Protomotive car part III videos
#18
09-30-2005 | 11:40 AM
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,874
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Rep Power: 579
Originally posted by 2thfixr
So then let me modify what I am saying RE: the car in the videos. and why I was suspicious of the 862 number. If you go to Protomotive's website, there is no reference at all to a 862hp 996TT. In fact, there is a dyno sheet showing exactly 862hp for a 3.8L 993TT which is a whole different animal. Again, there is the stupidity involved in "street racing" the supposed 862hp car on the street by a bunch of idiots. Look at the car they took to the shootout. It looked like a POS that was barely finished in time for the shootout. It did well but it essentially looked like a test mule and it had 550hp. So they are going to have a bone stock looking TT out there with 862hp driven by guys that are thrashing the hell out of the motor doing stupid crap like racing 3 lanes wide on the freeway.
So then let me modify what I am saying RE: the car in the videos. and why I was suspicious of the 862 number. If you go to Protomotive's website, there is no reference at all to a 862hp 996TT. In fact, there is a dyno sheet showing exactly 862hp for a 3.8L 993TT which is a whole different animal. Again, there is the stupidity involved in "street racing" the supposed 862hp car on the street by a bunch of idiots. Look at the car they took to the shootout. It looked like a POS that was barely finished in time for the shootout. It did well but it essentially looked like a test mule and it had 550hp. So they are going to have a bone stock looking TT out there with 862hp driven by guys that are thrashing the hell out of the motor doing stupid crap like racing 3 lanes wide on the freeway.
Protomotive has been in the game for a LONG time. Their car was anything but a POS test mule in the shootout.
#20
09-30-2005 | 11:50 AM
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,321
From: Atlanta, GA
Rep Power: 71
Originally posted by 2thfixr
was suspicious of the 862 number. If you go to Protomotive's website, there is no reference at all to a 862hp 996TT. In fact, there is a dyno sheet showing exactly 862hp for a 3.8L 993TT which is a whole different animal.
was suspicious of the 862 number. If you go to Protomotive's website, there is no reference at all to a 862hp 996TT. In fact, there is a dyno sheet showing exactly 862hp for a 3.8L 993TT which is a whole different animal.
http://www.geocities.com/protomotive/dynos.html
The last 7 dynos were different configurations on a 2001, 3.6L 996 turbo.
#21
09-30-2005 | 03:23 PM
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,078
From: BFE
Rep Power: 190
Originally posted by HotRodGuy
seems like a pretty dumb/ignorant observation.
Protomotive has been in the game for a LONG time. Their car was anything but a POS test mule in the shootout.
seems like a pretty dumb/ignorant observation.
Protomotive has been in the game for a LONG time. Their car was anything but a POS test mule in the shootout.
Last edited by 2thfixr; 09-25-2006 at 05:21 PM.
#23
09-30-2005 | 03:30 PM
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,154
From: So. CA
Rep Power: 118
Originally posted by 2thfixr
Ignorant observation or not, this is exactly my idea of a car that LOOKS like a POS test mule.
Ignorant observation or not, this is exactly my idea of a car that LOOKS like a POS test mule.
#24
09-30-2005 | 03:51 PM
Porsche Fiend
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,875
From: Malibu, CA
Rep Power: 138
Originally posted by 2thfixr
Ignorant observation or not, this is exactly my idea of a car that LOOKS like a POS test mule.
Ignorant observation or not, this is exactly my idea of a car that LOOKS like a POS test mule.
That was my car, and it looks like a POS because the bottom lip was damaged just prior to the shootout, so it was removed at Buttonwillow, just prior to the quarter mile test.
The 558hp you are talking about is to all four wheels. The car easily made about 700hp to the crank. That car was very fast, and there are many witnesses to prove my point.
This car was developed 2 years before all the other "respected" tuners you are talking about.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I have no desire to argue with you. I have dealt with Protomotive, I was at the Shootout, I owned the car and I knew the guy who originally spec'd out the project. I don't believe any of the above applies to you.
You base your claims on what they have on their website or not. Obviously, you are not aware of Protomotive's marketing philosophy or lack thereof. If you knew anything about tuning Porsche turbos, you wouldn't disparage them.
But then again, I don't think they waste time with wet sump C2 engines, at least I hope not.
#26
09-30-2005 | 04:31 PM
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,321
From: Atlanta, GA
Rep Power: 71
Originally posted by buddyg
Okay I am math challenged 862 hp on an engine dyno is close to 1000 rwhp on a chassis dyno?
Proto builds some wicked cars and yes their website sucks!
Okay I am math challenged 862 hp on an engine dyno is close to 1000 rwhp on a chassis dyno?
Proto builds some wicked cars and yes their website sucks!
689awhp given a 20% driveline loss
"wheel" horsepower is always less than crank/base/engine horsepower as friction burns up some of the horsepower as it transfer through the gears, driveshafts, etc all the way to the wheels.
#27
09-30-2005 | 04:37 PM
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 22,235
Rep Power: 1226
Originally posted by buddyg
Okay I am math challenged 862 hp on an engine dyno is close to 1000 rwhp on a chassis dyno?
Proto builds some wicked cars and yes their website sucks!
Okay I am math challenged 862 hp on an engine dyno is close to 1000 rwhp on a chassis dyno?
Proto builds some wicked cars and yes their website sucks!
You are going in the wrong direction. It would be about 732 hp on a rear wheel dyno.
However, don't be fooled by the hp numbers. Look at the torque and where it occurs.
#28
09-30-2005 | 04:39 PM
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,321
From: Atlanta, GA
Rep Power: 71
Originally posted by cjv
buddy,
You are going in the wrong direction. It would be about 732 hp on a rear wheel dyno.
However, don't be fooled by the hp numbers. Look at the torque and where it occurs.
buddy,
You are going in the wrong direction. It would be about 732 hp on a rear wheel dyno.
However, don't be fooled by the hp numbers. Look at the torque and where it occurs.
#30
09-30-2005 | 05:36 PM
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,078
From: BFE
Rep Power: 190
Originally posted by Hamann7
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. With all due respect, your head is up your ***.
That was my car, and it looks like a POS because the bottom lip was damaged just prior to the shootout, so it was removed at Buttonwillow, just prior to the quarter mile test.
The 558hp you are talking about is to all four wheels. The car easily made about 700hp to the crank. That car was very fast, and there are many witnesses to prove my point.
This car was developed 2 years before all the other "respected" tuners you are talking about.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I have no desire to argue with you. I have dealt with Protomotive, I was at the Shootout, I owned the car and I knew the guy who originally spec'd out the project. I don't believe any of the above applies to you.
You base your claims on what they have on their website or not. Obviously, you are not aware of Protomotive's marketing philosophy or lack thereof. If you knew anything about tuning Porsche turbos, you wouldn't disparage them.
But then again, I don't think they waste time with wet sump C2 engines, at least I hope not.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. With all due respect, your head is up your ***.
That was my car, and it looks like a POS because the bottom lip was damaged just prior to the shootout, so it was removed at Buttonwillow, just prior to the quarter mile test.
The 558hp you are talking about is to all four wheels. The car easily made about 700hp to the crank. That car was very fast, and there are many witnesses to prove my point.
This car was developed 2 years before all the other "respected" tuners you are talking about.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I have no desire to argue with you. I have dealt with Protomotive, I was at the Shootout, I owned the car and I knew the guy who originally spec'd out the project. I don't believe any of the above applies to you.
You base your claims on what they have on their website or not. Obviously, you are not aware of Protomotive's marketing philosophy or lack thereof. If you knew anything about tuning Porsche turbos, you wouldn't disparage them.
But then again, I don't think they waste time with wet sump C2 engines, at least I hope not.
Easy, easy... No arguments here. As I stated earlier.... I stand corrected on the HP issue. If you look back at my posts, I have already pleaded ignorance as far back as 3 posts ago. I was the first to admit that I had my head up my ***. I have no problem admitting a grave error. I bow down to your car and the Protomotive guys. Seriously, it sounds like a true beast. Happy now.... As far as "test mule"... go back to the post. It "LOOKS" like a POS test mule. That I will not retract. According to the article it is an Estes rocket and is as fast as hell but, it still "LOOKS" like a POS test mule to me.
As far as wet sump C2 engines. Mine is gone as of today putting me in "waiter" status once again. In the immortal words of Ferris Bueller, "I don't even have a POS, so I have to admire yours."