IPDs - do they work on N/A - let's find out
Discussion
So there has been much debate on whether fitting an IPD to an NA car will make a difference. I think it is about time someone put it to the test and therefore have brought four parties to the table to resolve this question.
Car 996C4S with no modifications kindly supplied by one of our customers.
68mm IPD supplied by Greg at IPD in the USA - the license holders of the IPD - the original IPD - not a copy - they are supplying this free of charge.
Charlie at SurreyRollingRoad will provide the dyno - on this occasion we will use a dyno in a controlled manner instead of a 60-130 time
We will do the install.
This will take place over the coming weeks and we will update the thread with the results.
No other changes will be made to the car - we will not change throttle body or anything at this stage.
Keep a check on the thread and we will update it as the changes take place.
Ken
Car 996C4S with no modifications kindly supplied by one of our customers.
68mm IPD supplied by Greg at IPD in the USA - the license holders of the IPD - the original IPD - not a copy - they are supplying this free of charge.
Charlie at SurreyRollingRoad will provide the dyno - on this occasion we will use a dyno in a controlled manner instead of a 60-130 time
We will do the install.
This will take place over the coming weeks and we will update the thread with the results.
No other changes will be made to the car - we will not change throttle body or anything at this stage.
Keep a check on the thread and we will update it as the changes take place.
Ken
cragswinter said:
Henry's gonna love this one 
but I've got to admit, what's an IPD?? 
Intake plenum but I've got to admit, what's an IPD?? http://www.ipdplenums.com/index.php?option=com_con...
So Greg from ipd is putting their reputation on the line for the claimed results
"There was a big debate over the Plenums 4 or 5 years ago so we decided to do an open house dyno day and invite everybody from every Porsche forum to attend. Over a couple hundred people attended armed with video cameras and full access to be up-close and personal. We tested 5 Porsche in one day
(2000 996 3.4L, 2002 996 3.6L, 2007 997S 3.8, 2007 987.1S 3.4L and a 996 3.4L EVOMS Super Charged). Most of these cars put down some very impressive base line runs but the IPD Plenums still delivers the promised gains we advertise. The so-called opponents of the IPD Plenums are usually affiliated with 2 specific Porsche shops who just happened to be the same ones who were served with a cease and desist letter after they violated our patent in an effort to reproduce our Plenum design.
We have sold over 3000 IPD Plenums over the past 6 years all of which come with a 100% money back guarantee, and we've ONLY had 4 returned in 6 years.
We currently sell about 30 each week to all kinds of reputable dealers, even in Europe, including Cargraphic, RS Tuning and FVD who both move a fair amount of IPD product.
But all that being said, we will still (and always) continue to stand behind our product and invite any quality Porsche shop to conduct a "see for yourself" test so they can represent the IPD products with honesty and confidence to their clientele. I would be more than happy to send you a Plenum for the 996 C4S for you to test and evaluation. I completely understand and fully respect your position in wanting to perform your own dyno tests. I always prefer a company test more than one Plenum but let's see what we come up with in this first round of testing.
Firstly, (as I'm sure you already know) the Plenum should not be installed on any vehicle suffering from any outstanding service issues. Any and all Porsches must be mechanically sound with all scheduled maintenance and service performed before installing your Plenum. Secondly the most common reasons for IPD Plenums not delivering the performance gains claimed by IPD are; incorrect installation and / or a faulty MAF sensor. Hot wire mass air flow sensors degrade over time. After thousands of heat cycles on the precious metal element you may suffer loss of resolution at the extremes of measurement (i.e. peak power). Although the sensor may not be so far out of range to cause a check engine light, we have seen cases where the performance improvements are not fully realized, especially with older cars.
Also, keep in mind that the ECU requires a series of hard pulls in order for the ECU to fully adapt to the increased air flow.
