Discussion
Try Martin at www.pendleperformance.com
He's into his Porsches as well as all other makes. Runs a 650bhp 997 I believe!
He's done a couple of Audi's for me with great results they were turbo's though.
Let us know how you get on.
What's the spoiler on your motor by the way?
Good Luck
Dave
He's into his Porsches as well as all other makes. Runs a 650bhp 997 I believe!
He's done a couple of Audi's for me with great results they were turbo's though.
Let us know how you get on.
What's the spoiler on your motor by the way?
Good Luck
Dave
On my old 997 Carrera 2 (3.6) I had a DesignTek remap done, they do them on the 3.8s as well (check out www.design911.co.uk). It made about a 10bhp difference on my car, and you could definitely feel the difference. I thought it was worth the £499.
Bagso said:
Hi, anyone got any recommendations for a remap on a modified 997.1 C4s?
Already fitted Mods including
evoms Vflow induction, IPD plenum, AWE headers and cats.
Now hoping for a decent map to make the most of this lot.
Grateful for any suggestions
I spent 3 years trying various mods on the 997S.1 I owned until a couple of years ago. The results were anything but predictable - some of the things you'd expect to work didn't, whilst others gave surpisingly good results.Already fitted Mods including
evoms Vflow induction, IPD plenum, AWE headers and cats.
Now hoping for a decent map to make the most of this lot.
Grateful for any suggestions
As for the bits and pieces on your car....
AWE Manifolds/Cats
First the good news! This combination is superb and is the one modification I did to my car that gave an immediate and very noticeable improvement. There was a very distinct and easy-to-discern increase in mid-range torque that was instantly grin-inducing. Not to mention that the AWE system sounds mental (I had their silencers on my car too).
IPD plenum
Now I'm going to disappoint you. If you want more performance, put the Porsche plenum back on and just enjoy how much cleaner the car runs through the mid range again. Put the fact you wasted £700 (or whatever they cost these days) down to experience. They don't work - period. The basic design concept is fundamentally flawed where the flat-6 is concerned. Have a look for the thread on 6speed where AWE dynoed 2 examples of this err.... 'item' on a 997S.1 (for several days) trying to substantiate the claims. In the end, all it did was lose power. And yes, I bought one, found out the hard way it didn't work and am still royally pi
ed-off at the wasted £££s!EVOMS intake
This is one mod I never tried, but even a BMC filter in the standard Porsche airbox on my car made a significant difference - the standard air filter is borderline too small so anything that flows better is going to help. I should imagine the EVOMS will give good gains.
Remap
I took my 997S.1 (with AWE / BMC mods) to Wayne Schofield at Chip Wizards (many on here will know him as one of the best mappers in the business). After a whole day of trying different ideas (based on known results he'd already achieved on previous 997S.1s - so we weren't starting from scratch) we were unable to achieve more then a 12 BHP gain plus a little more mid-range torque and a slight bump at 1500rpm or thereabouts. The reason, as Wayne had advised me before I went, is because there's simply no more to be gained from this engine by mapping alone.
All you can really do with a remap is optimise the fuelling and ignition timing at any given combination of load and rpm. However, you are very limited (quite correctly) in what you can do with timing. Add too much, anywhere, and the ECU will simply pull it back - across the whole rpm band - to prevent detonation. This means you end-up with a slower car. All we were able to do for my car before the knock control system started to intervene was to add about 2 degrees from 3500rpm upwards. There was also a point lower down in the band (1500-2000rpm, from memory) where more timing worked. This added 6 (yes, just six) BHP to peak power together with similar mid range gains. The car was also running a little too rich at the top - correcting this made an additional +6 BHP. All this on V-Power 99-RON.
