4 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHairbox,powerflo,cold air intakes???
Leading reported evidence
Adjust on its own
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Leading evidence: 'Adjust on its own' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Adjust on its own' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Note on breaking in a 996 -I saw a review of an ,01 996 coupe(long term test) which put it at 0-60 at 4.86 seconds with 40,000 miles on the odometer.They contrasted it to a new '02 coupe which they tested in at 4.79 seconds.They didn't give 1/4 mile or track times(I don't remember anyway).I think that these cars are faster than what the factory states -especially after they are broken in.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Note on breaking in a 996 -I saw a review of an ,01 996 coupe(long term test) which put it at 0-60 at 4.86 seconds with 40,000 miles on the odometer.They contrasted it to a new '02 coupe which they tested in at 4.79 seconds.They didn't give 1/4 mile or track times(I don't remember anyway).I think that these cars are faster than what the factory states -especially after they are broken in.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
4 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T175704Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Jason, I did an RM Racing airbox kit(which I really liked),B&B headers and mufflers for my '01 996 coupe.Of course it sounded awesome(I really could care less about the sound -I want POWER!),but I did notice a power increase as such:
1.I had the headers and muffs. put on at the dealership immediately after my car arrived w/30 miles on it.I was unable to detect any gains as I have never driven a stock 996. Six mos. later I had them put on an EVO cone system which robbed power and tripped the check engine light.I experience a great power increase when I put the stock airbox back on.
2. About a month later I put on the RM Racing kit myself(I have no mechanical ability)and noticed an immediate increase in power and acceleration response. Frankly I was quite suprised (pleasantly).My guess is 10-12 H.P. over stock 300.IMPORTANT TO NOTE that a new 996 performs much differently than one w/5000, 8000, 15000 mi. on it.It seemed the more miles I put on the car the faster it was. 3.Two months before I sold the car(to order a new one) The check engine light kept coming on. My dealer mechanic said not to worry he could reset it (which he did twice at $90.00 a pop) or I could leave it.I finally left it-no harm done.We theorised that the exhaust in addition to the RM Racing set up allowed much more air through(which is good),However the throttle body/M.A.F./computer? was unable to adjust on its own. Therefore I feel if I had planned on keeping the car You guessed it! Computer/software/E.C.U. upgrade! Which one is best? God only knows.
Note on breaking in a 996 -I saw a review of an ,01 996 coupe(long term test) which put it at 0-60 at 4.86 seconds with 40,000 miles on the odometer.They contrasted it to a new '02 coupe which they tested in at 4.79 seconds.They didn't give 1/4 mile or track times(I don't remember anyway).I think that these cars are faster than what the factory states -especially after they are broken in. Both cars were stock. Just wait till you get your '02/03's broken in!I can't remember which online 'zine I saw this in but surf around-you'll find it.