We look forward to hearing all about your test results and working together in the future. Although we have some representation in the UK we are always looking for well respected Porsche focused shops who have a strong and loyal following in their community. Please send confirm your shipping address and I will prepare your order for shipping tomorrow. Thanks again for all of your interest, consideration and enthusiasm with the IPD Plenums.
Greg"
"There was a big debate over the Plenums 4 or 5 years ago so we decided to do an open house dyno day and invite everybody from every Porsche forum to attend. Over a couple hundred people attended armed with video cameras and full access to be up-close and personal. We tested 5 Porsche in one day
(2000 996 3.4L, 2002 996 3.6L, 2007 997S 3.8, 2007 987.1S 3.4L and a 996 3.4L EVOMS Super Charged). Most of these cars put down some very impressive base line runs but the IPD Plenums still delivers the promised gains we advertise. The so-called opponents of the IPD Plenums are usually affiliated with 2 specific Porsche shops who just happened to be the same ones who were served with a cease and desist letter after they violated our patent in an effort to reproduce our Plenum design.
We have sold over 3000 IPD Plenums over the past 6 years all of which come with a 100% money back guarantee, and we've ONLY had 4 returned in 6 years.
We currently sell about 30 each week to all kinds of reputable dealers, even in Europe, including Cargraphic, RS Tuning and FVD who both move a fair amount of IPD product.
But all that being said, we will still (and always) continue to stand behind our product and invite any quality Porsche shop to conduct a "see for yourself" test so they can represent the IPD products with honesty and confidence to their clientele. I would be more than happy to send you a Plenum for the 996 C4S for you to test and evaluation. I completely understand and fully respect your position in wanting to perform your own dyno tests. I always prefer a company test more than one Plenum but let's see what we come up with in this first round of testing.
Firstly, (as I'm sure you already know) the Plenum should not be installed on any vehicle suffering from any outstanding service issues. Any and all Porsches must be mechanically sound with all scheduled maintenance and service performed before installing your Plenum. Secondly the most common reasons for IPD Plenums not delivering the performance gains claimed by IPD are; incorrect installation and / or a faulty MAF sensor. Hot wire mass air flow sensors degrade over time. After thousands of heat cycles on the precious metal element you may suffer loss of resolution at the extremes of measurement (i.e. peak power). Although the sensor may not be so far out of range to cause a check engine light, we have seen cases where the performance improvements are not fully realized, especially with older cars.
Also, keep in mind that the ECU requires a series of hard pulls in order for the ECU to fully adapt to the increased air flow.
We look forward to hearing all about your test results and working together in the future. Although we have some representation in the UK we are always looking for well respected Porsche focused shops who have a strong and loyal following in their community. Please send confirm your shipping address and I will prepare your order for shipping tomorrow. Thanks again for all of your interest, consideration and enthusiasm with the IPD Plenums.
Greg"
Gibbo205 said:
Be interesting to see a proven before and after on a 997.1 S as well.
Though I am sure if gains are shown on a 996 S then you'd also expect the 997.1 S larger 3.8l engine to benefit just as well if not more.
One question though.
1. I assume you will start by say running 3 stock runs, to give you three decent plots of what the stock car is putting out and you will do your best to ensure the runs are done both at similar ambient temperature and with the cars engine at a controlled temperature?
2. Then fit the IPD and run another 3 runs and compare whilst trying to maintain the same testing conditions, ideally it would be best to do all runs on the same day.
3. Drive the car a good 50-100 miles or so in order to allow the DME to fully re-learn and then dyno again?
My testing methology would be, dyno stock car 3 times in morning, fit new IPD plenum, dyno IPD equipped car 3 times, then take car for a 50 mile or so run so DME can learn and then dyno car another 3 times, all done on the same day. This is really only the best and ideal way to compare to see if there is any gains. Will you be conducting your testing in a similar method?
The exact method will be determined based on pulling everyone together. Yes we would like to do it all on the same day and Charlie will be responsible for making sure that the dyno is done in a controlled environment to make sure it is a true comparison.Though I am sure if gains are shown on a 996 S then you'd also expect the 997.1 S larger 3.8l engine to benefit just as well if not more.
