when going back to a paper filter - the car felt like the handbrake was permanently engaged. I think the filter area with the stock paper element is very marginal and the cotton/gauze element resolves this nicely.
I hope this info is of some use to someone, somewhere
Agreed on the plenum by itself, but in order to fit a GT3 throttlebody a different plenum is required so all fits together. The Cayman/Boxster guys get great gains from the GT3 throttlebody and a friend who works in Porsche tech has also said fitting the GT3 TB to a Carrera including the S should also give very good gains.Many forum hours later - mostly on 6speed - I had confirmed that I'd fitted the part correctly and everything was properly aligned. I also reset the car's ECU (battery -ve terminal disconnected overnight). The following day, after a few miles to let the ECU re-adapt, the results were just the same. Flatter through the mid with what felt like a tiny bit more top end (though this was probably just the contrast between the flatter mid-range and the same top end performance the car had always had). Simply the product didn't work. I replaced the Porsche plenum and immediately the mid-range performance was back to normal.
When I reported this back on 6speed, it caused a firestorm. When American tuner AWE subsequently got exactly the results I'd felt on their dyno (reduced mid, no increases anywhere) all hell broke loose! The thread went to silly numbers of pages.
My advice, for what it's worth, from first-hand experience and having wasted several hundred £££s on the plenum is to stay well away unless you really want a very expensive Porsche-inlet-shaped paperweight.
Over the course of a couple of years I also tried several other mods on my 997S.1 and had a custom remap done by (no less than)Wayne Schofield at Chip Wizards. I'll summarise the results below for anyone thinking of going down this route:
1) The remap made 12HP. There was no more to be had period. As standard the car ran a little rich at full power. This was corrected. Thereafter, changing the full throttle lambda value up or down from optimal decreased power (obviously) and adding-in any more timing than +2 degrees from standard resulted in it being taken out again by the knock sensors. Anyone claiming +25-40BHP from a remap on an N/A Porsche engine is an idiot.
2) 200-Cell catalysers. These provided the only really noticeable increase in performance I got on the M97 3.8 engine. Extra push in the back through the mid range that you could really feel.
3) 'Bunch of bananas' exhaust manifolds (AWE to match the cats I had). Lost a lot of low end torque (under 2700 rpm) - I'd guess due to the increased pipe diameters. The engine became noticeably freer revving above 5000rpm though. This is an interesting trade-off that depends on how you drive the car.
4) Silencers. No increase or decrease in performance - sound-only mod.
5) BMC-F1 filter element. This was the surprising one. Little absolute performance increase, but made a BIG difference to the way the car felt. Much crisper throttle response throughout the rev range. It was most noticeable when going back to a paper filter - the car felt like the handbrake was permanently engaged. I think the filter area with the stock paper element is very marginal and the cotton/gauze element resolves this nicely.
I hope this info is of some use to someone, somewhere
Edited by Ian_UK1 on Monday 6th February 11:53
So though the plenum might not do much if anything, fitting the throttlebody could potentially add quite a bit, as such I am looking forward to the results Ken shall be doing to see if the motorsport plenum and GT3 TB give any gains worthwhile having.
Agreed the BMC filter does make the car much crisper/revier and sounds nicer too.
That is a fair post Ian, some real life experiences there.
My Porsche tuning experiences tell me you have to keep things dead simple and never listen to all the pseudo technical mumbo jumbo BS. My tuner RS Tuning also has this philosophy although theirs is a little more professional but every time I have pitched to them some exciting new gizmo over the years (and there have been a few) they simply say "veee weel test eet on zeee engine dyno" - that is it no chewing the arse off whether the billet T90000 aluminium with laser cut flow bench tested ports will work just the test.....
They have an intake mod which works on 997 Cup engines, it is patented, gives about 18hp on the engine dyno and they will sell it you for 10K Euro....
I know they were in slight disbelief at the direction Cargraphic were heading when they started stocking the IPDs
So for me when first looking at this product I see what the manufacturers themselves "think" they have ?
Loads and loads of pseudo tech marketing babble and then their eveidence for the hp gain for the 997 turbo which is given on their web site is the dyno run below
Now regardless of whether that mid range extra bit of torque is there or not I'm afraid anyone who uses a before run with that power curve from 5750rpm and then comparing it with the one above clearly has no right to be selling tuning parts.....
