Techno Torque 2

[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.

[ppbon]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

[Bobiam]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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)

[Steve Tinker]

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?

[ppbon]

Originally Posted by Steve Tinker

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

[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

[chaudanova]

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?

[23109VC]

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...

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by chaudanova

any new updates/reviews on the techno torque?

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

[sb01box]

Originally Posted by chaudanova

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?

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.

[Bobiam]

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