21 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHSpeaking of power to weight....
Leading reported evidence
Install improperly
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Although, they may have been installed improperly because the car stalls at 50% of red lights now.
Leading evidence: 'Install improperly' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'much better indicator of overall power' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Install improperly' (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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
changed around that time but the Toyota marketing materials didn't keep up--under the new standard I only had 173hp.
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 suspect a cause
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.
Suspected cause
ET and trap speed taking into account mass is probably a much better indicator of overall power.
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 · Original poster
And to take the question a step further, has anyone tested the 3.8 litre block that L&N offers?
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
If you think your drivetrain can handle it, buy a Hoonigan windshield decal and an 8-ball shift ****; that combo has been tested time and again for a solid 150HP gain (at the wheels, not the crank)...
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
If you think your drivetrain can handle it, buy a Hoonigan windshield decal and an 8-ball shift ****; that combo has been tested time and again for a solid 150HP gain (at the wheels, not the crank)...
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
my bet would be that Porsche's claims are on an actual engine dyno and R&T are using a chassis dyno and trying to calculate engine power which is not as accurate as an actual engine measurement.
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.
21 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: 20261026T105141Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
how many horses does the 3.6 litre
really
make? I seem to recall reading on Edmunds or maybe R&T that they could only find 320 when they put one on a dyno, and not the 325 claimed by Porsche.
And to take the question a step further, has anyone tested the 3.8 litre block that L&N offers? One of those now pushes my 2003 C2 around. I seem to recall seeing something about a 25 hp gain.
my bet would be that Porsche's claims are on an actual engine dyno and R&T are using a chassis dyno and trying to calculate engine power which is not as accurate as an actual engine measurement.
Sorry to butt in but who the hell cares? If HP is what you are after go buy a Dodge Hemi w/700 HP. To me it's about the entire package and feel of the 996. Around 300 HP for a stock 3.4L engine is about everything I could ever need or use for daily driving or just having fun on the street. Okay....off rant...
3.6L - 315-320bhp / ~260-270rwhp
3.4L - 295-305bhp / ~245-255rwhp
This is shooting from the hip based on the memory of an avid self medicator. Use with caution.
A dyno isn't accurate within 5 hp, let's just start there. Yes it might be repeatable. It might even be precise, but accuracy is a different value. Dyno the same car on 5 different dynos and the number will be all over the place.
People worry way too much about how much hp a simple production car puts down versus mfg claims. Honestly 1/4 mile vs. ET and trap speed taking into account mass is probably a much better indicator of overall power. A lot of "exotics" with ridiculous claimed horsepower numbers don't have much on many US built V8 cars these days although the factory claims vary wildly.
You can get a K&N sticker for way less than the cost of a dyno pull; if it's just about raw HP, get a few stickers and be done with it.
If you think your drivetrain can handle it, buy a Hoonigan windshield decal and an 8-ball shift ****; that combo has been tested time and again for a solid 150HP gain (at the wheels, not the crank)...
Nothing can make a front-wheel-drive Honda drift like a Hoonigan decal.
The really sinister cool guys never brag about power..... they let their driving do the talking. I have enough experience drag racing, that I've given up a lot of power and still won (on a close timed course). I'm looking forward to getting back into autoXing and HPDEs soon. Once I get it where I want, I may have to take my ZR-1 to one of the flying mile events.
Already have the stickers (no real filter though, too much $$). That was one of the first mods actually. Although, they may have been installed improperly because the car stalls at 50% of red lights now.
HP numbers are more in tune with the drag race queens.
A lot of off-base assumptions and what sounds like latent frustration here. I must admit, I'm amused.
If I had any real worry about horsepower, would I even own a 996?
I thought that Porsche claimed 315 HP, although 320 HP is frequently the number that I see quoted.
Porsche typically understates HP and performance numbers.
Well, assuming you wanted a 911, and you don't have the money for a Turbo or a GT version, the 996 was the most powerful base-model 911.
Don't misinterpret Internet-fueled idiocy as frustration...we're very good at being idiotic around here; frustration is not a requirement.
Frustration around here is typically either sexual or reserved for people who ask rhetorical-and/or-seemingly-innocent-but-still-insinuating-the-996-is-a-turd semi-inflammatory questions...
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/500x265/seshual_558d7617621d88a93e60bca20e4bb16fa400d725.jpg
I don't know if it is relevant for these cars, but in 2004 I bought a Toyota with 180hp. Apparently, the rating standard SAExxxx? changed around that time but the Toyota marketing materials didn't keep up--under the new standard I only had 173hp. The class action lawsuit netted me $100 for the loss of 7HP. Score! There's precedent--hp are $14 a piece.
I've heard RainX on the windshield and side windows will net you another 10HP. Also having your wheel badges aligned with the valve stem another 2HP. Go figure.....
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