One question though.
1. I assume you will start by say running 3 stock runs, to give you three decent plots of what the stock car is putting out and you will do your best to ensure the runs are done both at similar ambient temperature and with the cars engine at a controlled temperature?
2. Then fit the IPD and run another 3 runs and compare whilst trying to maintain the same testing conditions, ideally it would be best to do all runs on the same day.
3. Drive the car a good 50-100 miles or so in order to allow the DME to fully re-learn and then dyno again?
My testing methology would be, dyno stock car 3 times in morning, fit new IPD plenum, dyno IPD equipped car 3 times, then take car for a 50 mile or so run so DME can learn and then dyno car another 3 times, all done on the same day. This is really only the best and ideal way to compare to see if there is any gains. Will you be conducting your testing in a similar method?
I suspect we will just fit a new MAF so that there is no chance of anything affecting the results.
Frankly even 10-15hp would be a good gain imo - but will be more interested in the gain under the curve rather than peak hp/tq.
996TT_STEVO said:
Ken... I'm sure they ran a test about 2/3 years ago on 6speed, it was done same day, basically just a swap over... might want to check!
Steve You are quite right - they ran 5 cars , 4 of which where NA - they had 200 people attend the sessions and they got good results
I fit IPDs to turbo cars and know via vbox they work - I haven't done to NA so I cannot really sell something unless I have confidence.
Greg from IPD was kind enough to offer a free one - actually he offered more as he would prefer to have more cars done on the same day.
It is just that there seems to have been a demand for NA stuff recentlye - it g is easy to know a 3.8 kit will work - not so easy for other stuff and there is still a debate in recent threads , not just on here, as to whether they deliver.
Since we are able to put this sort of thing together with everyone giving their time then it is worth it
I think I know what the vbox will show
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.
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
disco1 said:
CraigVmax said:
agree with Mr demon on this one. I'm not saying the other bits which in particular 9E are very well versed on make a giant leap in perforrmance, but a decent remap makes a big difference.
The 6 second 0-60 can only be a misprint too, My Cayenne will do it in less than that.
The popular perception between map/remap on 996T is night and day but the tests on a straight drag proved to be very different indeed, I was shocked in all honesty! Car may 'feel' faster but it was 6'ish -/+ seconds to 60 on all runs, no miss-prints. Car was tiptronic which if anything like a N/A 996 adds a second to the time.The 6 second 0-60 can only be a misprint too, My Cayenne will do it in less than that.
Edited by CraigVmax on Thursday 1st March 11:42
Edited by CraigVmax on Thursday 1st March 11:42
I realise top Gear isn't a real motor show but what about when they wanted to get that people carrier around the track, they did everything to it from brakes, engine, suspension and it didn't do anything. Only thing that did work is working with the aero.
As previously mentioned, if you want your 911 to be massively faster you have to get hardcore on it. They left the factory as fast cars and simple bolt on things like plenums won't do anything.
I am sure others reputable tuners like Fearnsport achieve good results like ourselves. Here is the proof of ours http://nineexcellence.com/tuning/996turbo/software...
That is just stage 1 and knocks three secounds of the 60-130 time. Properly tested, vboxed and no dispute. We guarantee it and have numerous cars running it.
You pay for what you get. It is that simple. Pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
Coming back on topic, since most know that we don't particular like dynos we have decided to split the IPD install and testing into two parts.
On Monday we will fit just a std IPD to a 996 c4s. It will be dyno'd before and after by Charlie, with adaption in between. We will then publish those results, good or bad.
On Wednesday, we will be fitting a std IPD to a 997 gen 1 C2S. We will vbox before and afterwards and datalog the airflow. Then we will fit X51 manifolds, and re vbox. We will then publish that data, again good or bad. At a subsequent date, we will swop the std IPD with a competition one together with a GT3 Throttle body on the same car, and then re vbox.
