1999 C2 Supercharger is complete

Finally got my car back from EVO a few days ago. All I can say is WOW! Because the 1999 C2 is still a cable controlled accelerator, Todd was able to get 378 HP (SAE) out of the engine rather than the 352 HP (SAE) normally reached on a supercharged 3.4 (1999 C4 and all later models). This care screams through the gears, giving you little time between shifts due to the rev speed. Easy 3.8 seconds 0 - 60 without burning the tires. Blew by my buddy's 2003 Viper who couldn't keep the back wheels on the road. Slight whistle at idle as the air is pumping into the intake. When the 350 lbs of torque kicks in at 5000 RPM, there is nothing holding you back. Torque and HP curve is almost constant above 5000 RPM with almost maximum torque from 5,000 to redline. Unless you get on it, you would never know the car is Supercharged....but cruise above 4000 RPM and a touch of the accelertor provides for a quick reminder. I'll post again after I put a few more thousand miles of fun on it.

just curious...how much weight does the installation add?

Not sure what it adds in weight. Additional radiator with fluid + supercharger...maybe 75 pounds? Definately not enough weight to notice.

I'd love to hear about your supercharged 996.... I'm curious about how the system works... does the supercharger operate only beyond 4000 rpm? do you have internal controls to bypass this system for improved gas mileage (I know many don't care about gas mileage... but it's nice if it gets more than 10 MPG ) 1/4 mile times? 0-60 is faaaaaaaaast 3.8...wow! can the stock gearbox and clutch handle all this power? also if you don't mind me asking... what is the cost for the evo kit? cheers Peter

I'd love to hear about your supercharged 996.... I'm curious about how the system works... does the supercharger operate only beyond 4000 rpm? do you have internal controls to bypass this system for improved gas mileage (I know many don't care about gas mileage... but it's nice if it gets more than 10 MPG ) 1/4 mile times? 0-60 is faaaaaaaaast 3.8...wow! can the stock gearbox and clutch handle all this power? also if you don't mind me asking... what is the cost for the evo kit? cheers Peter

All the details are at this sights: http://www.evoms.com/ I still get more than 20 MPG when I drive it hard. I am sure I'll get 25 plus at average highway speeds. Blower uses the engine belt pully (with longer belt) for the pump and therefore the SC is engaged at all times. Rev Limit is lowered to 6800 from 7200 which takes a little getting used to, but before you know it, your shifting at that point with ease. It was lowered for safety reason because the revs get up there so fast, it gives you a few hundred RPM's of safety before hitting redline. I presume you could increase the limit back to 7200, but I would rather not chance it and if are proficiant at shifting...you don't need to. As far as the gearbox and clutch...If you plan on doing regular holeshots, get an old Mopar not a Porsche. I frankly don't do jack rabbit starts on a daily basis, but would rather get engaged and then get on it. I suppose if you put wider slicks on the car and popped the clutch at 6000 RPM you might have a problem (just like any other car) if the wheels do not break from the pavement. One of several things have to happen - wheels break - car leaps forward - or something gets twisted.

I wouldn't do wheel hops at all with that setup.... it should be fast enough so you don't need to spin the wheels to blow others away... and it sounds like it is! How is your engine temperature... still @ 12 o'clock or or just a big higher? The real fun is in-gear acceleration... I'll check out the site... thanks for the info and keep us in the loop on what you think...

0-60 in 3.8s??? Is that theoretical or tested? A 2004 GT2 runs at 3175 lbs. (probably about the same as yours with the supercharger), puts forth 483HP and 472 lb-ft, and that is listed at 0-60 of 3.8 seconds. I don't see how a 378HP could match it. I know a supercharger is faster off the line than a turbocharger, all else being equal, but an extra 105HP, or 28% is no small amount. At 3.8 seconds, you've also matched the speed of a 500HP F50. How did you test it? What's the theoretical top speed?

Also... if you check Evo's web site then they list their supercharger package at 420HP for 1999-2001 models, and 470HP for 2002+ models. Am I missing something?

I've got kit #10 in my '99 C4 Cab. Changes the car a little, huh?!? Enjoy, Mitch

Actual track time. First of all the weight of the car is less than 3050 lbs. The HP I stated was SAE HP and not the BHP horse power you are quoting for the GT2. The GT2's SAE HP is less than 400. My BHP is in excess of 450. That makes the GT2 only 7 percent more powerful. The 3.8 seconds was WITHOUT breaking the wheels...which if I did would probably reduce the time to 3.6 of less. Additionally, the GT2 is a turbo and therefore DOES NOT obtain the torque immediatley as a supercharged intake does. . Additionally. the 1999 C2 has lower gear ratios than the GT2, providing much more thrust for the same amount of horsepower. I suspect that I wouldn't have any problems keeping up with a GT2 for about the first 130 MPH. Top speed would be 166 mph with current gearing and rev limit. I never intend to go there either. Fastest I have taken it on the open road is 153 and that's more than fast enough. It's a bigger thrill is getting there so quickly.

Mitch, can you post pics of your interior too?

i'm not sure of the dates they display, but the diff is for the 3.4L vs. the 3.6L in later models...

Also... if you check Evo's web site then they list their supercharger package at 420HP for 1999-2001 models, and 470HP for 2002+ models. Am I missing something? As I stated in my first post...because the 1999 C2 (and ONLY the C2 not the 1999 C4) has a cable controlled accelerator, they were able to push out 378 SAE HP. If you look at the dyno charts listed on their web page....the display the C4 with only 352 (SAE) HP which is your 420 BHP. My 378 SAE HP gets me 450 +. In reality, every car they put a supercharger on is custom tuned and may vary from car to car.

How do you post pictures?

1)

2)

3)

no ext pics or engine bay?

love the steering wheel, how many mm is it in diameter?

If you want , you can send me the pics, and I�ll post it for you. J.Seven

I like to ask how much it all cost for the conversion and 2)do you plan to track the car : ). Regards. Mike

Holy cow!

1999Porsche911 check your mailbox on Rennlist. J.Seven

Here�s 1999Porsche911 supercharge 996 J.Seven

Go here to see a bigger one http://members13.clubphoto.com/_cgi-...34-7cd2&trans=

has anyone had one long enough to know if there are going to be any issues with engine life span due to the conversion. i have to admit it is very tempting.

i don't think it adds 70 lbs. i dropped some weight with the light weight flywheel, but only came in much less than 50 lbs net heavier after the SC. then again, i already had the third radiator before the SC was installed. btw, how you measure your 0-60 time? did you get the lightweight flywheel as well?

Info on GT2 is incorrect, they are dynoing at 500hp at the flywheel and do around 3.8 0-60, Porsche lists 476 as being conservative.

So bottom line, a S/C 3.6 996 should be able to theoretically beat, or at least hang with a GT2? We are talking 11 second quater mile, sport bike territory!!

that's interesting that the cable control mechanism of the 99 carrera's will yield as much HP as the 2002 + 3.6 supercharged Carreras.... with a kit like this do you have to upgrade your brakes to turbo brakes? any changes to suspension geometry or can you leave all else stock?

i'm interested in what the blower, plumbing etc. weights. in other words, everything that hangs past the rear axle. the sleeper concept is intriguing...x50 tt-like performance out of a stock looking 996. the idea is kinda cool actually

No need for bigger brakes. Brake requirement is based on weight and not how quick a car is. Whether it takes you 10 seconds to get to 100 mph or only 7 seconds...the brakes will stop you just the same.

Can you post a sounclip of your car at idle and during in-gear acceleration... the supercharger must sound awesome!!! cheers Pete

Don't have the means to make a sound track. The car doesn't sound much diiferent other than a slight whistle at idle and slow speed. It's probably more like a quieter turbine on a jet engine rather than a whistle. This is the sound of the additional volume of air being forced through the by-pass valve. When the supercharger is routed to the intake, I notice no noise other than a stock engine.

"with a kit like this do you have to upgrade your brakes to turbo brakes?" i did before i got the SC, but would not recommend it to any one. all it does is add unsprung weight. additionally, i do think there is some improved ability to lock up the tires faster (ie: go into ABS sooner) which i personally don't like. my car goes into ABS much earlier now than it did with stock brakes. the BFG KDs were the only tires i've thus far had on the car that could handle the extra braking without causing early ABS. this is presumably due to their softer compound. "any changes to suspension geometry or can you leave all else stock?" again, not necessary for the SC, but i had coilovers and GT3 adjustable sway bars before the SC. "the sleeper concept is intriguing...x50 tt-like performance out of a stock looking 996." yep, i have stock exhaust and have ruined quite a few peoples day - including other 996s. i've only had the opportunity to tell them that they'd been had once. all other times there wasn't a chance to. just playing around this AM with an E36 M3 and i'm sure he was shocked by how fast the car literally walked away from him. then there was the guy in the S2 Dinan E46 M3 another time who i'm sure is still thinking he wasted a buttload of dough with Dinan (which he did even if my car hadn't crushed him). all of these cars (and others) were coupes and i'm sure they are just dumbfounded when my cab does it's thing. "So bottom line, a S/C 3.6 996 should be able to theoretically beat, or at least hang with a GT2? We are talking 11 second quater mile, sport bike territory!!" i really do not think so. the turbos (GT2 and TT) provide a much much higher % of their peak torque much much earlier and their peak torque is much much higher than even the SC'd 996. my car is somewhat in the middle of the 3.4 and 3.6 owing to being an earlier guinea pig with a different sized pully. while the 3.4 does 420 and the 3.6 does 470, my 3.4 does about 440. i don't think there is that stark a diff from this cable 99 and mine given there is only 20 hp. further, while my car is appx 200 lbs heavier than his, i've also got the lightweight single mass flywheel which makes the car rev MUCH faster as you can see from the video on evoms.com of just such a car accelerating: http://evoms.com/sound%20clips/996_C2_Cab2.wmv incidentally, mine is serial #3 and todd will tell you after riding with me, if the thing doesn't blow up my motor, it won't blow up anyones :-0

A reality check. I can only speak fro my SC 1999 c2, but it dose better than just stay with a TT. Considerable lead for first 100 mph at which time the TT gains and takes the lead after 115 mph. My buddy keeps begging me to try again and again, hoping to beat me just once. If I returned the rev limit to 7200 - 7300 from my current 6800, the TT wold be hard pressed to catch me until 150 mph. As far as the GT2...I havene't found one around to race, but the GT2 has substantially gher gear ratios for the fist 3 gears han the 996. This would undoubtably give teh advantage to me off the line and at least through 3rd gear. If I have the chance to try...I'll let you know the outcome. Just for info......Z06 was surprisingly no trouble at any spead or distance.

have you tried switching drivers/cars with your buddy to make sure it's not a driver advantage on your part? that said, a TT is considerably heavier than a GT2 which is heavier than your car. you are working with about a 400 lb weight advantage over the TT, and he's still keeping up with you. again, the driver change may make that disappear. btw, i think my rev limiter was moved down only to 7k. i just shift when i hear that "noise". you probably know which one i'm referring to - unless it doesn't occur until after 6800. incidentally, you must have a very good launch technique. the stock clutch sucks and my upgraded one still smells like crap and slips.

I'm a bit confused. SAE Horsepower is a standard promulgated by the Society of Automotive Engineers, and is measured at the flywheel - essentially, with a standard engine, out of the car, measured on an engine dyno, with accesories mounted. Very similar to (but not exactly the same) as DIN, as used in Europe. BHP is "brake horsepower", or power measured at the WHEEL. Commonly used to denote measurements taken on a chassis dyno (where you drive the car up onto the rollers). There will always be driveline and frictional losses, usually between 15-20%. SAE Horsepower is ALWAYS more than BHP. Porsche (and other manufacturers) always list horspower in SAE or DIN (or the Japanese standard, which is a bit different yet again). So, perhaps you switched the two HP numbers? vty, --Dennis

Does the EVOM's fly wheel caus a thumping sound? I know a shop here in Toronto that does lighter flywheels but there is a thumping sound they tell you about... some people can't live with it... do you hear the THUMPING sound?

BHP is "brake horsepower", or power measured at the WHEEL. Commonly used to denote measurements taken on a chassis dyno (where you drive the car up onto the rollers). There will always be driveline and frictional losses, usually between 15-20%. SAE Horsepower is ALWAYS more than BHP. Porsche (and other manufacturers) always list horspower in SAE or DIN (or the Japanese standard, which is a bit different yet again). So, perhaps you switched the two HP numbers? SAE Gross Horsepower or Brake horsepower (bhp) was the standard horsepower measurement by the automotive industry up until 1971. Brake Horsepower Power is measured at the flywheel with no load from a chassis or any accessories and with fuel and ignition operations under ideal conditions. An accessory is anything attached to the engine, by any means, which is not required for basic engine operation. By this definition, this would include a power steering pump, smog pump, air conditioning compressor and an alternator. Ideal conditions, often called laboratory conditions, are standardized settings for use during horsepower measurement. During the 1960s they consisted of a barometric pressure of 29.92 Hg and a temperature of 60 degrees F. SAE Net Horsepower became the standard measurement in 1972, and is still used today. SAE Net horsepower is the horsepower generated by the engine at the flywheel with all accessories attached. This change was made to reflect the numerous energy sapping accessories that cars began to have, such as an A/C Compressor and alternator, and thus was a better representation of the actual power generated by the engine. This number is always lower than the SAE Gross horsepower. Therefore, the same engine could have been rated in 1971 as 360 SAE Gross Horsepower and in 1972 as 300 SAE Net horsepower without any reduction in "power."

no thumping sound, but it does make noise (kind of a rattling) at idle when the clutch is not depressed. i'm still curious as to how the 0-60 mph was measured in 1999Porsche911's car.

Ben, thx for the info... what kind of 60 and 1/4 mile times are you gennerating with your setup?

no idea which is why i was curious as to how he had measured his to find out how accurate it was. i don't really care much about exact 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, but rather care how fast it "feels". with the stock exhaust, it feels WAY faster, but i bet it would feel WAY WAY WAY faster with something a little more vocal. the car goes from 0-70 and 70 to 100 in a blink.

ok... how about using something like G-Tech pro... this will give you good passing time... also #'s like 50-112 mph (80km-180km/h) and 60-120 mph are good indications... also 0 - 200 km/h (0-124 mph) is a standard european test... obvioulsy you can't rely on the but-o-meter or feel.... thats voodo... G-Tech pro will give you accurate measurements... I disagree with you .. I believe you do care about 1/4 mile and 0-60... isn't this a standard measurement that is valid for our cars? Pete

Hmmm... I'm still confused. I was completely incorrect in my confusion, where I wrote "brake HP" I really meant "HP at wheel", as measured on a chassis dyno. The rest of what I wrote about power measurement, however, is still correct, I believe. As you noted, SAE Gross power ratings haven't been used for over three decades, and AFAIK, Porsche has either never used SAE Gross power or hasn't used it for a very long time. The power figures that Porsche releases in the US are in either SAE (net) or DIN. So why would you say that, with respect to the official factory GT2 power number, "The GT2's SAE HP is less than 400" when the official HP number is 477 **SAE**? As measured on a chassis dyno (putting the car on rollers), the GT2 may well generate a reading of less than 400 hp, but considering that driveline and frictional (and other) losses usually average 15-20%, an SAE (net) 477 hp engine would result in a <400hp reading on that dyno. So Todd's claim of "378 HP (SAE)" is actually a full 99 hp less than the official Porsche claim of 477 hp (SAE) for the GT2. And looking around on this forum reveals that the 477 hp claim is actually really conservative, and one owner states that the 477 hp does not include the 30-second "overboost" feature. Do you know if Todd's claim of "378 HP (SAE)" was measured with an engine dyno (engine out of the car) or measured on a chassis dyno, and calculated backwards (e.g., getting 304 hp on the chassis dyno and adding back 20%)? Considering that the GT2's official weight is 3175lbs., and the 1999 996 C2's official weight is 2910 lbs., that's only a 265lbs. difference, before adding the weight of the supercharger and other parts. Turbo lag for 0-60 acceleration shouldn't be too bad, given that the engine is always at boost from the beginning. And the GT2 has wider tires to put the power down. So gearing differences and the slight weight differential makes up for a 99hp deficit? Maybe your car is more powerful than Todd believes? vty, --Dennis

The GT2 AND the other porsches are advertised by their bhp horsepower and NOT by their SAE NET. Therefore - reduce that figure by 15 - 20% (depending on car) to get the SAE net. The 320 HP of the new Carerra is bhp horsepower. You can argue all day with the various ways of figuring HP. However, my car dyno'd by Todd with 250 SAE net HP before the supercharger and 378 after. Regardless of what that measures...the supercharger increased my power by more than 50% to give me a bhp of just shy of 450. Using the same reduction of 18.6% from the bhp of 296 of my stock 996 as measured by Todd....the GT2's 477 would have a SAE net of 388 hp. That's 10 HP more than mine.

My intent is not to argue, just looking for clarification. Your response above isn't helping to clarify much... the official Porsche HP number for the 1999 996 is 296. That is SAE NET. And the official Porsche HP for the GT2 is 477 HP SAE NET. Not BHP (SAE Gross). Remember, NO ONE USES SAE Gross, and hasn't for 30 years. All car manufacturers list a HP as measured with the engine on the bench (the difference between SAE Gross and SAE Net has to do with the accesories on the engine while it's on the bench, and the testing method). Tuners typically provide power numbers from a chassis dyno, sometimes they extrapolate backwards to get an approximate SAE Net number for comparison purposes. And, in case you don't believe me when I say that the GT2 477 HP number is in SAE NET, check out the official Porsche website: http://content2.us.porsche.com/prod/...usaenglish/gt2 It says, "Horsepower (SAE) 477 hp @ 5,700 rpm". Sceond, the rolling dyno that Todd uses for the stock 996 would indeed result in 250 HP **AT THE WHEEL** and NOT SAE net. SAE NET is measured with the engine OUT OF THE CAR. The 18.6% difference is because the engine is in the car, and the measurement is taken at the tire. If Todd used the same dyno to get 378 HP from you car, using the same 18.6% power loss calculation would result in an approximate SAE NET number of 464 hp, which would be much closer to the official GT2 figure of 477 hp, and would explain a similar 0-60 acceleration time. But I'm curious as to where that 378 hp number came from, as Todd himself advertises less HP. Maybe your car is just more powerful? His website provides a dyno chart for his supercharger system: http://www.evoms.com/P%20996%20SC%20dyno.htm As you can see, his peak power is 352.4, compared to the stock 996's 249.6. Which, using the same 18.6% extrapolation, means that his supercharger is getting ~433hp SAE Net, which is still a 44 hp deficit to the GT2. So maybe you just got lucky with the system, or maybe you're running more boost, to get an extra 26 hp. Maybe Todd should advertise with YOUR dyno run? vty, --Dennis

As I stated in one of my first posts on this subject...Todd was able to get the extra power because I do not have e-gas. The 1999 C2 is sill a cable cobtrolled accelerator. Apparently the e-gas computer control limits some of the parameters that can be modified in the computer. Todd still set it up for less than 5 lbs of boost. Additionaly, Todd was able to increase my torque from the expected 275 ft lbs to 290.

The fact is that the 320 HP contributed to the new Carerra is NOT, repeat NOT, repeat again...NOT SAE NET. It is SAE GROSS. The 477 GT2 HP rating is also SAE GROSS. The Z06 HP Rating is SAE GROSS...need I go further. Rather than argue...do a little research and rather than throwing out alot of "maybe's", call Todd directly and see what he can do for your car.

Argue? Hey, I'm just quoting from the OFFICIAL PORSCHE WEBSITE. Do you really think that Porsche would choose to use a standard that went away back in 1972? Everyone still reading this thread can decide for themselves: choose one of the following: 1. Do you believe that the 320 hp attributed to the new Carrera is measured in SAE GROSS, a measurement of horsepower that fell out of favor over three decades ago, to the point that not a single car manufacturer in the world uses this measurement, and hasn't for over thirty years OR 2. Do you believe that the 320 hp attributed to the new Carrera is measured in SAE NET, as specified by Porsche itself on its website: "The 911 engine is a six-cylinder unit displacing 3.6 liters and developing 320 hp (SAE) at 6,800 rpm. " http://content3.us.porsche.com/prod/...ineperformance Would you have us believe that Porsche's website is incorrect when it actually says that the HP measurement is in SAE? Tell you what. If Todd says that the official Porsche power figures of 320 and 477 for the C2 and GT2, respectively, are in SAE Gross, I will publicly go over to John Dunkle and Jen's house and eat a bug. A big bug. Seriously. vty, --Dennis

sounds like we've found our next contestant for FEAR FACTOR...

"I believe you do care about 1/4 mile and 0-60... isn't this a standard measurement that is valid for our cars?" believe what you want - apparently you're gonna anyway. btw, even the fatest buttometer available is going to feel a 50% increase in power.

The horsepower is bhp, and if bhp is the same as Gross HP, then it is gross Hp. You can search all day and you'll find an equal amount of people that state that BHP is gross and BHP is net. What is true..I now have more than 50% more power than before the supercharger.

For 30 years...bhp has been the same as Gross HP. If they have changed the definition, it is news to me. The current z06 is advertized as "bhp" which is defined as hp at the flywheel with minimal accessories attached. Gross HP is defined as the same. http://www.supercars.net/cars/2004@ $Chevrolet@$Corvette%20Z06%20Commemorative%20Editiong.html Like I said....it's a confusing subject and the agruments will continue longer than I will.

Ben, why won't you post your 60 and 1/4 mile times? were all curious dude regards, Pete

"why won't you post your 60 and 1/4 mile times?" because i have never timed either which is strange since as you say they must be important to me!

Actually, by your statement above in a few posts back... you do care cause the other SC 996 has a faster 0-60 time and that's why you want to know how it was measured... cause you can't pull a 0-60 in 3.8

Ok. I need to retract my admission of error previously - I was right after all! Ok, well, mostly right. I stated that BHP was equivalent to HP measured at the wheel on a chassis dyno. Then I said that I was wrong, and agreed with 1999Porsche911 that BHP = SAE Gross. Well, it turns out that I was right. AND 1999Porsche911 was correct in that BHP used to be used as the equivalent of SAE Gross. **TODAY**, BHP is shorthand for what I said it was - it is used to indicate an HP measurement taken on a chassis dyno. I stand by everything else I wrote - SAE Net is different from SAE Gross, SAE Gross hasn't been used by the manufacturers since 1971, and SAE is the standard North American measurement of HP from the factory (measured on an engine dyno, on a bench, with accessories attached). Porsche's HP numbers are SAE Net. Todd's #s are from a rolling chassis dyno. BHP can be used to describe EITHER SAE Gross OR power measured at the wheel on a rolling chassis dyno (yes, confusing, I know). Here's a good description of everything I wrote above: >There are basically two differences between a DIN and a SAE horsepower rating: One difference is in the parameters for a measurement: Horsepower is defined as work done over time. One SAE horsepower is the amount of power necessary to lift 550 pounds 1 foot in 1 second, or 33,000 lb.ft./minute. One DIN horsepower is the ability to lift 450000 kg one cm in one minute. For the same power the SAE measurement is thus 98.629% of the metric DIN measurement. 100 SAE hp = 101.42 DIN hp = 74.6 kW If you see the term bhp, it just means "brake horsepower", which is the actual usable horsepower delivered to the rear wheels of the car. It is so named because a brake is applied to determine how much pressure is needed to stop or absorb the power. Bhp could reference either DIN or SAE horsepower. Often, however, brake horsepower is measured with no load from a chassis or any accessories attached to the engine whatsoever. It�s also called gross horsepower. In vehicles, torque measures the turning force generated at the wheels. A high horsepower rating generally indicates the ability to sustain higher top speeds, while torque signifies a vehicle's acceleration and ability to pull heavy loads. Horsepower is effectively torque times rpms, with the exact formula being HP = Torque x 2 x Pi x rpm (Pi=3.1416�) so if you keep the same amount of torque and double the revs, you double the effective horsepower. This is why most engines have the highest horsepower rating at higher RPMs. And along those lines, you can have an engine that has lots of horsepower at higher RPMs, but not much energy at lower RPMs where it counts off the line, so often torque ends up being a more interesting measurement than horsepower. The other difference is in the engine configuration for the test: While DIN (Deutsche Industrie Normen) 70020 and thereunder DIN 6270 requires the efffective HP to be measured on an engine in standard production configuration, i.e.: with stock intake and exhaust, fan and waterpump or cooling blower, fuel pump, fuel injection pump and no electric load alternator, in the U.S.,vehicle manufacturers can test for horsepower and torque in a variety of ways. SAE J1349 Engine Power Test Code � Spark Ignition and Compression Ignition � Net Power Rating Standard specifies a basis for net engine power rating, and a method for determining net full load engine power with a dynamometer. A dynamometer places a load on the engine and measures the amount of power that the engine can produce against the load. The current test, which originated in the early '70s and was last reviewed in 1995, allows OEMs to claim horsepower and torque figures higher than what most owners will actually experience. The SAE �Society of Automotive Engineering - Power Test Code Committee , is currently revising its standard for measuring horsepower and may suggest that OEMs have an independent observer verify the numbers they claim for horsepower and torque. The standard will also set a procedure for how to test torque, which is also heavily advertised by car manufacturers. According to SAE, the revised standard is expected to be written by the end of 2003. An SAE advisory committee will then decide whether to adopt the procedure and the use of outside witnesses, such as Underwriters Laboratories Inc., to verify OEMs' claims. vty, --Dennis

"Actually, by your statement above in a few posts back... you do care cause the other SC 996 has a faster 0-60 time and that's why you want to know how it was measured... cause you can't pull a 0-60 in 3.8" ????????? are you ms. cleo? you have no clue why i want to know how it is measured. but, i will tell you it is simply CURIOUSITY since i have nothing but a dyno and buttmeter measurement on my car to go by. additionally, claims that an SC'd 3.4 C2 running with a GT2 seem unbelievable so the source of measurement would have been interesting. further, his car is a coupe weighing 200 lbs less than mine. he "should" be getting better times, and this isn't a dick measurement anyway. again, the buttmeter and dyno were all i really cared about. the dyno was an independant and factual comparison of apples to apples (ie: before and after) of just how much incrimental power was added and the buttmeter is how i enjoy it. do you really think that just because you (and others) like trite little measurements for bragging rights, that i have to too? on the contrary, during our mountain drives i kick the schit out of poseur TT owners who bought their car for bragging rights and haven't a clue about how to drive it correctly. these little measurements on .10s of seconds on 0-60 times are a farce. unless you are at the dragstrip with lights, etc and the drivers are similarly capable, there can EASILY be a .5 sec (or more) difference between two drivers of the same car. this is why in addition to inquiring as to how the unbelievable time was measured, i asked if he had swapped cars with his buddy to see if the outcome was a result of his buddy not knowing how to drive.

Ben, G-Tech pro would answer a lot of your questions... and would satisfy our curiously as well... many of us who are considering it want some #'s on performance... not for bragging rights... just to see how fast the car really is.... this is an objective measurement technique as well cause G-Tech pro would tell you acceleration from speed to speed in various gears which would also expose engine flexibility. You'd be doing us a favor. cheers Peter

i had the g-tech pro a few years ago and grew bored with it (i used it to test before and after improvment from modifications on another car). additionally, you have to make absolutely sure you get the weight settings correct which i kinda doubt everyone does. i've no need for the numbers and would recommend you contact EVO who does have an interest in them (for marketing). in addition to making videos, i've generously given several people very "full" demo rides whenever asked. if the guy with the 99 tested his 3.8 sec accurately (he hasn't yet told us how despite repeatedly asking him), it should be sufficient for satisfying your needs.

Ben, Looking at the beginning part of your movie, where you can see the tach, it is just insane how fast it moves once you get on it. Its almost like you're shifting a motorcycle... Man if I only had a spare 11k to burn. Do you know if anyone has done a C4 yet?

I just got my 02 C4S with EVO SC #19 and it is an amazing car. I doubt it can do a 3.8 0-60 but I wont put that kind of stress on my clutch. It is fun and fast and perfect for the car. This is how a Porsche C4S is supposed to be. Will

I just got my 02 C4S with EVO SC #19 and it is an amazing car. I doubt it can do a 3.8 0-60 but I wont put that kind of stress on my clutch. It is fun and fast and perfect for the car. This is how a Porsche C4S is supposed to be. Will

"is just insane how fast it moves once you get on it. Its almost like you're shifting a motorcycle... " yep, but remember some of that is the lightweight flywheel which allows for much freer reving.

the cover story of the current issue of "porsche 911 world" is of the evo sc installed in a c4.

Can you tell us what they mention in general about the SC mod? Thanks. J.Seven

Funny how you keep mentioning Gtech pro as an accurate device to time acceleration when in fact that couldn't be further from the truth. If you had any real experience with the GTech you'd know that they can be off as much as 3/10 of a second error, I know because I used one during a drag run at the track and my timeslips were consistently 2-3/10 slower than what the GTech kept flashing.

guess it all depends on the specific unit because my friend got less than .10 diff at the strip from my g-tech i sold him.

Did he use the Gtech during his pass?

Amir, I do own a G-tech! what you say makes total sense.... The G-Tech starts the clock when your car starts to move... so theoretically even if your wheels are spinning and your car ain't moving the clock HASN'T started... so it measures the speed of your car not the driver and reaction time... I don't know how the track you were on measures the time... maybe you can elaborate on that... I've never been to a dragstrip. if we all use a standard device to derive our numbers we will have have the same point of reference and comparisons from various porsche's are valid. regards, Peter

"Did he use the Gtech during his pass?" yes, several times.

Pete, gotcha, just wanted to clear up the fact that comparing numbers from two different recording devices (timing lights and g-tech accelerometer) would not be an accurate representation of the true performance benefit behind the modification. Ben, interesting. I suppose it's possible that I used a bad or inferior Gtech, the one I was able to obtain was given to me for free by buying a set of tires from tire rack through some promotional offer. I used it a little bit and then sold it on ebay, maybe the new ones have improved???

I had the pleasure of meeting Ben for the "full" demo of his car and thought it was very nice of him to take time to show me the performance of his car. I wondered also what type of times his car was doing, all I can say is, that thing f***ing flies!!!! I was on the road from the video and a couple of others well over 100 and in turns! It made driving my 3.4 NA feel like a hyundai on the drive home and I couldn't wipe the smile from my face for days. Needless to say I'm sold on that thing and am saving for it right now. Hopefully they will have CARB cert. soon.

surprised the heck out of a sport bike today. he couldn't pull in any gear (well into 4th). luckily he was nice enough to make it a rolling start in 1st :-)

here's part of it: http://www.chpltd.com/911_porsche_world/flower.html

I bet he later took the bike into the shop to see what was wrong with it that he couldn't overtake a C2 cab

Hello, no problems with your car since 2004??

Modified the EVO system a bit and it is running better than ever.

Sounds like fun! I'm in the market for a 996 right now and a SCed one would be fun I'm sure.

Mitch can you come up to one of the Local meets this Summerso I can hear how loud the SC whine is at Idle?

I have the same noise with my AASCO Flywheel.. He didn't measure his 0-60 he was just guessing from what I read but typically with any car a basic FI setup typically shaves 1 second off of 0-60 times and off 1/4 mile times.

Feel kind of strange reading again ben�s post. May God be with him. J.Seven

How many miles did you made with your kit? J.Seven

55,000 miles on the car and a little more than 25,000 with the SC.

Throw two more sportbikes in the pot for me.

My '99 C2 has 86,500 miles on it, 14,000 of which are with the Evo Supercharger. I do have the GT3 Clutch and lightweight flywheel installed. I smile everytime drive it. Took it from Little Rock, AR to Dallas, TX and back yesterday in fact. I had to laugh when the SL55 pulled up beside me at 80 mph, then punched it. I downshifted to 4th and nailed it, up to 160 mph I went then backed out and waited two miles at 80 mph again for him to catch back up. The Z06 Corvette was even more fun, as I had not played with one of those, yet. I literally surprised myself when I walked away from it too at all speed ranges from 70 mph to 120 mph. I could literally press and lift throttle to control how fast I walked/sprinted away. I used throttle control for about a 15 mile stretch to show the Corvette driver just how totally dominated he was. It was fun. Even with my suspension setup the drive was very comfortable, even on the rough portions of Interstate 30.

Oh yeah, and apparently my car needs to go on a diet. I was curious about its weight, so on my way back from Dallas at 1:00 a.m. this morning I pulled into an Arkansas State Highway weigh station on I-30 and asked the Highway Patrolmen if we could weigh my car. They said yes and we put it on their scales. It came in at 3240 lbs., I have the slip in the car, but it doesn't give me the weight distribution front to rear, which they told me and I stupidly forgot to write on the slip. Seems like I recall him saying the rear was something over 2000 lbs. Now, before I go blaming my car for all the added weight, I should probably call back and find out if he took the weight measurement with or without my fat *** in the car (I account for 230 lbs). I am so mad that I didn't ask if that weight was with or without me in the car. Oh well, I do know that I had almost exactly 1/2 tank of gas in the car. I guess if it was without, then my car would weigh in at 3010, which is more like what I was expecting. Nevertheless, it is a very fast machine. I think I will nickname it the "grey ghost" and get a license plate that reads "GHOST"

We roughly (read, didn't use proper fan placement) dyno'd the car last Friday at a local shop and it only came out with 279 rwhp. I don't want to get into the all the differences in atmosphere, testing procedures, different dynos etc. I just wanted to toss this in here. I think we used 3050 lbs for the weight. I will try to post a pic of the dyno pull if anyone would like to look at the curves. Again, my baby has 86K plus miles on it and the leakdown tests from about 2 months ago showed only 7% to 9% across all cylinders. IMO, not bad for a 3.4L with that many miles 14K of which are boosted. EVOMS makes a great system and I would recommend it to anyone. BTW, the 2006 EVO 997 that was dyno'd right after mine turned in 319 rwhp.

My '99 C2 has 86,500 miles on it, 14,000 of which are with the Evo Supercharger. I do have the GT3 Clutch and lightweight flywheel installed. I smile everytime drive it. Took it from Little Rock, AR to Dallas, TX and back yesterday in fact. I had to laugh when the SL55 pulled up beside me at 80 mph, then punched it. I downshifted to 4th and nailed it, up to 160 mph I went then backed out and waited two miles at 80 mph again for him to catch back up. The Z06 Corvette was even more fun, as I had not played with one of those, yet. I literally surprised myself when I walked away from it too at all speed ranges from 70 mph to 120 mph. I could literally press and lift throttle to control how fast I walked/sprinted away. I used throttle control for about a 15 mile stretch to show the Corvette driver just how totally dominated he was. It was fun. Even with my suspension setup the drive was very comfortable, even on the rough portions of Interstate 30. We roughly (read, didn't use proper fan placement) dyno'd the car last Friday at a local shop and it only came out with 279 rwhp. I don't want to get into the all the differences in atmosphere, testing procedures, different dynos etc. I just wanted to toss this in here. I think we used 3050 lbs for the weight. I will try to post a pic of the dyno pull if anyone would like to look at the curves. Again, my baby has 86K plus miles on it and the leakdown tests from about 2 months ago showed only 7% to 9% across all cylinders. IMO, not bad for a 3.4L with that many miles 14K of which are boosted. EVOMS makes a great system and I would recommend it to anyone. BTW, the 2006 EVO 997 that was dyno'd right after mine turned in 319 rwhp. First of all, unless you have SUBSTANTIALYY modified the EVO setup, (as I have) your car would not come close to keeping up with the new Z06. Not even in reverse. Either it was not a Z06 or the driver was playing with YOU. Secondly, although I do not believe in the acuraccy of dynos or there translation to performance, your RWHP of 279 is only about 25 hp more than the stock engine, so something is wrong. Regardless of what the number was, the EVO system would increase your rwhp by approximately 100. Finally, the car will not go 160 in 4th gear. I would review your story and if you decide to stick by it, at least correct your numbers.

As an EVO SC owner, I'm curious: what was (were?) the mods you made? =Carlos=

I'm curious as well as I'm thinking about the mod for my C4.

You smoke a SL55 and even waite two for it at 80 mph and then what? you wake up J.Seven

In his post it doesn't say he didn't upshift from 4th thru 6th. I just assumed he did.. I wonder is he talking about HP or really meant to say TQ.

Good Lord, I should have known better than to be anything other than "crystal clear" on this board. Okay, first of all the downshift to 4th was at 80mph. Geez. The 160 mph was in 6th. You do still have to shift gears, even with the EVO system. The EVO system isn't that magical and I don't have a Tip in the 996, the Tip is in my 986. The reason I had to wait was because I did spend a little time up at 160 mph (more precisely it was a few seconds at 163 mph and a few at 154 mph, then a few at 161, but I thought I could take a little liberty and just call it 160 mph). I obviously don't know if the SL55 stayed on it hard or not and I would suspect he did not if it took him two miles to catch me after I slowed back to 80 mph. I did wait to slow until he was a speck AND there was other traffic we both had to safely navigate. As disclosed, we were not on a closed course. Please be reasonable in your flames and don't take everything so literally. As with all written stories on a board such as this, you can't provide every detail. The reader is expected to use their own experiences to fill in some of the details. The Z06 was not obviously not a 2006 Z06, but the side badges did say Z06. I didn't stop on the side of road to compare notes and ask for a model year. Other than that, I stand by my story. For what it is worth, I will comparing my SC'd 996 to a 2006 Z06 in September at the track in Hallett, OK just outside of Tulsa. The 2006 Z06 will have racing slicks and if you would like, I will post my lap times and his. Hallett is a 1.8 mile 10 turn road course with over 80 feet of elevation change. www.hallettracing.com Finally, my system has been modified, but I must confess to not knowing exactly what all has been done. Global Motorsports Group in Santa Ana (which campaigns P-cars in the Speed World Challenge GT series) had it for several months and took it over to VF Engineering for inspection. I do know it involved a new GIAC flash and updated pulleys. The charge cooler has also been replaced as the original charge cooler was installed improperly by another shop in LA and the condenser had nearly rubbed a hole in it. As to my dyno numbers, I too am disappointed and a little skeptical, but as I said I don't want to get into the details since there are myriad reasons why the number could have been so low (i.e. dyno type/brand, calibration of the dyno, atmospheric conditions, placement or lack thereof of the external cooling fans, etc.) I was not present during the tests, I just picked it up and the mechanic had run it on the dyno since he also had the aforementioned 2006 EVO 997 there at the same time. For what it is worth, I will scan the sheet and post it for you along with my weigh slip from the weigh station, as I know this board loves to see hard data. As I also said, the 2006 EVO 997 only showed 317 rwhp which number I also would have expected to be substantially higher. Sorry, I don't have the 997's dyno sheet. Perhaps I should have just left out the dyno information until we had run a tightly controlled series of runs and I had all the specifications including air temp., humidity, brand and model of the dyno, the date of last calibration and testing method used including the number, placement and size of the external fans. When I said "rough run" I meant it. This wasn't a multi-million dollar wind-tunnel setup simulating 150 mph winds at the correct angles and 20 technicians standing around to monitor all testing systems. The car will be run again and again and everyone is invited to PM me for all the numbers. I don't care to brag or boost numbers or stories, I will readily share any data that comes from the car whether electronically monitored or seat of the pants. I guess I should leave out that I did have it a digitally indicated 180 mph last Saturday on a divided, concrete 4 lane highway in northcentral Arkansas. Yes, I was in 6th. No, I did not have the speed checked by a recently calibrated radar gun. No, I did not look at the analog speedometer, which by the way would have been on it last white notch just past the number 175, as I was a little busy driving. Yes, the tach indicated 7000 rpms. No, I am not positive about the 7000 rpm, as it could have been 6950 or 7050, at that speed I really was more concerned about making sure I focused on the road. It would have been nice to have digital monitors to records the specifics, but I don't. Additionally, I am not enough of a gearhead or fanatic to do the research necessary to obtain and calculate exactly what the rpms would theoretically have been based on my gear ratios. And I am aware that the digital readout under the tach is consistently 2 mph faster than my analog speedo when travelling at a constant 80 mph. Which is correct? Probably neither. Does it REALLY matter? No, because in any instance they aren't far off. Even if they are both 10% optimistic, 162 mph (analog with rounding calculated as 162 actual x 110% = 178 displayed) and 164 mph (digital with rounding calculated as 164 actual x 110%= 180 displayed) respectively are still pretty damn fast, IMO. Also, my speedometers are likely affected by the fact that I have 19 inch TechArt wheels, as I think the speedo is calibrated for 18 inch wheels. Again, I will listen to/read technical explanations. Lastly, I have been told that a GT3 clutch and lightweight flywheel will not fit my '99 996 C2. I have not actually pulled the clutch and flywheel assembly, nor done the research on it. The person from whom I purchased the car said this is the setup and I have no other reason to doubt it. I will confirm it when it all needs replacement. Perhaps, the technical experts and gearheads on this board know better than me. I would be happy to listen/read the technical specs of the GT3 clutch and lightweight flywheel setup as applied to a 1999 996 C2 six speed. Thank you DC Porsche for remembering that you have to use your brain when reading here and that the poster won't spoon feed you everything. I have much respect for this board, the posters and their detailed and oftentimes technically correct critiques, as it makes the board better, but when we are too quick to knock someone's post it makes me sad. Everyone else can feel free to flame on.

I personally think that there were a lot of bugs in dark crevices in this thread. How would you like to be on the receiving end of this thread? Really, page back and read some of the junk that has been written. The term **** retentive comes to mind and the tone has been a little lacking in social graces. Some people need to lighten up a little and leave alone. Personally I thought the account of the new SC was pretty cool and it made me check out the Evo site and add that mod. to my shopping list for the future. Time to take a chill pill people.

Good info. Not a bad mod for the money.

Ill second that! Nice thread and im looking into adding a SC to mine.

So here is the dyno sheet for what its worth. Tonight, while talking with the guy with the 997 Evo, which was dynoed at the same time as mine, he said his had been dynoed in both Phoenix and LA at 435 rwhp. But, his car only pulled 317 rwhp on the dyno our cars were tested on the other day the same dyno, which is where this report came from. With that being said, I have serious doubts about the accuracy of the dyno report below. Through extrapolation, I wonder if my numbers should not be closer to 397 rwhp. (extrapolated calculation is done using his 435 from the other dyno minus the 317 on this dyno equals a 118 rwhp difference. So then I take my 297 from this dyno and add the 118 is appears to be shorting the cars.) How's this logic work for everyone? My preference is to actually, run the car on a recently calibrated dyno and run the cars back to back, so we can see if there is still a 40 rwhp difference between the 3.4L and 3.8L EVO supercharged systems.

I'll add my voice to those who thought the thread was interesting, informative, and enticing to the point of my meandering over to the EVO site and taking a look at the product lines with a quick mental calculation of how much I had in my savings account. I was entertained by the post, and felt no compelling need to break out my calculator to double check all the figures. Good post StuartFirm Chuck

Great post with a lot of info! That EVO site is something else!

I heard(understood) on a video the sound of the very present kit TPC. Do you know where I can find a video of the kit evome? Thanks to all for your help(assistant) Vince

StuartFirm and others who have an SC installed: I thought I'd resurrect the discussion only to see if those of your who have supercharged your 996's are still of the mindset that it's a great way to go....and also to check and see how the cars have held up with all that added power. I'm seriously considering having the EVO S/C installed by SharkWerks in January, and thought I'd do a quick check before I took the plunge. I was not considering putting in the lightweight clutch. Can any of you comment for or against that decision? I did hear that the lightweight clutches took some getting used to...that they rattled a bit in neutral at stoplights...and had a habit of stalling out once in a while. If I don't intend to track the car, is the lightweight clutch worth the money? I do look forward to hearing back from those of you who already took the plunge. chuck

Yes, I would definitely recommend it. Keep in mind that the power is *most* apparent at higher revs, although you can tell it's there at all engine speeds. For calibration of the power, my track experiences are that I can pass a not-so-good driver in a GT3, stick like glue to a GT3 driver of my skills, while a good driver in a GT3 will *slowly* pull away from me. Mind you, that is in a cab, with a top that weights 165 lbs more than a coupe. So a coupe should do even better. Oh, and that's also with a 3.4 L engine. Unfortunately, I can't keep up with a turbo. But I kinda think a SC 3.6L in a coupe might give a turbo a run for it's money. In any case, highly recommended. =Carlos= P.S. I don't have any experience with the light-weight clutch, so I can't comment.

so what year GT3 r u talking about Carlos? Are there that much power under those hoods that a 3.4L SC can't keep up?

I'm talking fairly recent vintage, '04 and newer. Driver skill is definitely a large factor on a track, more so than most people realize. As I said, I can pass or keep up with most GT3 drivers, but someone with better skills than mine can slowly pull away. But I'm dragging all those top-lifting motors and mechanicals, plus an add-on roll bar too. One other thing I didn't mention, is that while the car is lowered and with PSS9's, I still haven't upgraded the sway bars. The GT3's come with beefier ones. I'm pretty sure an SC 3.4L coupe with an equal suspension and equally skilled driver could beat a GT3, but the GT3 owners may disagree. =Carlos=

thanks for the clarrification Carlos... and i agree,...... driver skills play a moumental role in winning and loosing on a track......

Carlos: so then you're saying that as your car sits.... with the additional weight, without the lightweight clutch...you can stay up with a GT3 depending upon the driver's skill in the GT3?? Do you think that the lightweight clutch...which I am told allows the engine to hit higher rpm's faster...would the lightweight clutch allow you any edge whatesoever? From what you've said, it doesn't appear tha the clutch factors in at all.

I think what Carlos is saying is that the GT3 is setup to handle better on the track. There is no doubt that in a straight line, the 3.4 SC will beat the GT3 (as well as the Turbo).

which one is better to SC? 3.4 or 3.6?

TT are seen at high 50 now. hard to beat that with SC3.6 money-wise.

Chuck, I don't have any experience with a lightweight flywheel/clutch, so I'm reluctant to comment. Over the years, I've heard the same list of advantages and disadvantages about them as you've summarized in your posts, so I tend to think that might be right. In other words, they've got their pros and cons, like most mods. If you're not going to track it, I don't think I'd bother... but I'd defer to someone who's done it. =Carlos=

has anyone had any experience with the fidanza flywheel? comments pls....

ordered one. won't fit m96 engine's. the fidanza has 9 bolt holes where my 996 has 8 bolt holes. i ended up with an aasco LWF. you can expect everything you would expect with a LWF... quicker throttle response, faster acceleration AND increased gearbox noise/chatter and slightly diminished drivability. if your car is a DD/cruiser i would suggest against using it. if you like your cars on the raw side and consider performance over comfort then the LWF is a good mod.