"You've got to start everything with a smile"
That was one of my Dad's sayings.
Happy Boxstering,
Pedro

Good points!

The term 'polishing' is really a holdover from bygone days. Back then, it was thought that smoothly polishing the walls of intake runners produced less turbulent airflow.

In fact, computer modeling and real-time flow bench testing has confirmed that you really want a finely roughed surface, similar to that of a frosted glass. This is how F1 engines have been 'polished' for better than a decade.

This finely roughed surface better supports the establishment of a boundary layer along the intake runner walls allowing air to flow more smoothly over it.

:cheers:

Not true... you want a uniformly polished surface. It does not have to be imperfection free, mirror "shiny" polished for every application but rough is definitely not the goal. This per one of the top companies who proprietarily performs honing service for the likes of NASCAR, NHRA, IRL, CART and SCCA as well as for OEM applications.

PowerFlow Performance
Extrude Hone uses advanced surface finishing solutions, to remove rough cast surfaces that restrict horsepower efficiency of racing/performance components. By enlarging and uniformly polishing internal air and fluid passages, flow velocity is maximized.

More here

Kirk,
Don't underestimate the GTech as a useful tool for evaluating performance. Like a dyno or GPS datalogger, a windshield mounted accelerometer can yield very good results once you have a good baseline. insite did a comparison between the $200 GTech and a $2000 Traqmate GPS and the results were nearly identical. It looks simple and doesn't cost much but it does give very good real world (rubber on the road) performance data when set up and used correctly.

What the rough surface does is encourage a turbulent boundary layer, as opposed to a laminar one. The turbulent boundary layer is typically thinner and less "sticky" to both the bulk flow and the wall, helping the bulk flow.

In the case of mold flashing, however, if it's there, its bad for flow.

Verdict?
 

OK.... I've read everything. And I've watched Pedro's video. A few thngs bother me, such as Porsche substantially reducing the R and L tubes exiting the splitter at the same time that they increased the the engine size from 2.5L to 2.7L.
That sort of says that the capacity of these tubes is not all that important. So, is a little turbulence really a big deal? So, what does that mean for TechnoTorque?? Of course the smaller tubes also increase the velocity of the air at this point, and that may be to the engines advantage! Who knows?

I would like to believe the claims made by Pedro, as he is a respected straight shooter. But we really need some buyer/user input at this time. Both for the TechnoTroque and TechnoTorque2.

Readers want to know. Is there really a noticable and impressive difference in torque at these mid range RPMs??? Is there really a noticable or measurable MPG difference???

Considering Pedro's return policy, the only loss if a buyer is dissatisfied is one way shipping cost and a few hours labor.

Bob

I ordered one as well and if the thing works as well as his customer service than I should get 50+ HP out of it! He responded extremely quickly to my questions and the part had a tracking number barely after I hit the "send" button on my email.

Thanks Pedro!

Sammy

I've never claimed that there's an impressive difference in torque.
I've been stating that there's a gain of 6 to 8 extra foot-pounds of torque at 900 less revolutions.
That's roughly a 4% increase, depending on the particular car.
Happy Boxstering,
Pedro

Sammy, can you do a before/after dyno?
I'd be willing to donate a few bucks towards the dyno pulls so we can get some real numbers.

Pedro,
What is the install time on this piece?

I just cleaned my thottle body and noticed on my 2001 "s" that it had a curved throttle body(no splitter of course). After 60k miles it there was very little carbon build up. I don't know if it was due to the previous owner always using chevron w/techron gas, or just driving habits.

I am still very interested in the dyno of pedro's to see true HP gain.

Curious of how they secure the "splitter" in there. Is it epoxy or what?

Install, with cleaning the TB takes ~ 1 hr. w/o should be ~ 30min.

The TB's cleanliness has nothing to due w/ Techron fuel additives as only air and oil mist (from the AOS) flow thru the TB.

There definitely is a noticeable torque difference. Not so much in the peak power band, but lower starting around 2800 RPMs in my butt dyno experience. I've had mine installed for over 2 months now FWIW.

The splitter is secured w/ both epoxy and a machine screw from the outside (belt and suspenders kinda thing)

Thanks again Pedro :cheers:

:)

For me it's simple:
Pedro is a very respected member of the board and a source of much trusted and helpful advise. I am 100% sure that when he made this product he stands completely behind it because he knows it works. This is NOT snake oil or Turbonator or whatever crap is out there. Yes it will not give you 50 hp or 50 lb of torque but it will add a little.

Long story short: I am planning to order one as soon as possible

Guys please! I've NEVER claimed HP gains!......
 

... the claims are: peak of 6 to 8 more ft-lbs of torque at 900 less RPMs and a 1.5-2 better MPG at cruising speeds.
The HP curve should not change at all.
HP is made at the higher RPM range, where the car is sucking in 7,500 liters of air per minute (at 6000 rpm). With that volume of air the TechnoTorque doesn't do anything.
Torque is made at half that speed and is really needed below 3000 rpm, especially from idle where the car is only taking in 1,000 liters of air per minute (for a 2.5 liter engine). It's with these smaller volumes of air where we can gain a little efficiency and thus generate more torque.
Happy Boxstering,
Pedro

Thanks for the reply Pedro. Oh, I enjoyed the video and thought it was well done. I don't remember if anybody asked this or if you covered it in your vid, but could you answer what kind of torque and mpg will I get on a 2001 "s" with the curved style throttle body "T"?

Thanks again and I cleaned my throttle body today, with your help of course! :cheers: As i said above, I was suprised at the lack of build up in it even after 62k miles.

Side note: I think these are the types of mods a lot of us are looking for. If I can add "x" hp/torque and "x" mpg at a low cost, well that is better than adding x+1 hp and x+1 mgp at a high cost!! We have been talking about these kind of mods behind the scenes for awhle now and a few of us don't think it's worth spending $2k+ on a 15 or 25hp gain. For that money with any other car you get at least a 50 to 100 hp gain.

Curious, does the curved style plenum for the 00-04 models equally split up the air? Just wondering since by design, it looks like the curved plenum after the throttle body opening towards the end of the tee, might favor more air to one side...

Does the air splitter on the techotorque2 split any differently to accomodate for that, or does it not matter?

I'll look into it and see what I can come up with. I am curious as to how much power I'm putting down with full exhaust and CAI and then add in the TechnoTorque. To be continued... maybe. (sorry, but have a lot going on right now so I might not be able to do it)

I will be getting it next week and will be doing an autocross that weekend so we'll see if it gets me out of the hole better at lower RPM's in 2nd gear.

Just ordered one day from Pedro. He called me up and told me he doesn't accept credit cards. Just send me a check after you get it. :eek: Seems like a great guy and a man of his word. No hype, just results or your money back. For less than $300, what do I have to loose. IMO, the low rev range is where the boxster lags.

Pedro: Not being a wise guy here, but is 4% really noticeable? The concept sounds great and the quality looks good, but unless the buyer can safely say "Hey, I can really feel the difference in 'power' and performance, why would we spend the money and labor.??

Another thing that bothers me is your video demo. Redirecting the air strean because the "wedge" compresses the air stream by removing turbulance may make the velocity of the air greater at the extra distance to knock down the foam discs, but it'[s not really delivering more air. Remember that the air is not being pushed into the intake manifold by a turbo or reversed vacuum system, but is being drawn or pulled in as the engine creates vacuum at the other end. That has a big effect on turbulance the way I see it. I'm not saying that the splitter concept doesn't work somewhat, but that the video test is not a valid measure or demonstration of the value of TurboTorque.

The bottom line is really the feedback that we get from customers who participate in this forum. For those who are willing to buy and try, are you fully willing to refund if we are not satisfied with the performance improvement??

Bob

I will try to find the thread on the curved style plenum, If I remember right it says their is less gain on that type, as Porsche redesigned it themselves for improved performance.

4% in torque is 4%. Some people may feel the difference, others may not.
In my car I believe my AX times are a bit better due to the improvement.
Granted, I have always said that making just one change in your system doesn't always give you gains. In my car there are "a few" hacks through the intake/exhaust.
You need to modify intake and exhaust and the ECU needs to know that you've modified it by remapping (or chipping).
Many aftermarket exhausts claim 10-18 HP gains and many people never see those gains because they don't modify the intake and remap the ECU.
The video demo was made to illustrate within my means. I'm sure that I could spend a few thousand and do something more scientific.
I ain't getting rich from this venture. It's basically a hobby.
But, I believe the demo is valid, because it shows that with the same amount of air flowing through the tee (the output of the ShopVac) you gain more efficiency with the TechnoTorque by having it travel faster and further through the modified tee.
In my way of seeing things this is good.
You may not agree, and that's OK.
You don't have to purchase one, if you're not convinced that it's a good investment for you.
I'd like to sell one to every Boxster owner, but I know that ain't gonna happen ;)
Happy Boxstering,
Pedro

I balance the air to both sides by shifting the aero-slitter from dead center.
It's not the same splitter for the early ('97-'99) Boxsters and for the newer ('00-'04) ones.
That's basically why Porsche splits the path on the 987s. They need to balance it better to get that extra umph.
Happy Boxstering,
Pedro

Have you watched this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFmLlwKD69w

The product tested here is being compared immediately after the bolt-in of the new produst with impressive gains in HP and torque. There does not appear to be any wait for the ECU to adapt to the change. For Pedro's TurboTorque 30-100 miles is recommended for the ECU to adapt and compensate for the change. That seems reasonable, so what about the product in this video?? But their price is too darn high.

I just ordered one for my 2000 base Boxster. There is a slim chance I will be able to do a baseline pull, install the unit, then drive a bit and do another pull. I have a busy schedule these days, but I will post if can make it to the dyno, what fun....

Ed

:dance:

On the last line of IPD's Installation Instructions they state:
>>It will take approximately 5 to 50 miles for the DME/ECU to recognize the increased air flow and make the necessary adaptation corrections complete.
Thank you once again for your purchase of the IPD intake plenum.>>
http://roadsportsupply.com/PDFs/IPD/Plenum_Inst_Part_96200_96201.pdf

Happy Boxstering,
Pedro

Dyno tests and the IPD video
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFmLlwKD69w

I just read the Tech Q&A column in PCA's Porsche Panorama mag of Aug 2009. Someone wrote in to ask about the RSS IPD plenum product that was tested in the video. The answer indicates that if the dyno test appears to have been done with only a single dyno pull, then an install of the plenum, followed by another single dyno pull, then it's likely that much of the HP and torque gain was due to the gear oil being warmer on the second pull which by itself can account for between 10 and 30 additional HP. Unless the test were done with more respect to accurate dyno test procedures requiring multiple pulls, and the necessary miles to get the ECU to recognise the new plenum, the entire test appears invalid and misleading.

So, there is little evidence that the IPD product is worth anything, much less $1000+, and I'm not yet convienced that Pedro's product can provide a performance increase that is really noticable.

Like I said before, it's up to the readers of this forum to shell out the $260 or so to find out and report back to us via forum. Personally, I am not in a position to make this experiment unless I have Pedro's willingness to assist. I'm sure that like me, there are dozens of you that would be willing to provide feedback to this forum regarding Pedro's plenum product based on seat of pants evaluation. I agree with Pedro that subjecting the product to a real valid dyno testing is too expensive. I'd be happier with the opinion of several of you guys based on a real driver's test.

Bob

If you look at the kinda back and forth you see even after dyno runs were completed on the IPD Plenum...(just check out the debate that arose in the following 6speed thread), you'll see that there's always going to be controversy. From what I've seen so far, every single person who has installed Pedro's TechnoTorque has said positive things. His product only costs a quarter of what IPD/RSS is charging, and it is fully reversible as he doesn't ask for your core Tee, so it's just a matter of whether or not you're willing to give it a shot and try it if you're so inclined.

http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/997/132163-i-there-rss-plenum-dyno-day.html

Maybe I'm giving the dyno guys too much credit here, but I would think they would warm up the engine before doing a pull to redline? Also, I would trust a real dyno way before the good old "butt dyno." So many people swear certain "upgrades" makes their car faster due to placebo effect, when in reality it's not any quicker and sometimes even be slower. While not perfect, a dyno is much more objective than we are and discrepancies are often due to user error more than the dyno itself.

I don't tend to give dynos too much credit.
They generally do one or two runs and that's it.
They can completely skew results if the operator is not well versed on his machine.
Also with a dyno, you're not really putting a "real" load on the engine, as the car is stationary (on rollers) and the load depends on the dyno's program or operator input.
With an accelerometer you get real load on the engine, as the car has to accelerate it's own mass and cut through the air (drag). It's much harder to foul up results from an accelerometer, especially when you average out 10 runs.
Happy Boxstering,
Pedro

When making their video, in seconds they could have mentioned what prep was done for the dyno test in the interest of accuracy....they didn't. The whole point of Dyno Day was to establish credibility for the plenum product, so I'm surprised they did try harder to anticipate what suspicions we may have about the testing method.

Regarding seat-of-pants testing, knowing that I have a certain number of HP more than I used to is not as important than saying that I can feel it. And I do believe in the placebo effect as you describe it. That's why I want feedback from a bunch of Pedro Plenum buyers rather that the one or two that have reported so far. Also, there are two products from Pedro depending on the year of your car. We need results info on each.

I've read most everything posted anywhere on the RSS product. If it was cheaper, I'd probably want to try it. But for that price I can live without it. Pedro's, on the other hand is tempting due to price. I just want to be a bit more convinced that it really works.

Bob (cautious skeptic)

I love these discussions.....
I'll go along with Pedro on dyno's & their operators.
My experiences with dyno runs (mostly with motorcycles I must admit) is they are basically to give you just that - a baseline. Thats why SEVERAL runs must be made on the same day, preferably @ the same atmospheric temperature and humidity and (of course) on the same dyno.
On road engines (but not race engines) the first run nearly always shows the lowest HP and torque figures because a) the fluids are not always up to a highe enough temp (especially the transmission oils) and b) the engines have usually a lot of carbon and oil buildup in the rings and valves from normal day to day running.
Owners look shocked when they see chunks of carbon and soot emitting from the exhaust as their engines are opened up for the first time, quickly followed by the pall of oil smoke on the overrun after the first dyno run....
But its the 3rd or 4th hard run that gives you the baseline from which to compare engine outputs that really mean anything - that's when the engine is fully warmed up and the combustion chambers are cleaned out.
Pedro may well be fine tuning the basic Porsche design and for the cost, it won't break the bank (Christmas is not far away...)
I wonder if he has de-snorkelled his car as well as fitted the TechnoTorque splitter?

I've been working on getting a little bit out of my car since the day I bought it almost 12 years ago.

I've de-snorkeled, added a hi-flo intake, installed the TechnoTorque, added headers, installed 100 cell cats, modified the muffler and remapped the ECU to accept all these mods and also to raise the rev limiter by 200 RPMs to 7,000.

Although it's only a 2.5 liter it can run with the 3.2s and 3.4s.

I love working on Boxsters and Caymans.
Happy Boxstering,
Pedro

The Panorama Q&A answer was poorly researched, if at all. The writer admitted no knowledge of the IPD plenum and then went on to remark on dyno testing in general rather than specifically addressing the readers question about the plenum. I was very disappointed by the lack of effort that was put into this answer to actually research the product and address the root question.

As such, I would not take these comments as a negative blow to the IPD product or Pedro's product. The answer simply gave good information about dyno tests in general and how the results can vary, but it did not address the product in question or how that product was specifically tested.

Kirk

any new updates/reviews on the techno torque?

How does this compare to the RSS/IPD Plenum? The plenum guys seem to make good power throughout the powerband.

I know it's not the same comparison, but looking here at their dyno chart for the Cayman S IPD/RSS Plenum, there were gains everywhere, with ~24hp and ~19ft-lb torque peak...

http://www.roadsportsupply.com/images/Dyno_Specs/Caymen_S_87500_Dyno_Specs.jpg

I'm wondering though, how come with Pedro's splitter/plenum, he says 6-8ft-lb at lower rpms with not much gain for the higher rpm hp? The RSS plenum seems to get the gains from low to mid, and high rpms...

thoughts anyone?

i'd also like to hear about some "seat of the pants" evaluations of this mod.

these are the kind of mods that would potentially be great "bang for the buck" mods. something that requires minimal effort to put in, costs not that much, and potentially can make enough power that you could actually detect it via the "butt dyno".....

i'm anxious to hear some real world reviews...

Jake Raby just ran a couple dyno curves with and without the techno torque. But he gave the curves to Pedro and we're all waiting for them to be posted.... Nothing yet.

If you watch the video of the RSS/IPD dyno day you'll see that most cars also made around a 24 HP increase in power, but it was not consistent across the entire rev range. At max HP the average seemed to be only around a 6 HP gain. Still not bad though.

Kirk

the air flow diagram shown by Pedro shows deliberate/smooth routing of the air on the bottom side, the top side is not contoured due to the use of stock intake tubing. IPD replaces this with smooth Y design all around. it's logical that if the top surface is equally contoured, additional 2X gain may be realized.
Ratio of IPD to Pedro is roughly 2X, Pedro's mod affects only 1/2 of the pipe, IPD mods entire ID of the pipe.

I'm following this thread and waiting for some good feedback from Pedro and IPD customers. If nobody is so impressed as to take the time to comment about it here, I'll take that as a negative opinion and figure that they are embarassed to tell us that they sepnt their money on a useless mod.
That sounds like a tough way to view it, but what else can I do? I'm just not in a position to spend the $s based on charts and graphs that are under the control or influence of the product manufacturers.

I want to hear from several forum contributers.

For that matter, I want the manufacturers of both products to offer a clear satisfaction guarantee. If I'm not reasonably imporessed I would not want to keep the product or argue about returning it. These are tough financial times and I'm a tough consumer.

Bob

Hi, I agree 100% :cheers:

you know, IIRC, someone on this forum posted that he called Pedro to order one of the techno torque's and Pedro sent him the item BEFORE he paid, and basically said "pay me when you get it"...or something oike that...

now I have no idea if that is something he does for everyone, or if this was a repeated customer and he did him a favor - but that sounds to me - to essentially be a "100% satisfaction" promise and th en some... send the customer the product and then ask for payment later..... if you don't like it, i guess you send it back instead of a check... :)

maybe Pedro can have a payment method called "bill me later" like the magazines do.... :) at least he coudl do that for the first handful of products.... the goal in the business world is to get yoru stuff out there. if 25 986 owners got this item tomorrow, and then posted honest opinions -a nd they were 99% positive... logic would tend to suggest he would sell another 75 of them....

how many 986 members are on this site? his product fits on the majority of the cars that are owned by members who frequest this site.... do the math.

you might want to move some of these FAST pedro.... tell you what.. send me one for FREE and I'll give you my honest opinion... :D hahahaahhahaa

Bobiam & Franco-

In post # 3 of this thread, you'll see one is installed in my '99 and has been for more than 3 months now. I did then and do now give it a huge thumbs up! The difference is very noticeable and a few people who have driven my car since I installed noticed the difference as well. None of them knew I had even put it in but commented blindly about it to me after driving. So I've posted my impressions here in this thread and others as well on some other Boxster boards.

That being said, and w/ or w/o times being economically tough, a lot of people do not do much modding w/ intake systems other than adding an aftermkt filter (a la K&N etc.). Some will put a cold air intake on but otherwise the mods typically stop there. Thus why there's not a ton of feedback on the part. It's a newer area to fiddle around w/ and personally, I'm surprised it's not really looked at even more (though Porsche tweaked it again for the 987s vs 986.2 which was tweaked vs 986.1).

As I said previously, I won mine so I don't have to say positive things just to feel good about $ spent b/c I'm not out anything. Plus, knowing Pedro's more than generous return policy (quoting Bobiam earlier in this thread: "Considering Pedro's return policy, the only loss if a buyer is dissatisfied is one way shipping cost and a few hours labor."), I really don't see what's to lose (other than 1 hour installing, 2hrs if you subsequently remove, and $10 shipping)?

At this point since others are not providing feedback to your satisfaction, why not become a leaders instead of a followers waiting on the sidelines? Buy one, test it out for yourselves and post your results.

:)