So much for what happens at full throttle. The work of the best tuners doesn't end here, it's where it starts. If you make changes to the full throttle timing and fuelling, you now have 'disconnects' with the part-throttle maps that can lead to very odd power delivery, surging as you back-off the throttle and other anomalies. The real skill of the tuner is to make sure there is still a linear, factory-smooth throttle response at all throttle openings from zero up to full. This involves a lot of changes to other maps. Very complex indeed and you only know it's been done properly if your remap is being done 'live'. Whether this has been properly addressed in 'generic' maps or by amateur, back-street tuners, nobody knows.
The simple truth is that the standard mapping on these engines is very well optimised if you run decent fuel. It's therefore very difficult indeed, very time-consuming and very costly to extract even the tiny improvement Wayne achieved on my car. To go further, you absolutely have to do other work to the engine.
Porsche's own factory power kit, for example, uses modified heads, exhaust manifolds, a completely different intake system, larger throttle body and dual-snorkel intake with twin air filters to achieve just +26 BHP. This is indicative of how difficult it is to make meaningful gains from these engines without going for bigger capacity / bigger valves / higher-lift, longer-duration cams etc. (or forced induction as an option).
So should you have a remap? In one sentence, don't bother! Minimum gain, maximum pain (to the wallet). Irreversible and always discoverable (unless you have access to some very sophisticated equipment) so normally no chance of a future warranty on the car. No possible warranty = car difficult, if not impossible to sell-on.
Edited by Ian_UK1 on Friday 19th October 13:27
Thanks for the info guys, will digest later.
The rear spoiler is a strosek, great fro ramming air in at speed but i found in traffic & from a standstill I was getting a huge gulp of hot air as it fills up so I have blocked the two sides with a foam wall & one now is induction & the other for cooling. Seems to work much better now.
front is a Cargraphic Carbon splitter
The rear spoiler is a strosek, great fro ramming air in at speed but i found in traffic & from a standstill I was getting a huge gulp of hot air as it fills up so I have blocked the two sides with a foam wall & one now is induction & the other for cooling. Seems to work much better now.
front is a Cargraphic Carbon splitter
I would advocate the Porsche X51 Manifolds and a BMC Filter. About the most cost effective of any mods, giving a deeper howl (especially with the PSE), more mid range torque and better throttle response.
However, I would definitely go for the front centre radiator kit from Porsche and a low temp thermostat from Hartech. Given how much lower the Oil Temp was in all circumstances, it'll could be the best £200 you'll ever spend!
However, I would definitely go for the front centre radiator kit from Porsche and a low temp thermostat from Hartech. Given how much lower the Oil Temp was in all circumstances, it'll could be the best £200 you'll ever spend!
Ian_UK1 said:
IPD plenum
Now I'm going to disappoint you. If you want more performance, put the Porsche plenum back on and just enjoy how much cleaner the car runs through the mid range again. Put the fact you wasted £700 (or whatever they cost these days) down to experience. They don't work - period. The basic design concept is fundamentally flawed where the flat-6 is concerned. Have a look for the thread on 6speed where AWE dynoed 2 examples of this err.... 'item' on a 997S.1 (for several days) trying to substantiate the claims. In the end, all it did was lose power. And yes, I bought one, found out the hard way it didn't work and am still royally pied-off at the wasted £££s!
Ian,Now I'm going to disappoint you. If you want more performance, put the Porsche plenum back on and just enjoy how much cleaner the car runs through the mid range again. Put the fact you wasted £700 (or whatever they cost these days) down to experience. They don't work - period. The basic design concept is fundamentally flawed where the flat-6 is concerned. Have a look for the thread on 6speed where AWE dynoed 2 examples of this err.... 'item' on a 997S.1 (for several days) trying to substantiate the claims. In the end, all it did was lose power. And yes, I bought one, found out the hard way it didn't work and am still royally pi
ed-off at the wasted £££s!Edited by Ian_UK1 on Friday 19th October 13:27
You have your opinion which you are entitled to. You didn't have a good experience, but making a statement that the design is flawed, that they don't work etc is not right. Just because AWE (and I have read the thread) failed to see gains, how do you explain others who have seen gains.
