I was there, RSS Plenum Dyno Day
#106
07-16-2008, 11:27 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,134
Rep Power: 122 
Sorry for the long over due contribution to this thread but we've had to get back to our regularly scheduled work routine. As a company and site sponsor it's difficult to balance 6 Speed postings while answering phone calls, e-mails, monitoring manufacturing and distribution, developing new performance products and being on the road all in an effort to provide customers like yourself the absolute best performance products and service available in the industry.
We have answered any and every question ever posed here on 6 Speed, maybe it was on a different thread, but I thought that the proverbial dear horse has received enough of a repeated beating. We delivered the most unprecedented product evaluation in the history of 6 Speed. Members demanded IPD plenum dyno tests, independent dyno tests, board member dyno tests, magazine dyno tests and received all the above. There was NEVER any manipulating of any kind whatsoever with the dyno testing procedures. We never have, never will and never need to play that game. In the meantime here are the latest answers to the questions above.
1) Were intake and coolant temperatures monitored and kept equal, during before and after measurements? No, they were NOT monitored. All dyno pulls were conducted within the same hour with only slight changes in outside temps. Any changes in environment and fluid temps would have only been higher during the IPD round of pulls causing a more detrimental result to the IPD Plenum power gains.
2) Was ignition timing monitored for consistency? No, Engine Timing was NOT monitored. We’re dealing with ECU’s not distributors. Knock sensors trigger if your timing if it is too far advanced and any retarding of the timing would just pull power. Never the less, the timing is set by the ignition map which was not altered between runs. The plenum does NOT affect ignition.
3) Were the ECUs allowed sufficient time to adapt timing, w/o resetting, between before/after dyno pulls? Yes, the ECU’s were given sufficient time to adapt. One car at the Plenum Dyno Day had a code issue so it was cleared by disconnecting the battery. The ECU is NOT affected by disconnecting the battery contrary to what some of the internet engineers believe. It has also been repeatedly substantiated that “resetting the ECU” does NOT add power, Period! Does your (properly functioning) computer at home perform better if you disconnect it, No it does NOT.
4) Was the dyno load-control recorded, and kept constant? No it wasn’t! This is an inertia dyno, you cannot manipulate these numbers on a Dyno Jet.
We even had our in-house Porsche engineer who previously worked at Porsche Motorsports discuss at length the reasons why the plenum delivers the additional power that it does. There are professional race teams competing in upper lever Motorsports who have been completely ecstatic with the performance gains and improved lap times provided by the IPD plenum. Both competition and street car in the Porsche motherland of Germany have experienced great success with the plenum. The Cayman S race series in Italy all run the IPD plenums where it received a unanimous motto benne thumbs up. All of the fastest Turbo cars in the Texas Mile had IPD plenums installed. The IPD plenum is the single best performance modification you can possibly install on a late model Porsche. Period!
People always ask, “Why doesn’t Porsche create a similar design Air intake”. The answer is, I don’t know, I don’t work for Porsche. So many people believe that Porsche leaves no stone unturned in their quest for performance. The fact of the matter is that Porsche is the most profitable car company in the world because they are geniuses at developing unbelievable cars that shares common parts from older model applications and they know how to balance the bean counters and engineers. If the engineers were given free reigns to develop the “perfect performance car” they would be bankrupt in no time. They created an uncompromised sports car once before and it lost $100,000 per car, it was called the 959. For those who don’t remember, Porsches books weren’t looking all that stellar during that late 80’s period.
We’ve said it once and we’ll say it again. If you’re one of the now over one thousand IPD plenum customers who have experienced and enjoyed the power gains of the IPD Plenum thank you for your support and appreciation. If you are still on the fence and unsure of the IPD plenum keep in mind that they all come with a 100% money back satisfaction guarantee if you are not completely satisfied. If you are one of those people who so adamantly refute our claims regardless of the numerous dyno tests and board member praises and haven’t tested our product yourself then maybe you should realize that you have nothing to loose by giving it a try. At least then you’ll have a solid leg to stand on. For every 1 complainer we hear, there are 100 happy and satisfied customers. And sales are at an all time high thanks to this on going debate.