It is so apparent the the standard run is "wrong" at the top end (probably dyno related, too high IAT or some of the 997tt sensors pulling the hp) that they should have chucked it in the bin and tried to get one which has some semblance of a factory standard power curve... for me the fact that they use this on their site as THE evidence of their products effectiveness simply completely ruins their products credibility and for that reason I find it hard to take anything they say seriously..... just IMO
My Porsche tuning experiences tell me you have to keep things dead simple and never listen to all the pseudo technical mumbo jumbo BS. My tuner RS Tuning also has this philosophy although theirs is a little more professional but every time I have pitched to them some exciting new gizmo over the years (and there have been a few) they simply say "veee weel test eet on zeee engine dyno" - that is it no chewing the arse off whether the billet T90000 aluminium with laser cut flow bench tested ports will work just the test.....
They have an intake mod which works on 997 Cup engines, it is patented, gives about 18hp on the engine dyno and they will sell it you for 10K Euro....
I know they were in slight disbelief at the direction Cargraphic were heading when they started stocking the IPDs
So for me when first looking at this product I see what the manufacturers themselves "think" they have ?
Loads and loads of pseudo tech marketing babble and then their eveidence for the hp gain for the 997 turbo which is given on their web site is the dyno run below
Now regardless of whether that mid range extra bit of torque is there or not I'm afraid anyone who uses a before run with that power curve from 5750rpm and then comparing it with the one above clearly has no right to be selling tuning parts.....
It is so apparent the the standard run is "wrong" at the top end (probably dyno related, too high IAT or some of the 997tt sensors pulling the hp) that they should have chucked it in the bin and tried to get one which has some semblance of a factory standard power curve... for me the fact that they use this on their site as THE evidence of their products effectiveness simply completely ruins their products credibility and for that reason I find it hard to take anything they say seriously..... just IMO
.keep it lit said:
We took two near identical & standard 996.1 GT3's to Wayne Schofield for remaps last year. Both cars made 360/361 bhp pre-map & 393/394 bhp post-map..
Ade
It doesn't surprise me that the results it's possible to get from a remap are different for the motorsports-derived, Mezger engine. It's hardly an apples to apples comparison! I'm also sure the potential from the DFI engine will be different again. I have no experience of tuning/modifying either (yet). Ade
What we discovered when my '7S.1 was at Chip Wizards was that the factory mapping for the M97 3.8 wasn't far away from optimal. This meant there were only marginal gains to be made and claims of +25,35,40 BHP (or whatever certain tuners might want you to believe) are total BS for that engine.
For information, these are the dyno results AWE achieved, with and without the plenum, on an otherwise completely standard 997S.1:
For completeness, this is the statement made by AWE at the time about their testing method:
"Dyno testing was conducted on our Mustang AWD-500-SE chassis dynamometer. Our engineering director conducted all the data acquisition. Our technician conducted all the plenum swaps. Less than 2hrs would elapse between stock dyno pulls and plenum pulls in order to minimize ambient variables.
Ambient conditions on the first day of testing: ~65F ambient temp, 30.14 hg, 29% humidity
Ambient conditions on the second day of testing (second plenum): ~78F ambient temp, 30.06 hg, 26% humidity
Our standard cooling fans and placement were used as with all 997S product testing we do. The only difference between some tests posted on our site and these tests is a dyno software update over a year ago and a more accurate rpm sensor input to the dyno PC. All the same test variables under our control were kept consistent between the before and after dyno pulls.
Approx 30 total pulls were done with each plenum sent to us. Approx 7 pulls stock to establish a consistent baseline, and approx 23 pulls with plenum. After plenum install, we also did runs after an ECU reset via scan tool to ensure all adaptation issues were accounted for, as well as several key cycles and a couple hours of cooldown between some runs. As long as coolant temps and corresponding intake air temps were kept constant by careful testing protocol, our results were very consistent. Temps were monitored via scan tool, as they always are during modern Porsche power testing".
For completeness, this is the statement made by AWE at the time about their testing method:
"Dyno testing was conducted on our Mustang AWD-500-SE chassis dynamometer. Our engineering director conducted all the data acquisition. Our technician conducted all the plenum swaps. Less than 2hrs would elapse between stock dyno pulls and plenum pulls in order to minimize ambient variables.
