Techno Torque 2

[mptoledo]

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?

[Burg Boxster]

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

[ChrisZang]

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

[ppbon]

Originally Posted by mptoledo

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?

... 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

[mptoledo]

Originally Posted by ppbon

... 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! 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.

[chaudanova]

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?

[mptoledo]

Originally Posted by chaudanova

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 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.

[ppbon]

Originally Posted by chaudanova

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 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

[Bobiam]

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.

[edevlin]

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:

[ppbon]

Originally Posted by Bobiam

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.

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

[Bobiam]

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

[Boxtaboy]

Originally Posted by Bobiam

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Bobiam

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

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.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Bobiam

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. SNIP

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.

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