Thanks again to all our customers who have continued to support the IPD Plenums
We have answered any and every question ever posed here on 6 Speed, maybe it was on a different thread, but I thought that the proverbial dear horse has received enough of a repeated beating. We delivered the most unprecedented product evaluation in the history of 6 Speed. Members demanded IPD plenum dyno tests, independent dyno tests, board member dyno tests, magazine dyno tests and received all the above. There was NEVER any manipulating of any kind whatsoever with the dyno testing procedures. We never have, never will and never need to play that game. In the meantime here are the latest answers to the questions above.
1) Were intake and coolant temperatures monitored and kept equal, during before and after measurements? No, they were NOT monitored. All dyno pulls were conducted within the same hour with only slight changes in outside temps. Any changes in environment and fluid temps would have only been higher during the IPD round of pulls causing a more detrimental result to the IPD Plenum power gains.
2) Was ignition timing monitored for consistency? No, Engine Timing was NOT monitored. We’re dealing with ECU’s not distributors. Knock sensors trigger if your timing if it is too far advanced and any retarding of the timing would just pull power. Never the less, the timing is set by the ignition map which was not altered between runs. The plenum does NOT affect ignition.
3) Were the ECUs allowed sufficient time to adapt timing, w/o resetting, between before/after dyno pulls? Yes, the ECU’s were given sufficient time to adapt. One car at the Plenum Dyno Day had a code issue so it was cleared by disconnecting the battery. The ECU is NOT affected by disconnecting the battery contrary to what some of the internet engineers believe. It has also been repeatedly substantiated that “resetting the ECU” does NOT add power, Period! Does your (properly functioning) computer at home perform better if you disconnect it, No it does NOT.
4) Was the dyno load-control recorded, and kept constant? No it wasn’t! This is an inertia dyno, you cannot manipulate these numbers on a Dyno Jet.
We even had our in-house Porsche engineer who previously worked at Porsche Motorsports discuss at length the reasons why the plenum delivers the additional power that it does. There are professional race teams competing in upper lever Motorsports who have been completely ecstatic with the performance gains and improved lap times provided by the IPD plenum. Both competition and street car in the Porsche motherland of Germany have experienced great success with the plenum. The Cayman S race series in Italy all run the IPD plenums where it received a unanimous motto benne thumbs up. All of the fastest Turbo cars in the Texas Mile had IPD plenums installed. The IPD plenum is the single best performance modification you can possibly install on a late model Porsche. Period!
People always ask, “Why doesn’t Porsche create a similar design Air intake”. The answer is, I don’t know, I don’t work for Porsche. So many people believe that Porsche leaves no stone unturned in their quest for performance. The fact of the matter is that Porsche is the most profitable car company in the world because they are geniuses at developing unbelievable cars that shares common parts from older model applications and they know how to balance the bean counters and engineers. If the engineers were given free reigns to develop the “perfect performance car” they would be bankrupt in no time. They created an uncompromised sports car once before and it lost $100,000 per car, it was called the 959. For those who don’t remember, Porsches books weren’t looking all that stellar during that late 80’s period.
We’ve said it once and we’ll say it again. If you’re one of the now over one thousand IPD plenum customers who have experienced and enjoyed the power gains of the IPD Plenum thank you for your support and appreciation. If you are still on the fence and unsure of the IPD plenum keep in mind that they all come with a 100% money back satisfaction guarantee if you are not completely satisfied. If you are one of those people who so adamantly refute our claims regardless of the numerous dyno tests and board member praises and haven’t tested our product yourself then maybe you should realize that you have nothing to loose by giving it a try. At least then you’ll have a solid leg to stand on. For every 1 complainer we hear, there are 100 happy and satisfied customers. And sales are at an all time high thanks to this on going debate.
Thanks again to all our customers who have continued to support the IPD Plenums
You state that all fluids would be warmer when running with the new intake. Therefore there would be less power used to move engine components and transmission gears due to the oil and gear lube being less vicious. This equals additional power to the wheels not less power as you claim. Coolant temperature might be slightly higher but not much a factor since you are using fans.
You also claim that disconnecting the battery will not effect the ECU. Where do you come up with this information?
Timing on virtually all cars run in California that use 91 octane fuel will be less advanced and adding more fuel than the default ECU settings. Resetting the ECU can easily advance the timing by 5+ degrees. This translates into additional artificial and temporary power after the new intake is installed.There may be some here that will simply accept your spin on the dyno results, but I suspect, many will see that it is nothing more than a marketing gimmick with absolutely no scientific or real world results to back up the power gains you claim.
The fact is, in an NA engine, if you ran a dyno on the car that has been running your plenum on 91 octane fuel for a few weeks and then install the stock intake and reset the ECU, you would see similar power gains running the stock intake.