Ambient conditions on the first day of testing: ~65F ambient temp, 30.14 hg, 29% humidity
Ambient conditions on the second day of testing (second plenum): ~78F ambient temp, 30.06 hg, 26% humidity
Our standard cooling fans and placement were used as with all 997S product testing we do. The only difference between some tests posted on our site and these tests is a dyno software update over a year ago and a more accurate rpm sensor input to the dyno PC. All the same test variables under our control were kept consistent between the before and after dyno pulls.
Approx 30 total pulls were done with each plenum sent to us. Approx 7 pulls stock to establish a consistent baseline, and approx 23 pulls with plenum. After plenum install, we also did runs after an ECU reset via scan tool to ensure all adaptation issues were accounted for, as well as several key cycles and a couple hours of cooldown between some runs. As long as coolant temps and corresponding intake air temps were kept constant by careful testing protocol, our results were very consistent. Temps were monitored via scan tool, as they always are during modern Porsche power testing".
Ian_UK1 said:
For information, these are the dyno results AWE achieved, with and without the plenum, on an otherwise completely standard 997S.1:
For completeness, this is the statement made by AWE at the time about their testing method:
"Dyno testing was conducted on our Mustang AWD-500-SE chassis dynamometer. Our engineering director conducted all the data acquisition. Our technician conducted all the plenum swaps. Less than 2hrs would elapse between stock dyno pulls and plenum pulls in order to minimize ambient variables.
Ambient conditions on the first day of testing: ~65F ambient temp, 30.14 hg, 29% humidity
Ambient conditions on the second day of testing (second plenum): ~78F ambient temp, 30.06 hg, 26% humidity
Our standard cooling fans and placement were used as with all 997S product testing we do. The only difference between some tests posted on our site and these tests is a dyno software update over a year ago and a more accurate rpm sensor input to the dyno PC. All the same test variables under our control were kept consistent between the before and after dyno pulls.
Approx 30 total pulls were done with each plenum sent to us. Approx 7 pulls stock to establish a consistent baseline, and approx 23 pulls with plenum. After plenum install, we also did runs after an ECU reset via scan tool to ensure all adaptation issues were accounted for, as well as several key cycles and a couple hours of cooldown between some runs. As long as coolant temps and corresponding intake air temps were kept constant by careful testing protocol, our results were very consistent. Temps were monitored via scan tool, as they always are during modern Porsche power testing".
And here is the issue - one does a test that shows no gains whilst IPD had 5 cars themselves with over 200 independent witnesses that produced good results. For completeness, this is the statement made by AWE at the time about their testing method:
"Dyno testing was conducted on our Mustang AWD-500-SE chassis dynamometer. Our engineering director conducted all the data acquisition. Our technician conducted all the plenum swaps. Less than 2hrs would elapse between stock dyno pulls and plenum pulls in order to minimize ambient variables.
Ambient conditions on the first day of testing: ~65F ambient temp, 30.14 hg, 29% humidity
Ambient conditions on the second day of testing (second plenum): ~78F ambient temp, 30.06 hg, 26% humidity
Our standard cooling fans and placement were used as with all 997S product testing we do. The only difference between some tests posted on our site and these tests is a dyno software update over a year ago and a more accurate rpm sensor input to the dyno PC. All the same test variables under our control were kept consistent between the before and after dyno pulls.
Approx 30 total pulls were done with each plenum sent to us. Approx 7 pulls stock to establish a consistent baseline, and approx 23 pulls with plenum. After plenum install, we also did runs after an ECU reset via scan tool to ensure all adaptation issues were accounted for, as well as several key cycles and a couple hours of cooldown between some runs. As long as coolant temps and corresponding intake air temps were kept constant by careful testing protocol, our results were very consistent. Temps were monitored via scan tool, as they always are during modern Porsche power testing".
Do we know for sure that the MAF on that car was working as new for example - whilst the DME may not show error codes, we know from datalogging regularly that before codes are thrown that MAF values reduce. The MAF is the single biggest factor affecting the results of an IPD.
Again, I am also aware that there are a couple of companies who lets say have a vested interest in making sure that the IPD doesn't show good results.
Our position is clear - do an independent test using both vbox and dyno to remove any doubts.
We have the IPD fitted to our 987-2 Boxter Spyder. As a package with high flow cats, Revo software and BMC filter it is very impressive. I'm really not a fan of dyno comparisons and the 987-2 is particularly difficult to dyno. We use the race track for our development and use our own car to demonstrate the gains. It's really clear stepping from a standard Spyder into our demonstrator. Feel free to arrange a try out...
