I am not a Lawyer nor do I spend time with any, but I would think that if Porsche had a problem with this stuff you would know it. Porsche has gone after way less offensive stuff. IMO

Update: My math was bad. The crank numbers are better than we thought.

With 15% drivetrain loss, Tyson's 2.4 is laying down 186 hp. David's 3.0 has 193 hp, and my chipped 3.6 is putting out 286 hp.

Great news Jack! Those miscalculations should be worth at least a second or two at WSRII. ;)

I’m pretty excited since my new engine is essentially the exact same w/ the same mods. One more week.

I'm sure you meant Dave's 3.0, not 2.0.

Whoops. You're right, I took a liter away from David.

I went back and fixed it.

Jack: I'm glad to hear this. I just spent a week in New York, and it was quite nice walking in rush hour traffic, instead of "lurching" through it. Now I'm given new impetus to drive once again. :)

My 195K mile engine is now apart. Still running good when it was pulled from the car.

It also has three bent values and broken rings in one cylinder with some good scoring on that cylinder wall.

Engine had the original Ausil cylinders and the original '79 head studs.
The week or so before I pulled it, the engine was 182 at the rear wheels.

Says a lot for a new or renewed Porsche flat 6!

FWIW, I do not believe that carbs will increase HP over CIS. If a fuel system is producing a correct A/F mixture smoothly, and if the fuel is properly atomized (like with CIS injectors), then you're not going to make more power with some other fuel system. But I do predict that replacing a CIS with carbs will make the car FEEL like it has at least 30 more hp. Because of the greatly improved throttle response.

15% losses have been calculated. That is, dyno daredevils have tested engines alone, and then engines with trannies attached, and the Porsche 915 tranny tends to rob about 15%. Take the parasitic loss figure (15%) and subtract it from 100. Divide the rear wheel HP by this figure. For example: 174 HP at the wheels divided by 85% is about 204-205 hp.

You're right again Tyson, but I'm at work now. I'll nap when I get home.

Regarding the 15% driveline loss that everyone seems to quote, I recently saw this interesting thread on another forum that I found interesting. Specifically that using a percentage just doesn't work if you are talking about comparing engines of different HP's.

I've heard that rear tire pressure can change the dyno readings i.e. higher tire pressure =lower rolling resistance=higher hp readings.
Is this true? has anyone ever tried it?
TIA