I know that RS Tuning tried on the dyno and it lost power. However the on the road performance tells a different story. We (9E) have tested independantly (two people on PH supplied the cars) on a dyno (despite the fact I dislike dynos) and it made power across the whole curve on two NA cars - it did not make as much power as IPD claimed on their dyno, BUT it made power.
We have datalogged MAF and times on a turbo car which showed the claims to be true, especially when you fit the larger IPD (74mm).
I have seen IPDs installed where the checkvalue was the wrong way round, where there are vacumn leaks afterwards ( people posting that their idle is high and then dropping ) etc. Lot of reasons why they don't work.
9E fits these to turbo cars and stands by them.
Ken.
p.s. the rest of your thread is very informative. Very difficult to get gains.
996ttalot said:
Ian,
You have your opinion which you are entitled to. You didn't have a good experience, but making a statement that the design is flawed, that they don't work etc is not right. Just because AWE (and I have read the thread) failed to see gains, how do you explain others who have seen gains.
I know that RS Tuning tried on the dyno and it lost power. However the on the road performance tells a different story. We (9E) have tested independantly (two people on PH supplied the cars) on a dyno (despite the fact I dislike dynos) and it made power across the whole curve on two NA cars - it did not make as much power as IPD claimed on their dyno, BUT it made power.
We have datalogged MAF and times on a turbo car which showed the claims to be true, especially when you fit the larger IPD (74mm).
I have seen IPDs installed where the checkvalue was the wrong way round, where there are vacumn leaks afterwards ( people posting that their idle is high and then dropping ) etc. Lot of reasons why they don't work.
9E fits these to turbo cars and stands by them.
Ken.
p.s. the rest of your thread is very informative. Very difficult to get gains.
Obviously, what is true for the M97 engine isn't necessarily going to hold true on the Mezger turbo units. I can quite believe that the modified plenums might work on a totally different engine (especially with a larger diameter).You have your opinion which you are entitled to. You didn't have a good experience, but making a statement that the design is flawed, that they don't work etc is not right. Just because AWE (and I have read the thread) failed to see gains, how do you explain others who have seen gains.
I know that RS Tuning tried on the dyno and it lost power. However the on the road performance tells a different story. We (9E) have tested independantly (two people on PH supplied the cars) on a dyno (despite the fact I dislike dynos) and it made power across the whole curve on two NA cars - it did not make as much power as IPD claimed on their dyno, BUT it made power.
We have datalogged MAF and times on a turbo car which showed the claims to be true, especially when you fit the larger IPD (74mm).
I have seen IPDs installed where the checkvalue was the wrong way round, where there are vacumn leaks afterwards ( people posting that their idle is high and then dropping ) etc. Lot of reasons why they don't work.
9E fits these to turbo cars and stands by them.
Ken.
p.s. the rest of your thread is very informative. Very difficult to get gains.
I am intrigued though that you saw gains with the M97 motor. I'm also aware of your reputation so I don't think your dyno methodology will have been anything other than correct. I'm sure RS Tuning did the job properly on their engine test cell too. So the question becomes "why the variation in the results"? Assuming both sets of methodologies and results are valid, there must be something else that affects the outcome. If that's the case, I'd still advise against spending £700 on a 'tuning' part that only has a 50/50 chance of giving an improvement!
Would value your thoughts on why the results might differ so much, even between reputable testers.
Ian
Edited to add: Below are the 2 reasons I think the IPD design is flawed where the M97 engine is concerned.
The first is due to the resonance principles Porsche uses in the intakes. In effect, they use 2 columns of air across the top of the intake to produce a ram effect in the intake runners. The splitter in the IPD plenums effectively partially blocks one of the air columns thus reducing the ram effect. IPD even started drilling holes in the splitters to reduce the blockage.
