The single most interesting performance list I've seen

[DavidL]

"Through a lot of mad scientist experiments, we have found that some of the following examples give a good example of expected performance levels." JM

2.5L 1986 220 944 turbo - 9xx chipset alone - 290 bhp - 310 lbs of torque
2.5L 1989 250 944 turbo - 9xx chipset alone - 300 bhp - 320 lbs of torque
2.5L 1990 250 944 turbo - 9xx chipset, 9xx wastegate, - 320 BHP - 340 lbs of torque
2.5L 1990 250 944 turbo - 9xx chipset, 9xx wastegate, 9xx injectors - 320 BHP - 375 lbs of torque
2.5 1990 250 944 turbo - 9xx chipset, 9xx wastegate, 9xx injectors, 9xx bb-turbo - 330 BHP - 385 lbs of torque @ 2800 rpm!!!
2.5 1990 250 944 turbo - 9xx chipset, 9xx wastegate, 9xx injectors - 9xx BB-turbo -
2.5L 1992 250 944 turbo - 9xx chipset, 9xx wastegate, 9xx injectors, 9xx budjet turbo - 342 BHP - 350 lbs of torque.
2.5L 1992 250 944 turbo - 9xx chipset, 9xx wastegate, 9xx injectors, 9xx BB-turbo, 9xx Maf kit - 360 BHP, 400 lbs of torque
2.5L 1992 250 944 turbo - 9xx chipset, 9xx wastegate, 9xx injectors, 9xx BB-turbo, 9xx Maf kit, 9xx 3.0 inch exhaust, 417 BHP, 425lbs of torque

There's a very interesting thread on PH on which JM has just posted the above. Since he has prices on his site for all this too it may make an expensive 2010!

Thread is here
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=48&t=766383&i=20&mid=53426&nmt=300bhp,%20350lbs%20feet%20torque%20944%203%20litre%20turbo

I hope Jon won't mind me reproducing it here

 

[marcoturbo]

290 bhp with a K26/6... ?

 

[Pete917]

I know nothing about turbo's, but that last option at 417bhp from a 2.5l engine is awesome. what would all the mods set you back to achieve that?

 

[poprock]

Jon's prices are listed here.

 

[sawood12]

ORIGINAL: marcoturbo

290 bhp with a K26/6... ?

No probs. My old car was producing just under 280bhp at 1 bar boost pressure which peaked instantaneously then reduced linearly down to 0.7 bar at 6500 rpm. If it could have held 1 bar boost to say 4krpm or even to the red line (probably not possible with a K26/6 but many have claimed to have achieved it) with say an EBC, then 300bhp should be no problem at all. 1 bar boost approximately equals 20bhp - but holding it will also earn you HP. A K26/6 can get to 1.2 bar boost max boost pressure at low RPMs but will tail off quicker.

 

[marcoturbo]

Is it an US dyno ? []

I agree a K26/6 can hold 270 bhp but 290 bhp, I'm a bit sceptical... However, I'm very interested in the JM work. I consider moving from a VR Stage 3 turbocharger to a SPS unit.

 

[sawood12]

Can you really trust any dyno figures other than for comparative purposes? Why should you believe those that read low any more than those that supposedly read high? The Dyno Dynamics dyno my car was tested at was owned by a chap who worked alot with Porsches so reckoned he's honed the WHP to FWHP conversion down to a fine art - and the numbers S2's and N/A cars were kicking out passed the 'sense' check so I have no reason to assume the numbers being achieved were a million miles out. But if I could have held max boost pressure for another 1500 - 2k rpm I would have got 300bhp give or take a few.

 

[marcoturbo]

ORIGINAL: sawood12

Can you really trust any dyno figures other than for comparative purposes? Why should you believe those that read low any more than those that supposedly read high?

It's not the thread to argue about dyno accuracy but about the second sentence, cars owners running on a dyno often want to see a great improvment, it's easy for the chaps at the dyno (even more interesting if they have something to sell)to make them happy (e.g. to pâtch the ambient temperature)

 

[AndrewS]

Hi All,

Dyno readings are often meaningless and only serve as a means for comparison when different cars use the same dyno on the same day (even with all the corrective capabilities of the various dynamometers currently used). Very 'optimistic' correction factors are often used in calculating flywheel power and torque.

There is so much more to getting reliable and usable power from the 944 Turbo than bolting on chips, wastegate, injectors, turbo, MAF and exhaust. There are some critical modifications required on any 944 Turbo to break through the 350bhp barrier. For those that remember, look back at Fen Coull's car when it 'let go' once the boost was pushed well beyond 17psi (May 2006).

If you read the thread on Pistonheads (and it does get technical and detailed), Barry at Hartech is telling it like it is. Barry's engineering credentials need little introduction; his explanations are 100% correct (in my considered opinion). Barry also makes reference to delivering performance where a driver is likely to need it most on UK roads; namely increased torque resulting in better acceleration and improved response. in short, useable performance for the road.

For those leaning towards believing the almost miracle gains from a few bolt ons without looking at other more fundamental specifics first; hold back and get some professional advice from those that have actually consistently achieved very significant and reliable results.

Here's another thought: I spent 4 years developing my '89 into a 422bhp car (a largely irrelevant figure - but that's what the dyno recorded). On slick's it would pull a 1:15 round Castle Combe. My current car (essentially standard) will do it in 1:16 with little more than standard power. Take the slick tyres off and the time drops by 6 to 7 seconds (using standard road tyres). A set of slick tyres is £500. Another 170bhp - about £6,000 - £12,000 (if done professionally, for some it has cost more). Engine numbers may be an attraction, but sheer driving performance is what it's all about and the 944 Turbo is a great place to start.

To get the most from a 944 Turbo and preserve it's value I recommend keeping engine modifications marginal and making the investment in good suspension, tyres and brakes as this exploits the key benefits any 944 Turbo has as standard; namely 50/50 weight distribution, low weight and low ride height. Almost 20 years on and little else comes close from a pure driving perspective (again, in my considered opinion).

Regards,
Andrew
[]

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: AndrewS
My current car (essentially standard) will do it in 1:16 with little more than standard power.

That is blooming quick. I was at the PCGB race a couple of months back and timed the front runners, 968/964 in the 1:17's and Jez Clarks S2/midfield runners around 1:19. Given that your car is basically a what stage 1 turbo? on KW's and with a high 1300's Kg kerb weight that is pretty amazing. Andrew how does your current car compare to your old race car all those years ago? Also how much quicker is the car after fitting the KW's?

I made a silly comment earlier in that thread, must have been drunk or something but I don't agree with everything Baz says, I think some wires got a bit crossed in the bizarre debate with that AJAX50 guy.

 

[944Turbo]

hmmmmmmm............

 

[AndrewS]

Hi Neil,

My Class 3 race car (924S - 1999 Posche Cup) was low 1:20, my Class 1 race car was low 1:14 (times vary depending on weather, tyre condition and temperature - but that was on P-Zero C treaded control tyres).

The KW suspension reduced time by about a second approx (in current car). My old race car with some further chassis set-up and fresh soft compound slicks could have got into the 1:13 range I think.

Slick tyres make an incredible difference. the current PCGB Club Championship cars use Michelin Pilots (treaded control tyres) and are not as fast as the former Porsche Cup Class 1 cars (which the 944 Turbo was).

Regards,
Andrew

 

[Neil Haughey]

Cheers Andrew, I asked because I am trying to guess in advance how much quicker my race car will be then when it was a road car on konis. Sounds like not an enormous amount quicker, maybe a couple of seconds maybe more as I have had those rock hard Hankooks on for a long time (they just don't seem to wear unless on a very abrasive surface and take for ever to warm up). The differences between cars at this performance level tend to be pretty small, this is a pretty good vid from a guy driving an integra at Combe;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xExnE_MfmBE

I reckon his best laps when he got a clear run are around 1:22 and he could certainly go a lot faster. Getting under 1:15 is very very fast, ISTR the Radicals and similar weaponry run around 1:11 or so.

 

[AndrewS]

Hi Neil,

Times vary enormously. A well driven GT3RS Cup Car can do 1:10 around Combe, a Radical SR8 probably faster. I have seen a 997 GT3RS road car driven by the owner at 1:20 and driven by an instructor 5 secs a lap faster (road tyres). At Silverstone, the differences are greater still with GT3RS cup cars being about 1:57 (estimate) around the GP circuit and my own car being about 2:18 (Cup 1 944 Turbo was 2:08).

What is the spec, power, ride height and weight of your race car?

Regards,
Andrew

 

[Neil Haughey]

Hi Andrew, ISTR power can't be more then 220 on their rollers (Bob Watson ISTR) i.e. stock + allowance, as we all know a good stock S2 motor will often read about 220 sometimes anyways so basically stock. Weight is in the regs but the car without me in it should come out around 1150 to 1160 Kg. Ride height is actually about the same as some of you crazy guys on here so about 40mm or so lower then stock, but we may adjust this over time. I am keeping my spring rates and damper settings close to my chest for now I have gone my own route and specified them myself but they are in the region of 50% stiffer then KW, hence why I am keen to get some track time in the car so we can do some more fine tuning. Dampers are Gaz 2-way, ARB's have to be no better then 968 M030 in the regs and brakes have to be stock calipers and disks in the regs i.e. no medium blacks unlike the 968's in class 1. Car has been built towards class 2 but we have kept everything such that the car can be used as a track day car etc. This means it currently has PAS, wash wipe and front headlights but we have the FG badge panel so any of these bits can be bolted on/off to vary the spec of the car, likewise I have a race battery that can substitute the standard battery. In total I can vary the weight of the car by about 30+ Kg just bolting stuff on/off.

 

[barks944]

I have missed most of this development. How are Hartech making the 3.0 blocks? On a side note does anyone know if a traction control system has been fitted to the 944 turbo.

 

[Suffolk944]

ORIGINAL: barks944

I have missed most of this development. How are Hartech making the 3.0 blocks? On a side note does anyone know if a traction control system has been fitted to the 944 turbo.

Tom, check out the Pistonheads link in DavidL's original post for the full story.

 

[Neil Haughey]

Hi barks, I have been following it for some time since Barry said on PH some time ago that he was building a 3.0 turbo. I believe the bottom end is stock 968 but with modified pistons to lower the CR, the top end from a 2.7 8 valve, everything else stock parts from 2.5 turbo. ISTR it was mapped to suit and that is it. A fairly important piece of work IMHO because it gives us a baseline for what you get by basically increasing the capacity and using off the shelf Porsche parts.

 

[barks944]

I agree it is a good piece of work, I hope they go down the route of creating a liner for the standard engines. That would really keep the 944's alive. John Mitchell sent me the info on the various restrictions in the 944 T's engine few weeks back which I also found very interesting. Porsche really went to town restricting the 944T, quite frankly I'm surprised they even built it!

 

[Frenchy]

I would like to see that list Tom ?