In 1997 I waited 12 hours at RS Tuning's shop whilst they unbolted my just signed off at 522PS/757NM 993tt engine from the dyno and reinstalled it in the car along with the rear bumper etc, a 30 minute test drive by them and I was on my way for a 2000 trip around Europe, it never missed a beat for the 10 odd thousand miles until I decided I wanted more power..... so yes with the right set up and experience road tuning is not necessary, it can ALL be done on the engine dyno.

The Bosch engineer writing the code for my current build is doing it all on the engine dyno, in fact getting some of the low end mid range stuff right is so detailed and has taken so long that the engine has had to be rebuilt twice (new pistons, liners, stretched Carrillos, such are the stresses of holding 900NM (yes I know your tweaked GT2RS has 1000NM ) under load at 3000rpm

I am told this full weight 993 has 900hp on a dyno (presume chassis.) 993tt has worse aero than 996tt so I am guessing your mile cars have a similar hp number, a lot but not the 1000 which is regularly mooted ?
YouTube - Alejandro Sanchez - 378,947 km/h On-Board Porsche - Driver Cup

Back to my original point which wasn't to try and discredit everything EVOMS , what about the dodgy GT2RS diagram ? How has it been presented like that ? Is it photshopped ? does the dyno software print it out like that and if so why is it wrong ? You haven't actually agreed with me that 500hpSAE at 4000rpm is 656ftlbs at 4000rpm ?

 

I think the "bubble" you refer to is actually what some of you 6speed guys get stuck in..... I am certainly in no bubble, I like to critique all Porsche tuning efforts.
EVOMS along with Proto are IMO in a different league to the other wannabe "tuners" in the US and do proper componentry builds with some trick stuff.
On the software side, I am not sure where the EVO base programming is coming from, possible sourced from one of the very few electronics guys in Europe ?

Your car at 0-300 in 21s is a solid 750hp which is impressive but at 1.6bar if you USED it in Germany on a daily basis it would wear out quite quickly, 750hp at sub 1.3bar is where the state of the art stuff is headed

Like KPG your "multiple 200mph passes" can be done in a 10 minute drive in the land of Porsche, this is why (even with the best componentry) the power needs to be produced at lower boost because your 20K miles is not even the same as a Bottrop dweller's 1000mile commute.....

 

This bit here is what really puzzles me.

I have watched a few times the Manthey Maha chassis dyno loading up a power run at peak torque and there being slippage at anything over about 600lb/ft, they even put special wheels tyres on the cars for the runs and the rear bumpers are obviously off because of the heat generated as the engines are loaded up.

Measuring torque means applying an equal resistance to the torque being produced - is this correct ?

If this is correct one can easily see how an engine dyno works as the input shaft from the engine is braked directly by the hydraulic (or whatevere it is) mechanism and the force needed to brake 1 Pound at the end of a 1 foot rod is used as the starting point.

If the Manthey Maha Rolling road struggles with 600lb/ft how on earth can it be possible to measure 800lb/ft never mind 1500 lb/ft ??
Obviously the tyres are not being loaded in the same way so does the Mustang do some sort of guestimate calculation based on how fast the tyres spin up a lesser (known) force ? If this is the case (which it must be) then it is NOT measuring the torque properly and this is the reason for the weird numbers and weird torque numbers = weird power numbers (by definition.

Am I correct in remembering somewhere on 6bling the EVOMS car at the recent Texas mile was supposed to be 1500hp or something similarly "insane"
The measurements are wrong - time for an engine dyno set up Todd

 

Toby...Focus. I know it must be difficult to concentrate with it being Will and Kate's wedding day and all, but everything you posted just hides the underlying argument. We can discuss durability, Autobahn etc after we hear from you on the dyno issue. You have said all these dyno are not accurate. Please put up your figures or shut your trap. Here are two facts.
1: 60-130 in 3.96s 4th gear only in a 3350lb 2001 996TT... How much power?
2: 0-300K in 14.41s in a 3300lb 2002 996TT... how much power?

These are facts you cannot blow off. NONE OF US WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL YOU ANSWER THESE TWO QUESTIONS. Once we establish how much power it takes to motivate these cars in the given time frame , a given distance, we will know who is right or wrong. Then we can talk about your 2000mile Autobahn commute.
Step up or step back Toby, you made the accusations about these power levels. Back it up with YOUR numbers, we already showed ours... I dont think you have the balls to post up your calculations, you are just wanker with a keyboard. Show me I am wrong, and I will admit here for all to see...

 

The 0-300 in 21.4 was actually run on 1.4bar. I haven't recorded data on the high end at 1.6bar yet.

 

seriously, that's the only thing that the GT2RS lacks IMO

 

Don't quite see the need for the vitriol, I've not run over your dog, these are only "technicalities" we are discussing, the nature and calculation of Porsche horsepower and me pointing out a discrepancy in a power/torque diagram.

I am told for your question 1 in 4th gear would need an average flywheel torque of 800lb/ft in 4th gear which could mean 900lb/ft to start and 650lb/ft at the end.

This leads onto question 2, this is the same car which did 23X mph trap speed in the mile yes ? if it is then I already posted a 900hp 993 tt which was as fast and that had max 900hp with worse aero so I guess the 14.41s 0-300 car had between 750 and 900hp ?

AFAIK there is only the Veyron with certified 1000hp, most of the 9ff stuff is fantasy....
All will be revealed (for me at least ) if the H&R top speed car gets built as it is likely to be 1000PS engine dynoed like Porsche do it.

BMoores, 21s at 1.4bar is impressive, solid 750hp

 

Toby,

Thanks for the kudos.

Re: Car 1 and Car 2. Car 1 was the car that did 215 at the mile. KPG's personal car, which I believe may have been making less torque at that time. If my memory serves me the 60-130 on that run was roughly 4.5X. Car 2 was the car that did 231 at the mile. Joe's Car.

 

I can't believe yall are still arguing with this idiot. Nothing in the US will satisfy him. Drop it already..

 

Toby, no vitriol here and I actually cannot believe you are questioning the tone of my responses. You character assassinate every American tuner as it relates to Porsche and you are concerned with how I respond? You may actually have convinced yourself you are a tireless defender of truth, but….you are not. Your strategy is similar to most people who have an agenda and are not open to ANY competing belief… come in strong, question peoples’ character and motives, prove your argument with your examples; not the examples at hand, then actually profess to admire the aforementioned victims accomplishments. Textbook… To actually think that your posts are discussing “ technicalities” is borderline comedy when you attack motives and character with your misplaced Euro-centric anti-American Porsche tuner Jihad.

Now that you have actually answered one of my questions I would be more than happy to discuss real “ technicalities”. You say my car needs about 900 peak tq to accomplish that 3.96 60-130 at that weight. We rolled the car off the dyno, ran the numbers and here we are having our data verified by you. A glorious day indeed! Yes, your tq numbers are not far off what we saw on Todd’s dyno that day. I do not have a 1K anything type build just a well sorted TT running a new fuel that appears to be much more responsive than the traditional VP racing fuels used to date. E85 has provided us with significantly more tq with less boost and rpm than my previous setup. I do not know what the avg tq over that run was but since we barely cracked 900 peak at 4400rpm I would think 800tq on avg for that run would be fairly accurate. So now that you have proven Todd’s chassis dyno numbers to be correct, we can discuss further other issues you may have concerning our builds, tuning and power reporting standards…

As for question 2, I believe that you are darn close on that one as well, but as it was not my car I cannot be 100% certain.
BTW, thank you for not running over my dog
BTW, great show today with the wedding! Nobody does ceremony better than the Brits....