The second is the basic principle of the splitter. IPD claims that the incoming air normally hits the back of the standard plenum causing turbulence whereas in their plenum, the air is smoothly diverted to the sides towards the intake runners. I think this is wrong. Air will naturally flow from a high to a low pressure area. The lower pressure area in the engine intake is to the sides - towards the inlet valves, so the incoming air will naturally turn to the sides - towards the low pressure - as it comes past the throttle plate, not continue straight-on and hit the back of the standard plenum as IPD claim. So if the splitter doesn't do what it's supposed to (because it happens anyway) then it can't improve performance.
Edited by Ian_UK1 on Friday 19th October 17:11
Ian_UK1 said:
996ttalot said:
Ian,
You have your opinion which you are entitled to. You didn't have a good experience, but making a statement that the design is flawed, that they don't work etc is not right. Just because AWE (and I have read the thread) failed to see gains, how do you explain others who have seen gains.
I know that RS Tuning tried on the dyno and it lost power. However the on the road performance tells a different story. We (9E) have tested independantly (two people on PH supplied the cars) on a dyno (despite the fact I dislike dynos) and it made power across the whole curve on two NA cars - it did not make as much power as IPD claimed on their dyno, BUT it made power.
We have datalogged MAF and times on a turbo car which showed the claims to be true, especially when you fit the larger IPD (74mm).
I have seen IPDs installed where the checkvalue was the wrong way round, where there are vacumn leaks afterwards ( people posting that their idle is high and then dropping ) etc. Lot of reasons why they don't work.
9E fits these to turbo cars and stands by them.
Ken.
p.s. the rest of your thread is very informative. Very difficult to get gains.
Obviously, what is true for the M97 engine isn't necessarily going to hold true on the Mezger turbo units. I can quite believe that the modified plenums might work on a totally different engine (especially with a larger diameter).You have your opinion which you are entitled to. You didn't have a good experience, but making a statement that the design is flawed, that they don't work etc is not right. Just because AWE (and I have read the thread) failed to see gains, how do you explain others who have seen gains.
I know that RS Tuning tried on the dyno and it lost power. However the on the road performance tells a different story. We (9E) have tested independantly (two people on PH supplied the cars) on a dyno (despite the fact I dislike dynos) and it made power across the whole curve on two NA cars - it did not make as much power as IPD claimed on their dyno, BUT it made power.
We have datalogged MAF and times on a turbo car which showed the claims to be true, especially when you fit the larger IPD (74mm).
I have seen IPDs installed where the checkvalue was the wrong way round, where there are vacumn leaks afterwards ( people posting that their idle is high and then dropping ) etc. Lot of reasons why they don't work.
9E fits these to turbo cars and stands by them.
Ken.
p.s. the rest of your thread is very informative. Very difficult to get gains.
I am intrigued though that you saw gains with the M97 motor. I'm also aware of your reputation so I don't think your dyno methodology will have been anything other than correct. I'm sure RS Tuning did the job properly on their engine test cell too. So the question becomes "why the variation in the results"? Assuming both sets of methodologies and results are valid, there must be something else that affects the outcome. If that's the case, I'd still advise against spending £700 on a 'tuning' part that only has a 50/50 chance of giving an improvement!
Would value your thoughts on why the results might differ so much, even between reputable testers.
Ian
Edited to add: Below are the 2 reasons I think the IPD design is flawed where the M97 engine is concerned.
The first is due to the resonance principles Porsche uses in the intakes. In effect, they use 2 columns of air across the top of the intake to produce a ram effect in the intake runners. The splitter in the IPD plenums effectively partially blocks one of the air columns thus reducing the ram effect. IPD even started drilling holes in the splitters to reduce the blockage.
The second is the basic principle of the splitter. IPD claims that the incoming air normally hits the back of the standard plenum causing turbulence whereas in their plenum, the air is smoothly diverted to the sides towards the intake runners. I think this is wrong. Air will naturally flow from a high to a low pressure area. The lower pressure area in the engine intake is to the sides - towards the inlet valves, so the incoming air will naturally turn to the sides - towards the low pressure - as it comes past the throttle plate, not continue straight-on and hit the back of the standard plenum as IPD claim. So if the splitter doesn't do what it's supposed to (because it happens anyway) then it can't improve performance.
