When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
2003 manual cabriolet
My contribution to this exercise. Keep in mind that I have no clue what I was doing. I just bought a bunch of bolt-ons and hoped for the best. I remember as a young soldier in the late 70s and the joke was “you bought everything on page 123 in the J.C. Whitney catalog.” My intent wasn’t to get a bunch of horses added, I just wanted better throttle response for random spirited driving. Also some of this was for pure maintenance.
These are my bolt-ons and modifications:
· Coil packs, plugs and wires
· Fuel injectors
· IDP competition plenum and 82mm throttle body (I think that was the size)
· MAF
· Top Gear headers
· Top Gear 200 Cell cats
· Fister mod
· 997 air box with standard air filter
· SAI
· AOS
· Engine mounts
· Transmission mounts
· Oil change
Because of some other things going on, I couldn’t get a great explanation for the dyno results. I do recall being told I got some decent gains in the mid-range. Was it worth it? I don’t know, car drives great and very responsive so I’m happy. I am curious about my numbers, are they decent or did I waste a lot of money (it was expensive), effort and time.
911STYL
Thanks for sharing - I'll offer up an opinion on if I thought it was worth it... I'm going to make some assumptions - you ended with 284WHP (I'm throwing out the Mustang to estimated dynojet as it looks unrealistically high, compared to the other cars with similar mods, I would think closer to 300 DJ WHP), if the starting point pre mods was the 251WHP - **** yeah I'd say it's worth it, thats a 33WHP gain.
Originally Posted by 2005 996 C4S
Per Zbomb's reuqest I wanted to share my car with the thread. I have a 2005 Porsche 996 and decided to go with a Flat 6 Innovations stage 2 4.0 motor. I had previously put on all the bolt on's, intake, exhaust, softronics tune, IPD plenum, etc and saw barely noticeable gains via the butt dyno. These are the results of my Flat 6 innovations motor, measured at the wheels of course. The car has: Speedtech exhaust with high flow cat x pipe, 997 air box - BMC air filter, IPD Plenum, and the upgraded motor. The car is completely different and has more power everywhere, by a lot. I do not think the dyno sheet is accurate however maybe due to heat soak potentially? The reason i say that is when this motor hits 6k RPM's it feels like a turbo kicking in and races to the 7500 redline ( 250 up from the stock redline ). It must have another 20 HP jump in that spot or so it seems. The dyno plot however doesn't show that surge at the end. I do have a GT2 deck lid which pumps cold air right into the intake snorkel so maybe on the road that is optimized. The car also keeps getting stronger as it breaks in, it is noticeably quicker and more responsive at 4500 miles in where I am at now verses when I first flashed the tune after break in. If anyone has any questions on this build feel free to ask.
Thanks for sharing man, nice to get one of the benchmark combos up for review. It's a little down on the previous 4.0 that was posted at the peak but this, at least for me, is one of those it's close enough between the different dyno's to be reasonable. @Peedster has Schrick cams on his, if his car is a little higher, that would be a place to look - I don't know what the FSI 4.0 uses for cams. It would be interesting to see after you get some more miles on it if the power picks up in any significant way. Thanks for putting it up man, I appreciate it.
@911STYL Hope you don't mind me re-posting a picture of your dyno sheet.
Were these runs really 10 minutes apart as the sheet indicates? Was the stock run really before any of the bolt-ons or is this showing us the result of an ECU flash (SMS Stage 2 run)?
Potential power adders
· IDP competition plenum and 82mm throttle body (I think that was the size)
· Top Gear headers
· Top Gear 200 Cell cats
· Fister mod
· 997 air box with standard air filter
· SMS tune?
Gains of 33 whp and 42 wtq pretty much across the board for less than $5k would be a bargain in the world of NA Porsche. It's just unusual to me to see all gains and no losses across the entire power band in NA. Run 2 almost mirrors run 1 just higher. You appear to have found a magic combination!
Last edited by Falcon911; 09-09-2022 at 05:29 AM.
Reason: grammatical correction
Thanks for sharing - I'll offer up an opinion on if I thought it was worth it... I'm going to make some assumptions - you ended with 284WHP (I'm throwing out the Mustang to estimated dynojet as it looks unrealistically high, compared to the other cars with similar mods, I would think closer to 300 DJ WHP), if the starting point pre mods was the 251WHP - **** yeah I'd say it's worth it, thats a 33WHP gain.
Thanks for sharing man, nice to get one of the benchmark combos up for review. It's a little down on the previous 4.0 that was posted at the peak but this, at least for me, is one of those it's close enough between the different dyno's to be reasonable. @Peedster has Schrick cams on his, if his car is a little higher, that would be a place to look - I don't know what the FSI 4.0 uses for cams. It would be interesting to see after you get some more miles on it if the power picks up in any significant way. Thanks for putting it up man, I appreciate it.
FSI doesn't do cam's. Their goal is to maintain a large midrange and not to focus on peak. I believe they would do a peaky motor however they do not reccomend it. The dyno chart shown for my car was done at 100 miles on the motor so it was still very fresh and tight. They just port and polish the heads to optimize the flow. They tell me if you go too far opening the heads up you lose midrange which most street drivers want as that is where the car lives. I don't personally think you can get much from these cars without getting inside the engine ( just based on my experience ), they flow what they flow. FSI does it by balancing the engine, higher compression, larger displacement, and the head work. I agree, I want to get it on a dyno with good air pumping into the intake to see what it really makes now that it is somewhat broken in.
FSI doesn't do cam's. Their goal is to maintain a large midrange and not to focus on peak. I believe they would do a peaky motor however they do not reccomend it. The dyno chart shown for my car was done at 100 miles on the motor so it was still very fresh and tight. They just port and polish the heads to optimize the flow. They tell me if you go too far opening the heads up you lose midrange which most street drivers want as that is where the car lives. I don't personally think you can get much from these cars without getting inside the engine ( just based on my experience ), they flow what they flow. FSI does it by balancing the engine, higher compression, larger displacement, and the head work. I agree, I want to get it on a dyno with good air pumping into the intake to see what it really makes now that it is somewhat broken in.
On the cams, it does not look like @Peedster case he gave up anything,
At 3K RPM, he's at 270 FT/LBS, you're at 255ish. At 3.5K RPM he's at 290 FT/LBS, you're at 285... I have heard the peaky motor thing on cams before and in theory, it certainly could make sense but there is very little, if any evidence of what actually happens. At least in this comparison, I don't see any downside anywhere in the RPM range.
As far as the other mods, there is a picture emerging of a path to get to around 300WHP with bolt on's and a tune...
Thats more than I thought when I started this thread and I'm happy to see it. Those guys above have very repeatable setup's and ended up with relatively repeatable results. That would give me some good confidence that I could go out and get myself 300WHP just by replicating what they did.
On the cams, it does not look like @Peedster case he gave up anything,
At 3K RPM, he's at 270 FT/LBS, you're at 255ish. At 3.5K RPM he's at 290 FT/LBS, you're at 285... I have heard the peaky motor thing on cams before and in theory, it certainly could make sense but there is very little, if any evidence of what actually happens. At least in this comparison, I don't see any downside anywhere in the RPM range.
As far as the other mods, there is a picture emerging of a path to get to around 300WHP with bolt on's and a tune...
Thats more than I thought when I started this thread and I'm happy to see it. Those guys above have very repeatable setup's and ended up with relatively repeatable results. That would give me some good confidence that I could go out and get myself 300WHP just by replicating what they did.
I like the thread, definitely interesting collection of data. 290-300 sounds possible. Its tough too because dyno to dyno results can be so different so its hard to compare dyno charts if they were no all done on the same dyno. I'm just fully in the Flat 6 innovation camp of thinking, obviously or I wouldn't have gotten their motor. I talked extensively with Jake about how all these parts work or don't work with cars. He has tested most of the aftermarket parts together and with various configurations. He will tell you straight up what each mod will gain or lose when put on these cars. he won't let you put on many aftermarket mods as he doesn't want his motors compromised by bad modifications. All I know is I had all the bolt on upgrades I could get with a tune and my car feels 50% faster than it did before I got the motor upgrade. The M96 3.6 doesn't typically gain much power with RPM past 4500 RPM, mine now does in a big way. I would love to see someone else with a FSI motor post on here. You never see anyone post them online. I assume because they don't want to be heckled for not gaining 150hp with their investment. My car also had bore scoring starting so it was going to need new cylinders eventually.
I like the thread, definitely interesting collection of data. 290-300 sounds possible. Its tough too because dyno to dyno results can be so different so its hard to compare dyno charts if they were no all done on the same dyno. I'm just fully in the Flat 6 innovation camp of thinking, obviously or I wouldn't have gotten their motor. I talked extensively with Jake about how all these parts work or don't work with cars. He has tested most of the aftermarket parts together and with various configurations. He will tell you straight up what each mod will gain or lose when put on these cars. he won't let you put on many aftermarket mods as he doesn't want his motors compromised by bad modifications. All I know is I had all the bolt on upgrades I could get with a tune and my car feels 50% faster than it did before I got the motor upgrade. The M96 3.6 doesn't typically gain much power with RPM past 4500 RPM, mine now does in a big way. I would love to see someone else with a FSI motor post on here. You never see anyone post them online. I assume because they don't want to be heckled for not gaining 150hp with their investment. My car also had bore scoring starting so it was going to need new cylinders eventually.
Engine builders will certainly build stuff they they know will work, their way. I think for me at least as a curious guy, it’s super interesting to see what makes up the foundational aspects of what they build. In comparing your output to stock, it’s hard to argue, it certainly corrects some of the glaring deficiencies in the stock power delivery, particularly for a street driven example and provides a good increase in power. It looks like in comparison to a stock car, it will be a lot more fun.
Now when we compare your graph to some of the bolt on / tune cars what I see is the bolt on cars still have some of that funky power delivery stuff, the dips and bumps in the graphs where yours has a much smoother delivery, but they make good power. If you say that to get to 300WHP you can get there with bolt on’s, which is what the data shows so far, but to get to 330-350, you’re talking about a built 4.0 - that’s really good info for guys that are evaluating their goals. Like, is the extra 30WHP worth the expense and time ? I don’t know, it’s going to be different for everyone.
With regards to the lack of FSI graphs, my opinion is people have been left to imagine how much power these builds will make because there is a reluctance from customers and FSI to show them in an open forum, couple people having to use their imagination with the tone of the builder when he was posting on here and yeah - it’s reasonable to imagine expectations may be high, maybe unrealistically so. That’s an easy fix - be transparent, set expectations appropriately and there will be no ammo for anyone to use to heckle.
Last edited by zbomb; 09-09-2022 at 01:12 PM.
Reason: My grammar is equivalent to a 10 year old
FSI doesn't do cam's. Their goal is to maintain a large midrange and not to focus on peak. I believe they would do a peaky motor however they do not reccomend it. The dyno chart shown for my car was done at 100 miles on the motor so it was still very fresh and tight. They just port and polish the heads to optimize the flow. They tell me if you go too far opening the heads up you lose midrange which most street drivers want as that is where the car lives. I don't personally think you can get much from these cars without getting inside the engine ( just based on my experience ), they flow what they flow. FSI does it by balancing the engine, higher compression, larger displacement, and the head work. I agree, I want to get it on a dyno with good air pumping into the intake to see what it really makes now that it is somewhat broken in.
Will you guys get first dibs on their new 997.1 X51 intakes?
Every street car that I have cammed has always been a disappointment to me. Losing low end torque for high end power and proper idle quality isn’t fun in my book.
I can see a slightly larger cam in a 4.0 engine working, but most often a cam that makes good dyno numbers isn’t too fun for daily driving.
A much more exotic m97 based 4.0L X51. High compression CP pistons Carillo rods injectors from Injector dynamics X51 heads x51 intake manifold Stepped headers dry sump oiling system Motec ecu and race fuel
Designed for strong torque curve not a max hp number. Racing class weight is determined by peak number (+9lbs per hp)
Engine builders will certainly build stuff they they know will work, their way. I think for me at least as a curious guy, it’s super interesting to see what makes up the foundational aspects of what they build. In comparing your output to stock, it’s hard to argue, it certainly corrects some of the glaring deficiencies in the stock power delivery, particularly for a street driven example and provides a good increase in power. It looks like in comparison to a stock car, it will be a lot more fun.
Now when we compare your graph to some of the bolt on / tune cars what I see is the bolt on cars still have some of that funky power delivery stuff, the dips and bumps in the graphs where yours has a much smoother delivery, but they make good power. If you say that to get to 300WHP you can get there with bolt on’s, which is what the data shows so far, but to get to 330-350, you’re talking about a built 4.0 - that’s really good info for guys that are evaluating their goals. Like, is the extra 30WHP worth the expense and time ? I don’t know, it’s going to be different for everyone.
With regards to the lack of FSI graphs, my opinion is people have been left to imagine how much power these builds will make because there is a reluctance from customers and FSI to show them in an open forum, couple people having to use their imagination with the tone of the builder when he was posting on here and yeah - it’s reasonable to imagine expectations may be high, maybe unrealistically so. That’s an easy fix - be transparent, set expectations appropriately and there will be no ammo for anyone to use to heckle.
I will end my FSI comments here as I know that is not the point of the thread. FSI has many options for engines and will build them based on what the customer wants out of it. I could have gotten a 4.0 making more power than mine however I opted for mid range as the focus and longevity as a goal. I was actually shocked to have the peak power that I got. Getting some peak number wasn't my goal so they build mine for mid range and longevity with the clearances setup for track use as needed. They have some special motors that make much more power than the standard 4.0L motors. So there are lots of options. Jake is from the old school like me. He would rather someone call him to discuss what he can do verses post things online and let people debate and make assumptions about them. They just don't open bores and heads to make as much power as they can they develop different setups and systems that match the external components to reach specific goals for motors based on their needs.
Last edited by 2005 996 C4S; 09-21-2022 at 07:49 AM.
A much more exotic m97 based 4.0L X51. High compression CP pistons Carillo rods injectors from Injector dynamics X51 heads x51 intake manifold Stepped headers dry sump oiling system Motec ecu and race fuel
Designed for strong torque curve not a max hp number. Racing class weight is determined by peak number (+9lbs per hp)
Is this wheel hp measured with a dyno or corrected? That's a lot of ponys.
What is the wheel to crank correction for these cars? Do we have anything empirical on it?
I believe the super flow is an engine dyno, not a chassis dyno. Can you post a chassis sheet ? As the poster above said, will be nice to get some actual drivetrain loss info.
Parts list sounds pretty awesome, don't know of anyone running a dry sump on one of these engines so that is pretty cool.
09-08-2022, 08:20 PM