Ken
On Monday we will fit just a std IPD to a 996 c4s. It will be dyno'd before and after by Charlie, with adaption in between. We will then publish those results, good or bad.
On Wednesday, we will be fitting a std IPD to a 997 gen 1 C2S. We will vbox before and afterwards and datalog the airflow. Then
we will fit X51 manifolds, and re vbox. We will then publish that data, again good or bad. At a subsequent date, we will swop the std IPD with a competition one together with a GT3 Throttle body on the same car, and then re vbox. Ken
disco1 said:
996ttalot said:
Coming back on topic, since most know that we don't particular like dynos we have decided to split the IPD install and testing into two parts.
On Monday we will fit just a std IPD to a 996 c4s. It will be dyno'd before and after by Charlie, with adaption in between. We will then publish those results, good or bad.
On Wednesday, we will be fitting a std IPD to a 997 gen 1 C2S. We will vbox before and afterwards and datalog the airflow. Then we will fit X51 manifolds, and re vbox. We will then publish that data, again good or bad. At a subsequent date, we will swop the std IPD with a competition one together with a GT3 Throttle body on the same car, and then re vbox.
Ken
Hi Ken,On Monday we will fit just a std IPD to a 996 c4s. It will be dyno'd before and after by Charlie, with adaption in between. We will then publish those results, good or bad.
On Wednesday, we will be fitting a std IPD to a 997 gen 1 C2S. We will vbox before and afterwards and datalog the airflow. Then
we will fit X51 manifolds, and re vbox. We will then publish that data, again good or bad. At a subsequent date, we will swop the std IPD with a competition one together with a GT3 Throttle body on the same car, and then re vbox. Ken
I've got a grubby old hat to eat and cash for a plenum if proven wrong
Best of luck on the tests
D1
We will see soon enough next week.
Ken
Gibbo205 said:
Hi Ken
If at all possible it would also still be good to see dyno results as well.
On your Vbox test will it just be acceleration through gears or will you do before and after Vbox date of say for instance 60-110mph in 4th.
As sometimes certain mods only improve power at say the upper RPM's but loose you low-down torque. As such it would be good to see some higher gear acceleration test to see how the modification effect around the mid-range power/torque.
The vbox will be before and afterwards and will be sufficent to cover the points you madeIf at all possible it would also still be good to see dyno results as well.
On your Vbox test will it just be acceleration through gears or will you do before and after Vbox date of say for instance 60-110mph in 4th.
As sometimes certain mods only improve power at say the upper RPM's but loose you low-down torque. As such it would be good to see some higher gear acceleration test to see how the modification effect around the mid-range power/torque.
Ken
mrdemon said:
when is the IPD competition one together with a GT3 Throttle body going on ?
that will be more interesting as it will be getting more air in.
If you recall my earlier quotethat will be more interesting as it will be getting more air in.
"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"
this is why we are just at this stage testing a standard IPD.
However, on Wednesday Mark will be bringing his car to us for several bits including x51 manifolds. We will still be using the std IPD before and afterwards, but Mark wants to upgrade to the TB and competition one later.
So we will be the test at some point this month on that as well.
Trying at this stage to see whether just the std ipd is a value for money upgrade.
RESULTS
Summary
Dyno shows improved bhp/tq across whole power curve with peak hp increase of 10hp/13nm tq
Maximum hp up to 313.7hp from 309hp.
Test conditions
Test car 996 c4s standard with K&N Panel filter. Standard car should dyno 320hp at flywheel and made 309hp on best run as a baseline.
Car was run 3 times on dyno and on the third pull the maximum power was read as a baseline for the test.
Standard IPD was fitted
Car was allowed time to adapt
Car was put on the dyno and on the second pull, the results were immediately obvious. Those are the results published.
On the road – owner reported mid range increase in torque.