Edited by Ian_UK1 on Friday 19th October 17:11
Using a larger plenum will make a difference imo. If the plenum is the same size as the standard one, then I think the gains will be small, if any as you say. There are a couple of known issues with installation, lack of adaption etc, but even if we assume that all of those are a non issue e.g. it was fitted correctly, probably the biggest issue is the MAF sensor - if the MAF sensor is not working to its full operating parameters, then IPD is going to show no/poor results. A lot of cars run with MAF sensors which are running slightly lower voltage because the MAF is on the way out, but not to the point that error codes are being triggerred yet. When we dyno'd we fitted a new MAF sensor and dyno'd. Then fitted the IPD, ran for adaption, and then dyno'd.
When we tested a direct replacement size on NA, iirc we made around 8-10hp/tq peak, but we did make a consistent 6hp/tq across the curve. The tests were done independantly by Charlie at SRR. There was a 1 hour gap between the runs, because on the NA cars, they have to be given time to adapt, where as for turbo the adaption is instant. Greg at IPD was a little disappointed with the results, but personally I thought they were not bad if you looked at the gain under the curve and not peak hp/tq.
On the turbo cars, the difference is very noticeable. Even using a standard size 68mm on 996 Turbo gives immediate noticeable difference - you can tell just from seat dyno. We also have gained time in the 60-130mph runs with the IPD fitted using vbox logging.
Personally for NA cars, I think concentrating on set up/suspension/driver education is the best performance increase that will for sure work and where I tend to focus customers on.
Ken
Guys
Your points are all very much appreciated, I have already had the suspension changed and set up sorted at centre of gravity so I think as a conclusion I have now reached the reasonable limits of mods that can offer perceivable benefits and should just enjoy the motor :-)
The journey to get here has been an education, and a couple of aspects I can comment on from personal experience; this is not based on anything empirical just feel though.
I put a Dansk sports exhaust(cats & mufflers) on my old 996 and it was fantastic, pulled harder and free'er revving + sounded great- highly recommended.
The current 997 mods in chronological order
had a BMC filter & cold intake kit - moderate gains hard to quantify but generally a bit free'er revving & nice induction howl when spanked. Still have this if anyone wants one!
Fit IPD plenum & full Evoms induction kit + chipped by independant - this definately generated more pick up especially above 3.5k and the car seemed noticeably quicker- it also lost about 3 mpg Vs previously.
Now AWE cats & headers has added a bit of mid range torque but maybe lost a bit above 5k
I do get the feeling that whilst many of the mods change the characteristics of the car and can produce varying gains independently, the result of the lot is not the sum of the parts, and as Ian points out there are natural limits.
If I started from scratch again I would probably only do half of it! Cats would be first on that list for my money.
Your points are all very much appreciated, I have already had the suspension changed and set up sorted at centre of gravity so I think as a conclusion I have now reached the reasonable limits of mods that can offer perceivable benefits and should just enjoy the motor :-)
The journey to get here has been an education, and a couple of aspects I can comment on from personal experience; this is not based on anything empirical just feel though.
I put a Dansk sports exhaust(cats & mufflers) on my old 996 and it was fantastic, pulled harder and free'er revving + sounded great- highly recommended.
The current 997 mods in chronological order
had a BMC filter & cold intake kit - moderate gains hard to quantify but generally a bit free'er revving & nice induction howl when spanked. Still have this if anyone wants one!
Fit IPD plenum & full Evoms induction kit + chipped by independant - this definately generated more pick up especially above 3.5k and the car seemed noticeably quicker- it also lost about 3 mpg Vs previously.
Now AWE cats & headers has added a bit of mid range torque but maybe lost a bit above 5k
I do get the feeling that whilst many of the mods change the characteristics of the car and can produce varying gains independently, the result of the lot is not the sum of the parts, and as Ian points out there are natural limits.
If I started from scratch again I would probably only do half of it! Cats would be first on that list for my money.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff