Close

    • AMS Alpha 9 package Porsche 997.1 Turbo Dynojet results on 93 octane, Shell URT, and MS109 plus 60-130 run

      Below you will find a set of dyno results for an AMS Performance Alpha 9 equipped manual Porsche 997.1 Turbo. AMS rates the Alpha 9 package at 900 horsepower at the crank. The package includes upgraded turbochargers with billet wheels, upgraded intercoolers, carbon fiber intakes, large diameter y-pipe, and tuning for various octane fuels including pump gas. This particular car also has an upgraded clutch to handle the increased torque.



      Here is the baseline for the car on a Dynojet with 93 octane pump. The car has an unnamed tune and a Miltek exhaust. The result is a peak of 461 wheel horsepower:



      Now here is the Alpha 9 package on 93 octane pump gas. A peak of 694 wheel horsepower was achieved:



      On Shell URT Advanced and MS109 both hit the same 763 wheel horsepower peak so just over 300 wheel horsepower more than the baseline:



      How about the 60-130 time? A blistering 5.97 seconds on 93 octane pump gas. The AMS Alpha 9 package proves it packs a serious punch:


      This article was originally published in forum thread: AMS Alpha 9 package Porsche 997.1 Turbo Dynojet results on 93 octane, Shell URT, and MS109 plus 60-130 run started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 40 Comments
      1. onisyndicate's Avatar
        onisyndicate -
        now that thing halls some serious ass! had no issues putting the power down either!
      1. boostedmaserati's Avatar
        boostedmaserati -
        @ams this is awesome! I used to buy all your DSM products Click here to enlarge
      1. bigdnno98's Avatar
        bigdnno98 -
        crazy 60-130 time for that HP. congrats.
      1. fastgti69's Avatar
        fastgti69 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bigdnno98 Click here to enlarge
        crazy 60-130 time for that HP. congrats.
        Yea it was on 93 octane. AWD is on another level.
      1. SpeedLimit?'s Avatar
        SpeedLimit? -
        damn! who needs a 991?!
      1. benzy89's Avatar
        benzy89 -
        There's a thread picking up some steam over on 6Speed that this kit is really bogus marketing from AMS saying that it can put down over 900 HP on Race Gas.... Allegedly the Alpha 9 package utilizes billet K16s, and the established performance numbers are concerning.

        AMS shows this 5.97 60-130 on 93, @ peak 694 WHP. The K16 WR is 5.87 with 550 WHP. The same user later went 5.35 with 650 WHP and 4.65 at 800 WHP...... SO something is not adding up if this car is really making 694 on 93 and the 60-130 is closer to 6 seconds instead of 5.
      1. benzy89's Avatar
        benzy89 -
        @Sticky -- Can you edit my post, the AMS Alpha 9 kit uses Alpha 28s (similar to a K16, but different). Also worth considering is that EPL is assisting AMS with the tuning and most cars running EPL + A28s on 93 are running high-500/just hitting 600 WHP on Mustang Dynos.


        Regardless, dyno numbers are over rated and the 60-130 is a bit questionable for those HP claims.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
        @Sticky -- Can you edit my post, the AMS Alpha 9 kit uses Alpha 28s (similar to a K16, but different). Also worth considering is that EPL is assisting AMS with the tuning and most cars running EPL + A28s on 93 are running high-500/just hitting 600 WHP on Mustang Dynos.


        Regardless, dyno numbers are over rated and the 60-130 is a bit questionable for those HP claims.
        No need to your subsequent post straightens it out. It isn't using K16's.

        The dyno numbers are what they are. I don't see a reason to question them.

        Secondly, you can hit over 600 whp with a billet K16:

        Click here to enlarge

        A billet K24 would be closer to these turbos. Considering a K24/18g setup can do close to 700 whp on 93 octane what's the problem here?

        Click here to enlarge
      1. benzy89's Avatar
        benzy89 -
        Here's the dyno from the car that run the 60-130s I posted in comment #7 , running Alpha 28s on MS109 @ 1.6 bar (23 psi)

        Click here to enlarge

        His 93 octane (No meth) setup is 1.2 bar. Nothing against the dynos you're posting, but I'm going to cite this guy who's had both the billet K16s and the Alpha 28s, with verified 60-130 times illustrating the differences between the setups.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
        Here's the dyno from the car that run the 60-130s I posted in comment #7 , running Alpha 28s on MS109 @ 1.6 bar (23 psi)

        http://www.bimmerboost.com/images/im...a857883a-1.jpg

        His 93 octane (No meth) setup is 1.2 bar. Nothing against the dynos you're posting, but I'm going to cite this guy who's had both the billet K16s and the Alpha 28s, with verified 60-130 times illustrating the differences between the setups.
        That's perfectly fine but I still don't see a reason that the AMS package dyno numbers should be doubted? I mean what, did they bolt on different turbos than they are saying just to produce false graphs?
      1. benzy89's Avatar
        benzy89 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        That's perfectly fine but I still don't see a reason that the AMS package dyno numbers should be doubted? I mean what, did they bolt on different turbos than they are saying just to produce false graphs?
        No, but the 60-130 time doesn't add up with the advertised power claims.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
        No, but the 60-130 time doesn't add up with the advertised power claims.
        I see. So that is the main point of contention?

        That's the trouble with 60-130's and lot's videos. You can't verify fuel, boost, etc.
      1. c32AMG-DTM's Avatar
        c32AMG-DTM -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
        No, but the 60-130 time doesn't add up with the advertised power claims.
        Layinback's 996TT is lighter than AMS' 997TT - considerably so. I will see if I can find the amount.
      1. c32AMG-DTM's Avatar
        c32AMG-DTM -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
        Layinback's 996TT is lighter than AMS' 997TT - considerably so. I will see if I can find the amount.
        From what I can gather, layinback's 996TT was around 3060 back in 2012, and he had some more weight-loss steps planned in 2013 (not sure if he followed through with them) that would bring his car down to just a little bit over 3000 lbs. AMS's 997TT is full weight, weighing in at 3590.

        So, yeah, layinback's 996TT (which is a beast, no doubt about it) would take a lot less HP/TQ to post a similar 60-130 time. 500 (almost 600) pounds weight differential is HUGE!
      1. c32AMG-DTM's Avatar
        c32AMG-DTM -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
        There's a thread picking up some steam over on 6Speed that this kit is really bogus marketing from AMS saying that it can put down over 900 HP on Race Gas.... Allegedly the Alpha 9 package utilizes billet K16s, and the established performance numbers are concerning.

        AMS shows this 5.97 60-130 on 93, @ peak 694 WHP. The K16 WR is 5.87 with 550 WHP. The same user later went 5.35 with 650 WHP and 4.65 at 800 WHP...... SO something is not adding up if this car is really making 694 on 93 and the 60-130 is closer to 6 seconds instead of 5.
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
        @Sticky -- Can you edit my post, the AMS Alpha 9 kit uses Alpha 28s (similar to a K16, but different). Also worth considering is that EPL is assisting AMS with the tuning and most cars running EPL + A28s on 93 are running high-500/just hitting 600 WHP on Mustang Dynos.


        Regardless, dyno numbers are over rated and the 60-130 is a bit questionable for those HP claims.
        A few things:

        You're mixing up 996 and 997 Turbos in your comments (as was the case in that 6speed thread, too, making it confusing).
        AMS uses EPL for 996 Turbo tuning.
        AMS (AFAIK) does their 997 Turbo tuning in-house.
        AMS offers a K16 billet-wheel turbo upgrade for 996 Turbos.
        AMS offers an Alpha 9 A28-based package for 997 Turbos.
        K16's and A28's are not even remotely similar turbochargers, in terms of technology or output potential.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
        A few things:

        You're mixing up 996 and 997 Turbos in your comments (as was the case in that 6speed thread, too, making it confusing).
        AMS uses EPL for 996 Turbo tuning.
        AMS (AFAIK) does their 997 Turbo tuning in-house.
        AMS offers a K16 billet-wheel turbo upgrade for 996 Turbos.
        AMS offers an Alpha 9 A28-based package for 997 Turbos.
        K16's and A28's are not even remotely similar turbochargers, in terms of technology or output potential.
        Good stuff.
      1. c32AMG-DTM's Avatar
        c32AMG-DTM -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Good stuff.
        Yeah, I did the calc's tonight, and frankly the math adds up almost perfectly. layinback's A28 996TT made 650 whp on MS109, and ran a 5.35 60-130 weighing in at an (estimated) 3060 lbs. AMS's A28 997TT ran a verified 5.32 60-130 on MS109, and weighs in at 3590 lbs.

        Let's assume 5.35 and 5.32 are close enough to be equal, and for the sake of argument that slope/gearing/aero/etc are equal.

        650/3060 = X/3590.
        X = 3590(650/3060)
        X = 762.6

        So, a 3590 pound 997TT would HAVE to make 763 whp to run an equal 60-130 as a 3060 pound 996TT making 650 whp, all else equal.

        Now, keep in mind that the 997TT actually ran a bit quicker, and did it with one shift (the 996TT was a zero shift run), and frankly this whole thing is completely overblown into a non-story... IMHO.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
        nd frankly this whole thing is completely overblown into a non-story... IMHO.
        What is overblown? I see a pretty normal discussion that is on topic.
      1. c32AMG-DTM's Avatar
        c32AMG-DTM -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        What is overblown? I see a pretty normal discussion that is on topic.
        Sorry, I didn't mean here - I meant the 6SO thread. The thread here is as you state.
      1. Tony@VargasTurboTech's Avatar
        Tony@VargasTurboTech -
        Why do none of these graphs except the 2 sticky posted have WTQ? So annoying when trying to see spool etc.