Resetting the ECU is the oldest trick in the book for dyno operators. Moving the fans around which are blowing on the engine as your video clearly illustrates you did, is also an obvious and deceitful trick.
I don't even need to expand on what how leaning out the engine effects power.
Anyone who runs their Porsche on 91 octane fuel can experience the additional power gains by disconnecting the battery in their car. You don't even need a dyno to feel the difference. They can also produce a dyno chart showing the same changes you show.
You have yet to address those you have documented NO gain in power from your plenum. You have also failed to provide any logical or scientific reason why your plenum would make any difference on a NA engine. It has already been documented that your intake provides no additional airflow to the engine; no change in engine temperatures, etc. So where is this gaiin coming from?
Your statement above clearing shows that you do not take your tuning seriously. What tuner would NOT know specific parameters of an engine before making mods? I would think that timing would be on top of the list for even the most novice of tuners who truely were interested in acurately evaluating the mod.
Sorry, but neither the science or the real world support your claims.
Please do not take this as a personal attack on you, but only the ridiculas and unsubstantiated claims you make. It appears to me that you are a marketiing person and not a technician.
#107
07-16-2008, 11:33 AM
I'm sorry.... I just can't resist this one.... Since I use Microsoft, yes, resetting my home computer makes it work much faster, for a short while!
Greg, thanks for answering these questions here. I know they may have been answered somewhere in the plethora of threads on this topic, but I wasn't able to find (the time to find) the answers. Your contribution is appreciated.
Greg, thanks for answering these questions here. I know they may have been answered somewhere in the plethora of threads on this topic, but I wasn't able to find (the time to find) the answers. Your contribution is appreciated.
Thanks for the appreciation. I was trying to to keep my short novel from getting too out of control. My main point was that the Porsche ECU/DME is NOT affected by disconnecting the battery.
You should go visit Sharkwerks and discuss getting an IPD plenum installed.
Give me a shout down here at 714-545-1046 and I would be happy to shed some additional light on the IPD subject and address any other questions or concerns you may have.
Thanks again for all your interest
#108
07-16-2008, 11:44 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,134
Rep Power: 122 You must be smoking something real good to beleive that statement.
If you ever checked the engine parameters before making your modes, you would know how wrong you are.You need to remember that there are quite a few informed people on this forum who have the knowlege and willingness to challenge such incorrect information. Rather than taking other people's word for it........why not just have a look yourself?
Last edited by 1999Porsche911; 07-16-2008 at 11:48 AM.
#109
07-16-2008, 01:12 PM
That only took an hour and half
Wow 1999 Porsche 911,
Forgive me if I laugh when I read your statement of, “Please do not take this as a personal attack” when it is nothing but that.
Are you refreshing your browser every minute waiting for another opportunity to reply to this thread so you can school everybody on your great Porsche knowledge and wisdom? Your relentless energy and anti-marketing efforts lead me to believe that you are either the secret 6 Speed Police or you work for/with one of our competitors. Either way, you claim to be so scientific, but isn’t empirical data and comparative testing the only way to determine any absolutes. I would say that your arguments are purely theoretical, but the fact is they are completely void of fundamental theory which makes your points nothing more than forum banter.
As far as coolant temps and gear lube viscosity are concerned, do you have any plots or data to substantiate your claims? First, gear lube gets more viscous as it gets hotter (75W-90), not less “vicious” as you pointed out. Do you really think the gear lube wasn’t up to temp during the baseline runs? Because it really doesn’t take that long and I’ll guarantee cold gear lube doesn’t rob 8-10 HP.
Timing is always an entertaining subject with you. In this episode you’re claiming that running 91 octane fuel with a 93 octane map (more advanced timing) will yield more power? There are two little sensors on the engine that measure knock. When those sensors go off it starts to pull timing. Running more timing isn’t always faster unless you’re aiming for holes in the piston, which does actually reduce your rotating mass… The timing/efficiency plot is parabolic. It has a clear peak which is why the computer measures knock and adjusts timing to maximize power. These calculations are done by Bosch and Porsche, who admittedly have a little more experience, tools, and resources then our humble facilities have to offer.
What is this dyno operator trick book you keep mentioning that outlines these “oldest tricks in the book”? I searched on SAE for my copy but couldn’t find any results.