Conclusion
We are still to test a 997 gen 1 c2s on Wednesday, which will be vbox for on the road performance changes. However clearly today shows that a car with working Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor with just a standard IPD fitted, gains across the whole curve, which is more important that headline maximum hp figures.
IPD themselves were a little disappointed with the final figures, but in our opinion, a useable increase in mid range power is a good result. It will be interesting to see the results when these IPDs are fitted in combination of other modification such as exhaust and manifold.
Prior to this test, we already fitted IPDs to our turbo packages and on those with just the IPD fitted there was a noticeable difference in mid range power as well.
Assuming Wednesday goes the same and there is no reason to think otherwise, we are happy to endorse IPDs and will be offering them as performance upgrades.
We will also be testing their new y-pipe direct replacement shortly as well on a 997 GT2, as well as an IPD.
Would like to thank Greg for supplying the IPD, Phil for providing the car and Charlie for doing the dynos.
Will post up on Wednesday with the next set of results.
Summary
Dyno shows improved bhp/tq across whole power curve with peak hp increase of 10hp/13nm tq
Maximum hp up to 313.7hp from 309hp.
Test conditions
Test car 996 c4s standard with K&N Panel filter. Standard car should dyno 320hp at flywheel and made 309hp on best run as a baseline.
Car was run 3 times on dyno and on the third pull the maximum power was read as a baseline for the test.
Standard IPD was fitted
Car was allowed time to adapt
Car was put on the dyno and on the second pull, the results were immediately obvious. Those are the results published.
On the road – owner reported mid range increase in torque.
Conclusion
We are still to test a 997 gen 1 c2s on Wednesday, which will be vbox for on the road performance changes. However clearly today shows that a car with working Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor with just a standard IPD fitted, gains across the whole curve, which is more important that headline maximum hp figures.
IPD themselves were a little disappointed with the final figures, but in our opinion, a useable increase in mid range power is a good result. It will be interesting to see the results when these IPDs are fitted in combination of other modification such as exhaust and manifold.
Prior to this test, we already fitted IPDs to our turbo packages and on those with just the IPD fitted there was a noticeable difference in mid range power as well.
Assuming Wednesday goes the same and there is no reason to think otherwise, we are happy to endorse IPDs and will be offering them as performance upgrades.
We will also be testing their new y-pipe direct replacement shortly as well on a 997 GT2, as well as an IPD.
Would like to thank Greg for supplying the IPD, Phil for providing the car and Charlie for doing the dynos.
Will post up on Wednesday with the next set of results.
Mankers said:
^ - Interesting results, would you imagine similar gains over base line figure if you fitted an IPD to a 996 with a factory fitted X51 kit, or does an X51 already have a similarly modded intake plenum?
The X51 does not have a similar IPD to the one fitted today. We would expect better results to those today(incremental) if it was fitted to a car with an X51 kit - it is one of these mods that works best with better headers, exhaust etc. Today was to show whether in isolation it was a worthwhile mod.dom9 said:
Interesting results.
Nice to see it makes a difference through the rev range. I would have liked to have seen one on a cable 3.4 though.
When you say you let the ECU adapt to it, did you unplug the battery and then do some pulls on the dyno before taking the figures? How was the car originally? Was that allowed an ECU reset and adaptation?
Keep the results coming!
Adaption was just by driving the car for a short period of time. Preferable to doing multiple dyno pulls. Nice to see it makes a difference through the rev range. I would have liked to have seen one on a cable 3.4 though.
When you say you let the ECU adapt to it, did you unplug the battery and then do some pulls on the dyno before taking the figures? How was the car originally? Was that allowed an ECU reset and adaptation?
Keep the results coming!
Second set of tests
We really wanted to do something a little more technical on this to support the findings from the dyno on Monday. Unfortunately weather was not good for testing in terms of vbox today so that will come in a few weeks when Mark let's us have the car back for the rest of the goodies he wants fitted.
