992 GT3 542bhp !’

[peeler]

This would be great if true

https://rennlist.com/articles/2022-porsche-911-gt3...

[peeler]

https://youtu.be/7gTZ9QRTtfQ

Chris Harris interview, the car is referenced again with 550bhp

I hope it’s true

[throt]

Straight line performance should beat the 991.2 though, with 550 break

Lets see

[ChrisW.]

542bhp from 4L is 135bhp per litre ... NA !

Having said that, the 991.2 PDK is already extremely fast for normal roads ...

[TDT]

peeler said:

https://youtu.be/7gTZ9QRTtfQ

Chris Harris interview, the car is referenced again with 550bhp

I hope it’s true

It’s not Chris that actually says it, but I guess we’ll see!

[peeler]

TDT said:

It’s not Chris that actually says it, but I guess we’ll see!

It does sound like a slip of the tongue , just seems a bit of a coincidence that within a couple of days 2 journalists have said it. Porsche will of well and truly pulled it out of the bag if true

[Yellow491]

The new engine does produce those figures if its the same engine as the gen 3 version rs.
I had 118bhp per litre out of a 1966 2.0 ltr engine on carbs.

[Taffy66]

Yellow491 said:

The new engine does produce those figures if its the same engine as the gen 3 version rs.
I had 118bhp per litre out of a 1966 2.0 ltr engine on carbs.

My RS feels its got way more than 520PS.. I take it the 1966 2L you're referring to is a 904GTS.?

[browngt3]

Clearly Porsche are reading these forums and have taken on board the overwhelming disappointment with their new car. By upping the claimed power output to 550 we'll all be queuing up!

Seriously though, having already released the figures I can't believe it will suddenly have an upgraded engine before even being rolled out. In reality though, with the ram air effect and Porsches traditionally conservative claims I suspect real world power to be at least 20 - 30 hp more.

[franki68]

Why would every single official press release state 510bhp ?

[bigmowley]

550BHP not a chance against a homologated 510 or whatever it is. There is actual homologation legislation that limits the allowable variance both up and down and the band width is quite tight, I don’t know the figures for sure but you can look them up. It is all part of the emissions legislation.
There is always a spread of performance from engine to engine and it is obviously a normal distribution. Manufacturers usually homologate at the mean point of the spread or thereabouts to ensure compliance. Porsche may choose to homologate below the mean point to ensure that more customers get the full output but it won’t be that much below. Generally an NA engine will run with a tighter spread than a turbo unit where there are a few more variables.

When I had my R8 done at Litchfield they ran the power curve with the standard tune, then fitted the R8 plus map. The standard car is homologated at 535 BHP, mine made 534. With the new map it made 604.5 against a homologated 605. A fairly accurate bit of homologation from Audi.

[TDT]

bigmowley said:

550BHP not a chance against a homologated 510 or whatever it is. There is actual homologation legislation that limits the allowable variance both up and down and the band width is quite tight, I don’t know the figures for sure but you can look them up. It is all part of the emissions legislation.
There is always a spread of performance from engine to engine and it is obviously a normal distribution. Manufacturers usually homologate at the mean point of the spread or thereabouts to ensure compliance. Porsche may choose to homologate below the mean point to ensure that more customers get the full output but it won’t be that much below. Generally an NA engine will run with a tighter spread than a turbo unit where there are a few more variables.

When I had my R8 done at Litchfield they ran the power curve with the standard tune, then fitted the R8 plus map. The standard car is homologated at 535 BHP, mine made 534. With the new map it made 604.5 against a homologated 605. A fairly accurate bit of homologation from Audi.

I wish PH forum had ‘like a post’ function.

[ChrisW.]

So the Plus was just a re-map ?

[MDL111]

ChrisW. said:

So the Plus was just a re-map ?

That was my first thought as well - sounds quite a lot for a n/a engine

[cayman-black]

Perhaps the 510hp engine didn't survive the 3100mile test after all.

[bigmowley]

ChrisW. said:

So the Plus was just a re-map ?

Yup there are no differences internally, exactly the same power curve as well just the non plus tune does not allow for full throttle opening so cuts off the very top of the curve. The engine was mapped for the 605 and then throttled back for the 535 power tune purely for marketing purposes. There are a couple of higher power tunes, I think the highest is 630 in the Lambo Huracan but these use different valve train parts and gain a few more revs.
To be honest the car didn’t need the extra on the road and it made virtually no difference at all. On track the extra is quite nice and certainly makes a noticeable difference, keeps those pesky GT3s at bay .
It’s very good value for money 70BHP for £600, bargain.

[TDT]

MDL111 said:

ChrisW. said:

So the Plus was just a re-map ?

That was my first thought as well - sounds quite a lot for a n/a engine

As far as I understand engine is exactly the same between the two… so it’s just a remap.

V10 Plus has different gearing.

[Yellow491]

Taffy66 said:

Yellow491 said:

The new engine does produce those figures if its the same engine as the gen 3 version rs.
I had 118bhp per litre out of a 1966 2.0 ltr engine on carbs.

My RS feels its got way more than 520PS.. I take it the 1966 2L you're referring to is a 904GTS.?

No it was my 906.
There are few who have dynoed the gen 3 rs at 540 standard,i dont think you will notice 20bhp taff.

[ChrisW.]

I always thought that P power outputs were quoted power -0% +5% ...
Hence an extra 25bhp is within tolerance and quite a few people have mentioned a belief that the car gives more once it is fully run-in ... after 10,000 miles ? !

An interesting point on the gearing of the V10 Plus ... I have been driving my GT4 in 5th instead of 6th to simulate the RPM final drive change and it actually sounds quieter due to a 6th gear resonance at 75mph (with the changes that I have already made).

The 991.2GT3/PDK is a lot faster than my GT4 on "favourite roads" ... but the GT4 is every bit as much fun and arguably better for my licence and it makes me work a little harder for its pace. But the GT3 engine alone is worth a fortune ...
If the engine is the physical heart and soul, will any electrical drive train live-up to this ?

Too many questions ... sorry.

[TDT]

ChrisW. said:

I have been driving my GT4 in 5th instead of 6th to simulate the RPM final drive change and it actually sounds quieter due to a 6th gear resonance at 75mph (with the changes that I have already made).
.

Funny you say this… I had been experimenting and doing exactly the same this week, funnily enough on my way up to RPM.
Food for thought.