The truth is the plenum has been a highly controversial upgrade for the water-cooled Porsche. We have done our homework. Hundreds of people across the world have done comparison tests on the plenum, both independent and in house. If you still think a few degrees in gear lube or running a 93 octane map with 91 gas is the only reason for the gains then you’re just a hard headed forum geek hiding behind their keyboard.
We work our asses off here at RSS to provide the absolute finest performance products available anywhere, all of which are provided with countless dyno tests and satisfied customer praises. You’re right about one thing only, I’m a sales guy, but you have no idea of who I am and what my qualifications are. But again that was just another one of your unsubstantiated definitive remarks. The bottom line is that I’m backed by the most kick *** engineers and techs who complete the RSS team. What team are you on? Now I need to return to assisting customers who actually appreciate our efforts and products. My phone number is 714-545-1046. I’m Greg with Road Sport Supply in Costa Mesa CA. Who are you?
Forgive me if I laugh when I read your statement of, “Please do not take this as a personal attack” when it is nothing but that.
Are you refreshing your browser every minute waiting for another opportunity to reply to this thread so you can school everybody on your great Porsche knowledge and wisdom? Your relentless energy and anti-marketing efforts lead me to believe that you are either the secret 6 Speed Police or you work for/with one of our competitors. Either way, you claim to be so scientific, but isn’t empirical data and comparative testing the only way to determine any absolutes. I would say that your arguments are purely theoretical, but the fact is they are completely void of fundamental theory which makes your points nothing more than forum banter.
As far as coolant temps and gear lube viscosity are concerned, do you have any plots or data to substantiate your claims? First, gear lube gets more viscous as it gets hotter (75W-90), not less “vicious” as you pointed out. Do you really think the gear lube wasn’t up to temp during the baseline runs? Because it really doesn’t take that long and I’ll guarantee cold gear lube doesn’t rob 8-10 HP.
Timing is always an entertaining subject with you. In this episode you’re claiming that running 91 octane fuel with a 93 octane map (more advanced timing) will yield more power? There are two little sensors on the engine that measure knock. When those sensors go off it starts to pull timing. Running more timing isn’t always faster unless you’re aiming for holes in the piston, which does actually reduce your rotating mass… The timing/efficiency plot is parabolic. It has a clear peak which is why the computer measures knock and adjusts timing to maximize power. These calculations are done by Bosch and Porsche, who admittedly have a little more experience, tools, and resources then our humble facilities have to offer.
What is this dyno operator trick book you keep mentioning that outlines these “oldest tricks in the book”? I searched on SAE for my copy but couldn’t find any results.
The truth is the plenum has been a highly controversial upgrade for the water-cooled Porsche. We have done our homework. Hundreds of people across the world have done comparison tests on the plenum, both independent and in house. If you still think a few degrees in gear lube or running a 93 octane map with 91 gas is the only reason for the gains then you’re just a hard headed forum geek hiding behind their keyboard.
We work our asses off here at RSS to provide the absolute finest performance products available anywhere, all of which are provided with countless dyno tests and satisfied customer praises. You’re right about one thing only, I’m a sales guy, but you have no idea of who I am and what my qualifications are. But again that was just another one of your unsubstantiated definitive remarks. The bottom line is that I’m backed by the most kick *** engineers and techs who complete the RSS team. What team are you on? Now I need to return to assisting customers who actually appreciate our efforts and products. My phone number is 714-545-1046. I’m Greg with Road Sport Supply in Costa Mesa CA. Who are you?
Last edited by RSSGREG; 07-16-2008 at 01:15 PM.
#110
07-16-2008, 01:41 PM
Rennlist forums are full of his wisdom as well. In particular, for a day's amusement, search on "1999porsche911 and oil" and start reading. Included amongst the people he has "proved wrong" are oil experts like Blackstone Labs. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/about_blackstone.html
#111
07-16-2008, 01:57 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,134
Rep Power: 122 Wow 1999 Porsche 911,
Forgive me if I laugh when I read your statement of, “Please do not take this as a personal attack” when it is nothing but that.
Are you refreshing your browser every minute waiting for another opportunity to reply to this thread so you can school everybody on your great Porsche knowledge and wisdom? Your relentless energy and anti-marketing efforts lead me to believe that you are either the secret 6 Speed Police or you work for/with one of our competitors. Either way, you claim to be so scientific, but isn’t empirical data and comparative testing the only way to determine any absolutes. I would say that your arguments are purely theoretical, but the fact is they are completely void of fundamental theory which makes your points nothing more than forum banter.
As far as coolant temps and gear lube viscosity are concerned, do you have any plots or data to substantiate your claims? First, gear lube gets more viscous as it gets hotter (75W-90), not less “vicious” as you pointed out. Do you really think the gear lube wasn’t up to temp during the baseline runs? Because it really doesn’t take that long and I’ll guarantee cold gear lube doesn’t rob 8-10 HP.
Timing is always an entertaining subject with you. In this episode you’re claiming that running 91 octane fuel with a 93 octane map (more advanced timing) will yield more power? There are two little sensors on the engine that measure knock. When those sensors go off it starts to pull timing. Running more timing isn’t always faster unless you’re aiming for holes in the piston, which does actually reduce your rotating mass… The timing/efficiency plot is parabolic. It has a clear peak which is why the computer measures knock and adjusts timing to maximize power. These calculations are done by Bosch and Porsche, who admittedly have a little more experience, tools, and resources then our humble facilities have to offer.
What is this dyno operator trick book you keep mentioning that outlines these “oldest tricks in the book”? I searched on SAE for my copy but couldn’t find any results.
The truth is the plenum has been a highly controversial upgrade for the water-cooled Porsche. We have done our homework. Hundreds of people across the world have done comparison tests on the plenum, both independent and in house. If you still think a few degrees in gear lube or running a 93 octane map with 91 gas is the only reason for the gains then you’re just a hard headed forum geek hiding behind their keyboard.
We work our asses off here at RSS to provide the absolute finest performance products available anywhere, all of which are provided with countless dyno tests and satisfied customer praises. You’re right about one thing only, I’m a sales guy, but you have no idea of who I am and what my qualifications are. But again that was just another one of your unsubstantiated definitive remarks. The bottom line is that I’m backed by the most kick *** engineers and techs who complete the RSS team. What team are you on? Now I need to return to assisting customers who actually appreciate our efforts and products. My phone number is 714-545-1046. I’m Greg with Road Sport Supply in Costa Mesa CA. Who are you?
Forgive me if I laugh when I read your statement of, “Please do not take this as a personal attack” when it is nothing but that.
Are you refreshing your browser every minute waiting for another opportunity to reply to this thread so you can school everybody on your great Porsche knowledge and wisdom? Your relentless energy and anti-marketing efforts lead me to believe that you are either the secret 6 Speed Police or you work for/with one of our competitors. Either way, you claim to be so scientific, but isn’t empirical data and comparative testing the only way to determine any absolutes. I would say that your arguments are purely theoretical, but the fact is they are completely void of fundamental theory which makes your points nothing more than forum banter.
As far as coolant temps and gear lube viscosity are concerned, do you have any plots or data to substantiate your claims? First, gear lube gets more viscous as it gets hotter (75W-90), not less “vicious” as you pointed out. Do you really think the gear lube wasn’t up to temp during the baseline runs? Because it really doesn’t take that long and I’ll guarantee cold gear lube doesn’t rob 8-10 HP.
Timing is always an entertaining subject with you. In this episode you’re claiming that running 91 octane fuel with a 93 octane map (more advanced timing) will yield more power? There are two little sensors on the engine that measure knock. When those sensors go off it starts to pull timing. Running more timing isn’t always faster unless you’re aiming for holes in the piston, which does actually reduce your rotating mass… The timing/efficiency plot is parabolic. It has a clear peak which is why the computer measures knock and adjusts timing to maximize power. These calculations are done by Bosch and Porsche, who admittedly have a little more experience, tools, and resources then our humble facilities have to offer.
What is this dyno operator trick book you keep mentioning that outlines these “oldest tricks in the book”? I searched on SAE for my copy but couldn’t find any results.
The truth is the plenum has been a highly controversial upgrade for the water-cooled Porsche. We have done our homework. Hundreds of people across the world have done comparison tests on the plenum, both independent and in house. If you still think a few degrees in gear lube or running a 93 octane map with 91 gas is the only reason for the gains then you’re just a hard headed forum geek hiding behind their keyboard.
We work our asses off here at RSS to provide the absolute finest performance products available anywhere, all of which are provided with countless dyno tests and satisfied customer praises. You’re right about one thing only, I’m a sales guy, but you have no idea of who I am and what my qualifications are. But again that was just another one of your unsubstantiated definitive remarks. The bottom line is that I’m backed by the most kick *** engineers and techs who complete the RSS team. What team are you on? Now I need to return to assisting customers who actually appreciate our efforts and products. My phone number is 714-545-1046. I’m Greg with Road Sport Supply in Costa Mesa CA. Who are you?
Rather than tell you what the activated sensors do to the settings, I'll allow you time to go ask someone who knows for the answer so you can respond.
And, yes, just a few degrees difference in gear lube temperature can effect powerto the wheels. BUT, you already know that, don't you.
You keep digging yourself into the hole deeper with all your factually incorrect statements. Look at your statement on the viscocity of gear lube. That is funny.
I did not claim running 91 octane provides more power. I have no idea where you got that from.
I'll await your explaination as to what changes are made to the engine when the knock sensors are activated.
Last edited by 1999Porsche911; 07-16-2008 at 02:00 PM.
#112
07-16-2008, 02:16 PM
the freaking Energizer Bunny would be tired out by now.......RSS has put their $$ where their mouths are and it has a money back guarantee, thats a great offer.
Its impossible to disprove the gains behind a keyboard, stick it on your car, dyno it and report back your personal experiences.
....still laughing on how gear oil lube got thrown into the mix.....
Its impossible to disprove the gains behind a keyboard, stick it on your car, dyno it and report back your personal experiences.
....still laughing on how gear oil lube got thrown into the mix.....
#113
07-16-2008, 02:21 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,134
Rep Power: 122 the freaking Energizer Bunny would be tired out by now.......RSS has put their $$ where their mouths are and it has a money back guarantee, thats a great offer.
Its impossible to disprove the gains behind a keyboard, stick it on your car, dyno it and report back your personal experiences.
....still laughing on how gear oil lube got thrown into the mix.....
Its impossible to disprove the gains behind a keyboard, stick it on your car, dyno it and report back your personal experiences.
....still laughing on how gear oil lube got thrown into the mix.....
The dyno proven difference between a "warm" gear lube and a fully warmed gear lube translates into as much as a 20 ft/bt difference on the 3.6 996 as measured on the dyno. Gear lube continues to get warmer for 30+ minutes after the car is shut down.
#114
07-16-2008, 02:56 PM
understood, lots of variables to make dyno testing a 'rough estimate' which everyone should know by now. Thats why I listen / read customer feedback and on this product its very positive.
#115
07-16-2008, 03:12 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County Socal
Posts: 1,621
Rep Power: 157
1999 are you an ex Porsche Engineer or something? Where do you get your knowledge base? Do you own a shop or a race team? Just trying to figure out where we need to base your credibility on. No offense intended.
I dont' know you, but I sure do know the guys at RSS. They are reputable and do great work. Customer service is impeccable. I don't let anyone else touch my car.
As for how this plenum debate got started? It was AWE who designed a plenum and stuck it on their 700 hp package. This all started when they realized that they infringed upon a RSS patent. If it doesn't work , why did AWE make one to beign with? And now they claim that it doens't make any power? Strange....
I dont' know you, but I sure do know the guys at RSS. They are reputable and do great work. Customer service is impeccable. I don't let anyone else touch my car.
As for how this plenum debate got started? It was AWE who designed a plenum and stuck it on their 700 hp package. This all started when they realized that they infringed upon a RSS patent. If it doesn't work , why did AWE make one to beign with? And now they claim that it doens't make any power? Strange....
#116
07-16-2008, 05:10 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,134
Rep Power: 122 1999 are you an ex Porsche Engineer or something? Where do you get your knowledge base? Do you own a shop or a race team? Just trying to figure out where we need to base your credibility on. No offense intended.
I dont' know you, but I sure do know the guys at RSS. They are reputable and do great work. Customer service is impeccable. I don't let anyone else touch my car.
As for how this plenum debate got started? It was AWE who designed a plenum and stuck it on their 700 hp package. This all started when they realized that they infringed upon a RSS patent. If it doesn't work , why did AWE make one to beign with? And now they claim that it doens't make any power? Strange....
I dont' know you, but I sure do know the guys at RSS. They are reputable and do great work. Customer service is impeccable. I don't let anyone else touch my car.
As for how this plenum debate got started? It was AWE who designed a plenum and stuck it on their 700 hp package. This all started when they realized that they infringed upon a RSS patent. If it doesn't work , why did AWE make one to beign with? And now they claim that it doens't make any power? Strange....
What I do hope happens is for those who care about what the truth is, to do a little research themselves or some of the testing I suggested. The proof is in the pudding, whether I am a Porsche Engineer or a school janitor.
I have counted numerous points made on this thread by Greg in his attempt to legitimize his product that are absolutely wrong and can be disproved by anyone willing to do a little research. There are so many claims he makes that are factually untrue that I would be hard pressed to believe anything he says when he has his marketing hat on.
A few of Greg’s claims on this thread include:
- To my statement of: “Peak power cannot be changed using only an intake (in any engine) unless the change increases the volume of oxygen to the cylinders” Greg’s response was: “I really wish this statement was true.
- I don’t quite understand why you distinguish the NA vs. Turbo plenum (others do as well). In my mind the plenum should work the same.
- Theres no reason a modern (non carburated engine) should go lean unless its way out of its adjustment range (corrected lambda), in which case it would knock.
- Any changes in environment and fluid temps would have only been higher during the IPD round of pulls causing a more detrimental result to the IPD Plenum power gains.
- The ECU is NOT affected by disconnecting the battery contrary to what some of the internet engineers believe.
- Do you really think the gear lube wasn’t up to temp during the baseline runs? Because it really doesn’t take that long and I’ll guarantee cold gear lube doesn’t rob 8-10 HP.
Each of Greg’s statements above is factually untrue and each statement can be independently proven to be untrue if you so desire to research them. There are numerous others on his other threads, but this should give you an idea of what length he goes to in an attempt to establish credibility of the plenum.
I do not think that Greg is deliberatelly mistating the facts; he just doesn't know what they are.
Take a look at the video that was posted of the dyno runs. Notice how the fans on the engine were moved between runs.
You will also find postings on some other threads where people have re-dyno’d their car after running it for a week or more and all gains were gone. (after the ECU readjusted to where it wanted to be).
The point is, under identicle testing conditions, the RSS plenum alone does not deliver the claimed power increases to an NA engine. Take your stock car running on 91 octane fuel to a dyno shop and run it. Wait 45 minutes or so , reset the ECU and run it again and enjoy your new found power.
There are those who claim that the Plenum adds power and those who claim it doesn’t. There is even dyno evidence for both sides. I wonder where the credibility lies?
Regards;
Janitorial Journeyman
#117
07-16-2008, 07:44 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County Socal
Posts: 1,621
Rep Power: 157 I have no intention or desire to have established credibility. This is the internet, don't you know?
What I do hope happens is for those who care about what the truth is, to do a little research themselves or some of the testing I suggested. The proof is in the pudding, whether I am a Porsche Engineer or a school janitor.
I have counted numerous points made on this thread by Greg in his attempt to legitimize his product that are absolutely wrong and can be disproved by anyone willing to do a little research. There are so many claims he makes that are factually untrue that I would be hard pressed to believe anything he says when he has his marketing hat on.
A few of Greg’s claims on this thread include:
Each of Greg’s statements above is factually untrue and each statement can be independently proven to be untrue if you so desire to research them. There are numerous others on his other threads, but this should give you an idea of what length he goes to in an attempt to establish credibility of the plenum.
I do not think that Greg is deliberatelly mistating the facts; he just doesn't know what they are.
Take a look at the video that was posted of the dyno runs. Notice how the fans on the engine were moved between runs.
You will also find postings on some other threads where people have re-dyno’d their car after running it for a week or more and all gains were gone. (after the ECU readjusted to where it wanted to be).
The point is, under identicle testing conditions, the RSS plenum alone does not deliver the claimed power increases to an NA engine. Take your stock car running on 91 octane fuel to a dyno shop and run it. Wait 45 minutes or so , reset the ECU and run it again and enjoy your new found power.
There are those who claim that the Plenum adds power and those who claim it doesn’t. There is even dyno evidence for both sides. I wonder where the credibility lies?
Regards;
Janitorial Journeyman
What I do hope happens is for those who care about what the truth is, to do a little research themselves or some of the testing I suggested. The proof is in the pudding, whether I am a Porsche Engineer or a school janitor.
I have counted numerous points made on this thread by Greg in his attempt to legitimize his product that are absolutely wrong and can be disproved by anyone willing to do a little research. There are so many claims he makes that are factually untrue that I would be hard pressed to believe anything he says when he has his marketing hat on.
A few of Greg’s claims on this thread include:
- To my statement of: “Peak power cannot be changed using only an intake (in any engine) unless the change increases the volume of oxygen to the cylinders” Greg’s response was: “I really wish this statement was true.
- I don’t quite understand why you distinguish the NA vs. Turbo plenum (others do as well). In my mind the plenum should work the same.
- Theres no reason a modern (non carburated engine) should go lean unless its way out of its adjustment range (corrected lambda), in which case it would knock.
- Any changes in environment and fluid temps would have only been higher during the IPD round of pulls causing a more detrimental result to the IPD Plenum power gains.
- The ECU is NOT affected by disconnecting the battery contrary to what some of the internet engineers believe.
- Do you really think the gear lube wasn’t up to temp during the baseline runs? Because it really doesn’t take that long and I’ll guarantee cold gear lube doesn’t rob 8-10 HP.
Each of Greg’s statements above is factually untrue and each statement can be independently proven to be untrue if you so desire to research them. There are numerous others on his other threads, but this should give you an idea of what length he goes to in an attempt to establish credibility of the plenum.
I do not think that Greg is deliberatelly mistating the facts; he just doesn't know what they are.
Take a look at the video that was posted of the dyno runs. Notice how the fans on the engine were moved between runs.
You will also find postings on some other threads where people have re-dyno’d their car after running it for a week or more and all gains were gone. (after the ECU readjusted to where it wanted to be).
The point is, under identicle testing conditions, the RSS plenum alone does not deliver the claimed power increases to an NA engine. Take your stock car running on 91 octane fuel to a dyno shop and run it. Wait 45 minutes or so , reset the ECU and run it again and enjoy your new found power.
There are those who claim that the Plenum adds power and those who claim it doesn’t. There is even dyno evidence for both sides. I wonder where the credibility lies?
Regards;
Janitorial Journeyman
I have no intention or desire to have established credibility. This is the internet, don't you know?
What I do hope happens is for those who care about what the truth is, to do a little research themselves or some of the testing I suggested. The proof is in the pudding, whether I am a Porsche Engineer or a school janitor.
That's great. That clarifies everything for me. You dont' have anything to back up your credibility.
Originally Posted by 1999Porsche911
There are those who claim that the Plenum adds power and those who claim it doesn’t. There is even dyno evidence for both sides. I wonder where the credibility lies?
Regards;
Janitorial Journeyman
Apparently not with you
#118
07-16-2008, 07:57 PM
As for how this plenum debate got started? It was AWE who designed a plenum and stuck it on their 700 hp package. This all started when they realized that they infringed upon a RSS patent. If it doesn't work , why did AWE make one to beign with? And now they claim that it doens't make any power? Strange....
This test was on the 997S, which is normally aspirated and a completely different animal.
We hoped that the 997S plenum would make power so we could sell it and enter into a patent license agreement with RSS on a version for the 997TT big turbo kits. Unfortunately, the data got in the way...
#119
07-16-2008, 10:13 PM
Time out. Yes, we did find power on the 997TT with our design and with the IPD plenum they sent us to test, about +5 peak hp. Let's not confuse the topic here.
This test was on the 997S, which is normally aspirated and a completely different animal.
We hoped that the 997S plenum would make power so we could sell it and enter into a patent license agreement with RSS on a version for the 997TT big turbo kits. Unfortunately, the data got in the way...
This test was on the 997S, which is normally aspirated and a completely different animal.
We hoped that the 997S plenum would make power so we could sell it and enter into a patent license agreement with RSS on a version for the 997TT big turbo kits. Unfortunately, the data got in the way...
#120
07-17-2008, 06:58 AM
....and so we have once again gone full circle. Whatever am I to do with my IPD plenumed, AWE exhausted 997S? The poor thing does know whether to start or not, let alone how much horsepower it is making. Todd wanted to use the IPD design on his TT cars and it did make power in that application but he did not get around RSS's patent ....and he just happens to publish results on an internet board.....oh, wait, that is a conspiracy theory. Why muddy the waters w theory when the objective facts are so clear? I'm turning out the lights and going to bed boys and girls. This whole thing sucks at this point.
Plus, we never had the intention of posting our results for the 997S or 997TT IPD testing. The client who volunteered the 997S wanted to see the results posted for him, and we obliged. After all, the controversy existed even before we posted our results, so there were a lot of interested readers out there.
I think the point has been made on both sides. We stand behind our extensive and scientific testing and RSS stands behind their track record of satisfied clients. The forum can decide from there which way they want to go.