28 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHStock 0-60 times....Mods removed
Leading reported evidence
Install by people who simply misunderstand what they'll do
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
Many mods are installed by people who simply misunderstand what they'll do.
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
Just a thought, not being too familiar with the tip, but does it adjust shift points based on your driving - maybe this contributes, or maybe you got better at launching.
Leading evidence: 'Install by people who simply misunderstand what they'll do' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Adjust shift points based' (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 · Original poster
I swapped my polished 18 inch turbo twist wheels for chromed 18 inch turbo twist wheels.
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
When I took my car to the drag strip, it ran consistent 14.0X's.
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
Road and Track or Car and Driver - one of those big mags - tested a few G meters, comparing them to their uber instrumentation that they use.
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
G-tech may be accurate relative to other test equipments since they tested on a flat track/surface.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Adjust shift points based
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
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
Just a thought, not being too familiar with the tip, but does it adjust shift points based on your driving - maybe this contributes, or maybe you got better at launching.
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.
28 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: 20261026T222516Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I just took my 99 996 with a tiptronic transmission out for a couple runs with my trusty Gtech performance meter. I returned my Vesuvio 996 back to stock with the intention of selling it. (I came to my senses before selling it) I transferred all my performance mods to the Iris blue 996 that I bought from Chuck Jones. With a 6 speed, LSD, PSS9 suspension, and GIAC flash, it will make a better track toy.
I have previously posted my 0-60 times before and after the RSS Plenum install. My before time was 5.0, my after time was 4.76. I was pretty pleased with the results. The stock 0-60 times for a 99 996 with a tiptronic transmission were claimed to be 6.0 by Porsche and a couple of Porsche books. I removed the plenum, my EVO cold air induction, and my Billy Boat headers & mufflers. I swapped my polished 18 inch turbo twist wheels for chromed 18 inch turbo twist wheels.
I used the same method to launch my car as I have done previously...shift to manual mode and put in first gear (then switch back to auto mode after takeoff), power brake to the point where it starts to move, and go
. The temperature was 57 degrees, which was about the same as my previous measurements. I used the same dead end road as I used previously, which has a slight downhill slope (less than 5%).
I was shocked by the results...5.17, 5.01, and 4.86... 0-60... in stock form. It sure sounded faster with all the mods. It felt like it pulled harder in the upper rpm range. Either my Gtech is lying to me, or the mods didn't make a significant difference in my 0-60 time. These were not the numbers that I expected to see.
I wouldnt trust the G-meter, the results are always all over the board. When friends of mine used them, the results were very different (optimistic) than what you would actually run at a drag strip, which is impossible due to the superior traction of a drag strip vs. the street.
When I took my car to the drag strip, it ran consistent 14.0X's. Then I popped a 13.98. We are talking hundredths of a second consistency, your G-meter is saying you have a 3 - tenth inconsistency, I HIGHLY doubt that from an automatic. Automatics are the preferred choice in amateur drag racing due to their consistency over a manual. Just a thought, I believe your G-meter is giving false results.
Maybe your car didn't realize you pulled the mods off!
Seriously, there could be many factors that could cause this, but it does say at least 2 things, Porsche does a good job getting the most out of the stock setup, and second, they are notoriously conservative on their performance data (and there are reasons for this).
Just a thought, not being too familiar with the tip, but does it adjust shift points based on your driving - maybe this contributes, or maybe you got better at launching. Hard to tell with the amount of data, but I would think that more times would be needed to really get a good feel of the difference.
Good luck with the new project, and keep posting the pics!
Mark - very interesting! Did you put the mods on Chuck's inferno wagon? If so, here is my conclusion: Chuck's old car will be a pig!
Just kidding! BTW - I hope you know that, around here, the Iris Blue car will alway's be known as Chuck's old car.... at least until you get her fixed up.
I agree. g-meters have alot of factors that contribute to alot of inonsistencies and inaccuracies. Most importantly, if the road used is not completely flat and have some sort of elevation change, that will affect the g force experienced by the car hence by the meter. Simple physics.
I wouldn't sweat it. All you really know is that the mods make a difference that's measured in tenths at best, when evaluated in terms of 0-60. But there's more to performance than 0-60. The biggest difference was probably your headers, which would have given you an edge on the track and at higher speeds, but actually cost you from a standing start. It's no surprise that your car was quicker off the line when you put the stock headers back on. Remember, at 60 this car is barely awake. If you'd compared pre and post mod using, say, 0-100, it probably would have been another story altogether.
Mods rarely make a car 'better'. They usually just make it different.
The G-tech meter is actually pretty accurate. Road and Track or Car and Driver - one of those big mags - tested a few G meters, comparing them to their uber instrumentation that they use. I remember that the G tech was suprisingly close - like within .05 secs of their equipment.
As far as these mods go, I think the big difference is removing the headers. On a tip, you need low-end torque for a good launch, and adding headers always shifts the torque band upwards. The launch is always the most critical part of any 0-xx measurement. Other than that, maybe the other improvements could be little things like slightly less fuel, tires are a bit more wore down (smaller diameter, hence better gearing), maybe a slight tailwind, etc.
I have to agree, I have friends who have used a Gtech at 1/4 mile tracks and it was pretty accurate. BUT what does this mean for Manual tranny porsches, are we running 4.1 to 3.9 to 60 mph?
The best way to find out is to run two Tips side by side to 60 mph or thru the 1/4.
If the car was in fact spinning, I could see the variability. If he wasnt, there should not be a 3 tenth difference that the G-meter was claiming. I am assuming it was not spinning comparing to how my car reacts during a launch.
Thanks for all the great excuses for my overly optomistic 0-60 times. Part of the problem with the consistency was not being able to mount the Gtech to my windshield. I couldn't get the suction cup to mount to my windshield, so I was holding it by hand
...half my runs wouldn't record because of movement.
I think that all of my runs (both before and after mods) were optomistic due to the downward grade of my test road. I bet a slight upward grade would have a correspondingly negative impact on my times.
El Torrente, I read the same article about the accuracy of the Gtech before I bought it.
DFC, your reasoning makes the most sense to me..."Maybe your car didn't realize you pulled the mods off!"
Tim, I think both my Pcars would respond to the name "inferno wagon"...it's still Chuck's car to me also.
You guys have some great points about the headers shifting the power band to a higher rpm range, thus having a possible negative impact on 0-60 times. My lesson learned from this is 0-60 times are not the best measurement of performance gains on our cars....1/4 mile times would probably show a more accurate picture of the performance gains or losses from different modifications.
I'm still a confirmed "Modaholic", but the benefits are not as clear cut as I thought they would be. Thanks again for all the input.
G-tech may be accurate relative to other test equipments since they tested on a flat track/surface. If you read Mark's post below, apparently the road has a downill grade AND it was being held by hand.
The downhill grade gives the g meter incorrect g reading (reading more g which equals to g_mass_of_car*cos(angle of downward slope) + g_car*cos(angle of downward slope).
Of course, the hand shaking doesn't help with consistencies either.
Sounds like suspension and handling are the mods to think about rather than pure hp.
I just think that a vesuvio metallic paint creates the most HP and any mods are just trying to catch up...
At this point, I'm banking on Iris blue being faster. I'm trying to convince my wife that she should take the Vesuvio car and I take the Iris blue when I finally get it running and can afford to go to the track. It would be great if she gets the track bug also.
Eharrison, that is a pretty color on your car.
I love the color...my wife is interested in running track too. I think we'll look at the POC at willow springs next year...
Excuse the mess in my garage, we moved and I have not had time to throw half the crap we moved with out yet. And the photo was from a DIY photo essay on fixing the center console hinge.
Mark: I can't really address whether the GTek is absolutely accurate or not...but in the runs we did, it consistently came up with the same readings....so I have no reason to doubt it. Other folks who have run it and used it as a measuring device also attest to its accuracy.
That means one thing.....folks like Dell and others who have been poo-pooing the HP claims for all the thousands of dollars spend on mods......have a basis for their disbelief in the performance claims.
I'll be interested in seeing what sort of time you get out of the Iris Blue car once you get it running and put all the mods back on it.....however it is going to need a clutch so that is going to affect your launch times. When you finally get it all together, perhaps I might talk you into going for Pinks....your Iris against my Midnight??
You can mod yours and I'll promise to leave mine stock.
I think you should reflect on that one again Arnee. The g reading is correct, it is just reading higher acceleration because the car accelerates quicker downhill.
Sorry, but no. Without commenting on any specific mod, increasing horsepower does NOT per force mean a faster 0-60 time. It's all tradeoffs. You could absolutely mod this engine to get more horsepower and end up with a slower acceleration off the mark. Short of gearing, forced induction and reducing weight, there is little you can do to make these cars quicker. But there is stuff you can do to make them faster, at least theoretically. And headers are an example. If you put quality headers on your car and a less restrictive exhaust, I can all but guarantee you that your 0-60 times will remain the same or get a bit worse, but your 0-100 times would improve.
Many mods are installed by people who simply misunderstand what they'll do.
Yeah, I was unclear. Yes, the g reading is correct... but it's not a g reading of solely the car. It also reads some of the car's weight (horizontal component) since it's going downhill and not on a flat surface. What we're saying is the same thing.
I wonder how advanced the G tech's software is. Using 3-axis accelerometers, it is possible to correct some of the "jiggling" from the hand holding, but probably assumes the unit is hard mounted in the car.
It can only be as accurate as its set-up is. Remember the old days... garbage in, garbage out.
When I had a g-tech, it specifically mentions that it has to be mounted on a fixed surface and completely parallel from the road.
The g-tech theory is good since you enter the weight of the vehcle (mass*g_gravity) and senses the longitudinal g's experienced and calculates it based on the vehicle weight. Another thing inconsistency factor is the entered weight of the vehicle.
The G-tech I have only needs weight to calculate the HP, not acceleration. Do the new ones require the weight to correct for sloped roads? I didn't think they did.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
