997 GT2 RS Tuning Stage III
#46
For sure Levin look a good outfit and as a CG reseller they they understand more than some about tuning IMVHO however I have known plenty of great race teams come out with some quality BS when it suits them and I'm afraid what they told you below fits into that category.....
Ask them how the cores which Secan "have now" are different from the cores in the 996tt Secan intercoolers as sold by CG/RS from 2002 ?
They are not - your guy is full of it
Ask them how the cores which Secan "have now" are different from the cores in the 996tt Secan intercoolers as sold by CG/RS from 2002 ?
They are not - your guy is full of it
Last edited by M-M; 02-14-2010 at 04:03 PM.
#48
for sure the IC would make more power as we just install them on my car even with the stock ecuīs see
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...ll-others.html
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...ll-others.html
#49
I think the biggest different for air volume is the inlet tubes
#51
Its not now, i had the option when i got mine (4,5") almost a year ago. I think you don't need those on VTG kits.
#52
I replaced mine with some 9FF C/F ones for 2000 Euro.
I don't think they give any noticeable power gains, they are more for helping airflow. Kind of useless
I don't think they give any noticeable power gains, they are more for helping airflow. Kind of useless
#53
They are probably useless for you if your ECU is not updated and with stock VTG`s. You canīt just replace some partīs and expect power gain without right ECU tuning and VTGīs to handle more air. RS, RUF and like you wrote 9ff use it for a reason
Last edited by M-M; 02-15-2010 at 12:51 AM.
#54
This is the difference when you buy RS installed kit and pay them for engine dyno time, they test power outputs with different configurations (mainly turbos on 7GT2) to get best (safe) power - What always "interests" me is that they like to test every engine like this as the results between engines and new components does differ. This contrasts with "bolt on" industry where every component is worth Xhp, it doesn't always work like this when a proper measurement set up is used, but there are very few proper measurement setups in the world so bolt ons rule
#55
RS are not using the CTR coolers because I couldn't be bothered setting up supply the way they wanted ie factory visits etc, too meticulous and time consuming - this is not my business. just a hobby
Last edited by DINpower; 02-15-2010 at 01:18 AM.
#56
for sure the IC would make more power as we just install them on my car even with the stock ecuīs see
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...ll-others.html
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...ll-others.html
When the exact same set up was tested on the engine dyno it only measured 690NM....
On the road in certain gears there is some more additional torque at this range but when held under load for proper torque measurment it disappears - what is happening I believe is the ECU adjusts for the extra flow when held under load, on the road it allows the extra flow briefly before regaining control and hitting the stock mass targetsn higher up the revs range (hence stock power higher up)
This does not show us anything about your intercoolers (yet) - forget the dyno for the intercoolers, you need to log the IATs on the Autobahn WOT up to 320kph if possible this will be the best test..... not in that weather though
#57
He will have got whichever they used for the CG kit....
This is the difference when you buy RS installed kit and pay them for engine dyno time, they test power outputs with different configurations (mainly turbos on 7GT2) to get best (safe) power - What always "interests" me is that they like to test every engine like this as the results between engines and new components does differ. This contrasts with "bolt on" industry where every component is worth Xhp, it doesn't always work like this when a proper measurement set up is used, but there are very few proper measurement setups in the world so bolt ons rule
This is the difference when you buy RS installed kit and pay them for engine dyno time, they test power outputs with different configurations (mainly turbos on 7GT2) to get best (safe) power - What always "interests" me is that they like to test every engine like this as the results between engines and new components does differ. This contrasts with "bolt on" industry where every component is worth Xhp, it doesn't always work like this when a proper measurement set up is used, but there are very few proper measurement setups in the world so bolt ons rule
+-10HP makes no difference to me, it will always be someone faster
Last edited by M-M; 02-15-2010 at 01:59 AM.
#58
When I called RS and talked to RS Gerhard he asked if I wanted to pay for 2 extra hours dyno time (2500€) or not, never explained the difference. I guess now he didnīt need to config the VTGīs for some reason and had bolt on too
+-10HP makes no difference to me, it will always be someone faster
+-10HP makes no difference to me, it will always be someone faster
#59
My car is 700bhp, when your is ready post some times to compare, I believe that your overpriced equipment on a GT2 at the end of the day will be slower than a modded turbo convertible
#60
You can compare your car with TB`s RS 660HP GT2, I doubt your advantage of 40HP will matter there, he is on rennlist forum (TB993TT).
I think his car is faster or at least not slower than this kit for 997 Turbo:
tuner: Cargraphic/RS Tuning
kit name: Stage 3 + Carrillo
Turbo: VTG
ECU: standard Motronic
Intercoolers: Secan
exhaust: Cargraphic
air intake: Cargraphic carbon
extra parts: CG headers, 100 cell race HJS cats
dyno resault: engine dyno: 624PS, 900NM DIN
Max Power=..624PS- max torque=.662ft-lbs with 100RON Shell V Power PUMP fuel at.DIN....bar -Temp=.DIN....
Max Power=.N/A.- max torque=..N/A..ft-lbs with RACE fuel at.....bar -Temp=.....
0-60mph: est.2.9s...sec 0-100kph: 3.0s
0-100mph:est.6.8s...sec 0-200kph: 9.1s
60-130mph:est.7s...sec 0-300kph: 23.8s
1/4 mile:....sec @ .... mph
standing mile:est .30s..sec.190....mph
transmission: 6spd 890NM Sachs clutch
Last edited by M-M; 02-15-2010 at 05:50 AM.