Shame it snowed, I wanted to come and see you at Silverstone, but it was -7 and 5"snow here lol.
I do want to see your Spyder at some point. will try and do a mini meet with Spyder/Cayman R owners at your place for a tea morning.
Have you thought about using the vflow filter systems on the spyder ? and are you going to fit the new IPD with GT3 throttle body.
I do want to see your Spyder at some point. will try and do a mini meet with Spyder/Cayman R owners at your place for a tea morning.
Have you thought about using the vflow filter systems on the spyder ? and are you going to fit the new IPD with GT3 throttle body.
996ttalot said:
And here is the issue - one does a test that shows no gains whilst IPD had 5 cars themselves with over 200 independent witnesses that produced good results.
Do we know for sure that the MAF on that car was working as new for example - whilst the DME may not show error codes, we know from datalogging regularly that before codes are thrown that MAF values reduce. The MAF is the single biggest factor affecting the results of an IPD.
Again, I am also aware that there are a couple of companies who lets say have a vested interest in making sure that the IPD doesn't show good results.
Our position is clear - do an independent test using both vbox and dyno to remove any doubts.
Not sure it tells us very much but here is a graph of the MAF output for the same runs:Do we know for sure that the MAF on that car was working as new for example - whilst the DME may not show error codes, we know from datalogging regularly that before codes are thrown that MAF values reduce. The MAF is the single biggest factor affecting the results of an IPD.
Again, I am also aware that there are a couple of companies who lets say have a vested interest in making sure that the IPD doesn't show good results.
Our position is clear - do an independent test using both vbox and dyno to remove any doubts.
Update.
So we have the plenums now which is the good news. There was a delay because Greg wanted to test the new competition plenum as well, but those are now in mass production and will not be ready in time. I will come on to that point.
After speaking with Greg tonight and been given some data from recent tests by them on customer cars, what is clear from their testing, and therefore should be seen by ours is the following
1) Taking either a 996 or 997 gen 1 car and fitting an IPD (standard size) with no other mods should result in an increase in the power and tq across the whole curve except at the point of shifting to high lift (around 5000-5200 rpm) when power drops normally.
2) Taking either a 996 or 997 gen 1 car and fitting the competition IPD together with 83mm TB (e.g. GT3 TB) will only provide very marginal gains over using the standard size IPD.
That make an interesting point, in that in his opinion, upgrading the TB and the IPD will not give value for money - basically you would be paying for the larger TB for no real gain.
However, doing option 2) in conjunction with other mods e.g. exhaust/headers etc , then in their testing, the larger TB and IPD works better.
Be aware that is their testing and not ours at this stage. Just a communication update. To that end, we will continue with just putting on the standard size IPD to both our 996 c4s and 997.1 c2s. However the 997.1 c2s has indicated that he would like to add other stuff e.g. x51 stuff and so on later, so we will help to test that as well.
At the moment the tests are scheduled w/c 5th March.
We will also be selecting a suitable time interval for the vbox for both cars since we don't want to just rely upon dyno results.
Ken
So we have the plenums now which is the good news. There was a delay because Greg wanted to test the new competition plenum as well, but those are now in mass production and will not be ready in time. I will come on to that point.
After speaking with Greg tonight and been given some data from recent tests by them on customer cars, what is clear from their testing, and therefore should be seen by ours is the following
1) Taking either a 996 or 997 gen 1 car and fitting an IPD (standard size) with no other mods should result in an increase in the power and tq across the whole curve except at the point of shifting to high lift (around 5000-5200 rpm) when power drops normally.
2) Taking either a 996 or 997 gen 1 car and fitting the competition IPD together with 83mm TB (e.g. GT3 TB) will only provide very marginal gains over using the standard size IPD.
That make an interesting point, in that in his opinion, upgrading the TB and the IPD will not give value for money - basically you would be paying for the larger TB for no real gain.
However, doing option 2) in conjunction with other mods e.g. exhaust/headers etc , then in their testing, the larger TB and IPD works better.
Be aware that is their testing and not ours at this stage. Just a communication update. To that end, we will continue with just putting on the standard size IPD to both our 996 c4s and 997.1 c2s. However the 997.1 c2s has indicated that he would like to add other stuff e.g. x51 stuff and so on later, so we will help to test that as well.
At the moment the tests are scheduled w/c 5th March.
We will also be selecting a suitable time interval for the vbox for both cars since we don't want to just rely upon dyno results.
Ken
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff