Quote:
CGT1178 said:
0-300=33.6 it was just with ecu(5000km) .. we tryed stock 997TT(2000km) the time was 40.3 s(0-300) .. also we tryed stock 997tt with (15,000km) with hard use the time was 35.1(0-300) s!! .. the 997tt after 12,000km will be another car ! ..also we tryed C6Z06 (6000km) the time was 41.9(100-300)=0-300=41.9+3.9=45.8s !! .. i have the graphs for all this cars but i cant but it because its my friends cars not my cars
Quote:
CGT1178 said:
0-300=33.6 it was just with ecu(5000km) .. we tryed stock 997TT(2000km) the time was 40.3 s(0-300) .. also we tryed stock 997tt with (15,000km) with hard use the time was 35.1(0-300) s!! .. the 997tt after 12,000km will be another car ! ..also we tryed C6Z06 (6000km) the time was 41.9(100-300)=0-300=41.9+3.9=45.8s !! .. i have the graphs for all this cars but i cant but it because its my friends cars not my cars
Quote:
MKSGR said:Quote:
CGT1178 said:
im sure 100% .. manual with overboost :
Impossible for a stock 997TT. It seems that your measurement equipment does not produce correct results This would also explain your very high expectations regarding CGT
Quote:
Crash said:Quote:
MKSGR said:Quote:
CGT1178 said:
im sure 100% .. manual with overboost :
Impossible for a stock 997TT. It seems that your measurement equipment does not produce correct results This would also explain your very high expectations regarding CGT
Markus, I would have said the same thing, but for the results of the other stock Turbo and the Z06, which are almost identical to the times from the Nardo comparison.
Quote:
xandi911 said:
i dont know if it helps but look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqHeJFGOqJA
my car from 110 - 298(after that i "cut" the power.)
with 2000 km and the surface wasnt the best one. the surface was a litlle irregular.
speedo 200-298 about 20 seconds..
Quote:
MKSGR said:Quote:
Crash said:Quote:
MKSGR said:Quote:
CGT1178 said:
im sure 100% .. manual with overboost :
Impossible for a stock 997TT. It seems that your measurement equipment does not produce correct results This would also explain your very high expectations regarding CGT
Markus, I would have said the same thing, but for the results of the other stock Turbo and the Z06, which are almost identical to the times from the Nardo comparison.
Maybe the test equipment was not adjusted properly in certain tests? The 35s for a stock 997TT is impossible
Quote:
eclou said:
weren't the Nardo tests done at much higher temps than 17C? It could make a good 2-3 second difference. Higher IAT's cause the ecu to pull back on the timing and thus give up power
Quote:
eclou said:
weren't the Nardo tests done at much higher temps than 17C? It could make a good 2-3 second difference. Higher IAT's cause the ecu to pull back on the timing and thus give up power
Quote:
GT2ETR said:
There seems to be a problem with the 997TT data at the point of 26 seconds. There is a clear hickup with the long Gs and altitude (dropping) at the same time, as well as a speed dip, typical of a signal problem or datalogger movement. Not saying this is what happened, but a close up would make it clearer.
Quote:
MKSGR said:Quote:
GT2ETR said:
There seems to be a problem with the 997TT data at the point of 26 seconds. There is a clear hickup with the long Gs and altitude (dropping) at the same time, as well as a speed dip, typical of a signal problem or datalogger movement. Not saying this is what happened, but a close up would make it clearer.
Quote:
CGT1178 said:
i use performance box .. if any one have 997tt with 15,000km (hard use) buy the performance box and try .. when we reach 312-314km/h in the speedo the pbox still 299-300km/h .. for the 997tt(15,000km):
0-100=4.1s
0-200=12.3
0-250=20.14s
0-300=35.1s
1/4 mile=12.1s
0-1000m=21.54 (257.29km/h)
Quote:
GT2ETR said:Quote:
CGT1178 said:
i use performance box .. if any one have 997tt with 15,000km (hard use) buy the performance box and try .. when we reach 312-314km/h in the speedo the pbox still 299-300km/h .. for the 997tt(15,000km):
0-100=4.1s
0-200=12.3
0-250=20.14s
0-300=35.1s
1/4 mile=12.1s
0-1000m=21.54 (257.29km/h)
CGT I believe this is an indication that something is wrong. Your 100-200kph is reasonable, about 1 second slower than the RUF whereas your 250-300kph is almost the same at ca. 14 s. where the RUF should be pulling strongest, a 1 second advantage in 100-200kph should translate to a few more seconds over a 250-300kph speed range, except if the RUF is grossly heating which I believe would not be the case.
The dip mentioned earlier at about 270kph might be the explanation. Can you zoom in and post the graph from 250-300kph only and fixing the G and altitude scale? It will take a second to confirm.
The Performance box is a good tool, however a quick loss in satellite signals or sudden accidental movement (bump) will fool the data temporarily. You need to make sure you use an external antenna to reduce the chances (if you don't already).
Up to 5% speedo error is within specs..
Quote:
MKSGR said:Quote:
GT2ETR said:Quote:
CGT1178 said:
i use performance box .. if any one have 997tt with 15,000km (hard use) buy the performance box and try .. when we reach 312-314km/h in the speedo the pbox still 299-300km/h .. for the 997tt(15,000km):
0-100=4.1s
0-200=12.3
0-250=20.14s
0-300=35.1s
1/4 mile=12.1s
0-1000m=21.54 (257.29km/h)
CGT I believe this is an indication that something is wrong. Your 100-200kph is reasonable, about 1 second slower than the RUF whereas your 250-300kph is almost the same at ca. 14 s. where the RUF should be pulling strongest, a 1 second advantage in 100-200kph should translate to a few more seconds over a 250-300kph speed range, except if the RUF is grossly heating which I believe would not be the case.
The dip mentioned earlier at about 270kph might be the explanation. Can you zoom in and post the graph from 250-300kph only and fixing the G and altitude scale? It will take a second to confirm.
The Performance box is a good tool, however a quick loss in satellite signals or sudden accidental movement (bump) will fool the data temporarily. You need to make sure you use an external antenna to reduce the chances (if you don't already).
Up to 5% speedo error is within specs..
Also, it is not only the strange 0-300 figure of the above 997TT that raises concerns regarding the accuracy of the tests. The claimed CGT performance of 26-27s for 0-300 is also far better than everything which is known today (from other experiences, magazine tests etc.).
I would argue that each of the above test results is unlikely. The combination of both is extremely unlikely. Thus, an error in the test equipment or similar could be a likely explanation
Aug 21, 2007 1:06:07 PM
Quote:
CGT1178 said:
i will not put any graph after now (not important) .. but i know all my numbers was righ .. i test around 20 cars with this performance box and all the numbers was right (CGT,3 997TT , RS4 2007 ,CL 600 2007 , bently C GT 2006 , 3 range rover sport ,C6 Z06 , gallardo with exhaust ,,, etc)
Aug 22, 2007 12:20:05 AM
Quote:
Nick_Athens said:
You dont need wires... Checkk it out here...
http://www.performancebox.co.uk/
Quote:
Turbo Al said:Quote:
mp said:
Getting back to the original topic - RUF 550HP mod, it might just be faster than the GT2/599/LP640/CGT etc. What more can anyone ask for?
A 997GT2 with the ECU flashed.