In brief, we fitted his new radiator from Porsche as part of the x51 kit, std IPD, and then a mod to his intake sound which I will leave him to explain.
We concentrated on whether the IPD increases air flow. In simple terms, the Mass Air Flow (MAF) Sensor measures in kg per hour. Setting all other things aside such as volumetic efficiency (VE), intake temps, if the MAF value is higher, then you have more power, because you burn more fuel. For example on a standard 996 turbo MAF value is approx 1250-1280kg/hr on full boost. The 997 3.8 c2s today as a base ran around 900 kg/hr. So if you think that the turbo has 420hp, and the 997 has 355hp, the MAF reflects this. If you increase from 0.8 bar on a turbo to 1 bar boost, then the MAF value increases to 1350-1375kg. It is a simplistic approach but does have merit.
So what you would expect, is if the IPD is removing a restriction, then the MAF value should be higher. If you look back at the dyno sheet on the 3.6c4s in the thread, you can see that mid range torque (nm) was up by around 13nm. As also mentioned, when you fit these IPDs, you must allow sufficient time to allow them to adapt.I will let Mark comment on that himself - you can feel it adapt.
So the image below shows, RPM, the Base MAF figure, the adapt 1, the adapt 2. The adapt 1 and adapt 2 are the MAF values after the IPD was fitted, and reflect 10 minute intervals of driving. There is also a difference column as well.
We ran out of time tonight to do more testing and we will be retesting when the car is back in a few weeks. We will also be fitting the x51 manifolds and some other goodies.
In our opinion, the MAF values support the dyno charts from Monday. Moreover, looking at the yellow sections, throttle response is noticeable quicker which is reflected in the power feel.
The std IPD improves mid range response, hp & tq. For us, the important part is the increase in area under the power curve, not the peak hp. No point have 25hp for 100rpm - better and faster to have less hp, but over more of the curve.
We really wanted to do something a little more technical on this to support the findings from the dyno on Monday. Unfortunately weather was not good for testing in terms of vbox today so that will come in a few weeks when Mark let's us have the car back for the rest of the goodies he wants fitted.
In brief, we fitted his new radiator from Porsche as part of the x51 kit, std IPD, and then a mod to his intake sound which I will leave him to explain.
We concentrated on whether the IPD increases air flow. In simple terms, the Mass Air Flow (MAF) Sensor measures in kg per hour. Setting all other things aside such as volumetic efficiency (VE), intake temps, if the MAF value is higher, then you have more power, because you burn more fuel. For example on a standard 996 turbo MAF value is approx 1250-1280kg/hr on full boost. The 997 3.8 c2s today as a base ran around 900 kg/hr. So if you think that the turbo has 420hp, and the 997 has 355hp, the MAF reflects this. If you increase from 0.8 bar on a turbo to 1 bar boost, then the MAF value increases to 1350-1375kg. It is a simplistic approach but does have merit.
So what you would expect, is if the IPD is removing a restriction, then the MAF value should be higher. If you look back at the dyno sheet on the 3.6c4s in the thread, you can see that mid range torque (nm) was up by around 13nm. As also mentioned, when you fit these IPDs, you must allow sufficient time to allow them to adapt.I will let Mark comment on that himself - you can feel it adapt.
So the image below shows, RPM, the Base MAF figure, the adapt 1, the adapt 2. The adapt 1 and adapt 2 are the MAF values after the IPD was fitted, and reflect 10 minute intervals of driving. There is also a difference column as well.
We ran out of time tonight to do more testing and we will be retesting when the car is back in a few weeks. We will also be fitting the x51 manifolds and some other goodies.
In our opinion, the MAF values support the dyno charts from Monday. Moreover, looking at the yellow sections, throttle response is noticeable quicker which is reflected in the power feel.
The std IPD improves mid range response, hp & tq. For us, the important part is the increase in area under the power curve, not the peak hp. No point have 25hp for 100rpm - better and faster to have less hp, but over more of the curve.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff