I have become confident that Porsche has deliberately hobbled the Cayman S engine’s output. I am sure that this is a business decision in order to fit it into their model lineup. It would be bad for business to have a less expensive car challenge the 911.
NOT DEVELOPING the engine to its full potential is
very, very different from ACTIVELY REDUCING its output, and trying to make it impossible for others to improve it.
I make the following prediction:
Porsche has put to limiting routines in the ECU software. I am NOT referring to the fact that the factory software does not accommodate higher octane fuel, better breathing, etc. That is simply limiting the factory output. They also want to stop YOU from increasing the output.
I am confident they have inserted to routines into the software so that even if you remove the physical breathing limitations, the engine will have difficulty developing full power.
In order to produce more power, the engine needs more air and more fuel. The best way to remove the upside potential of an electronically controlled engine is to use the anti-knock spark retardation system. When the knock sensor detects a knock, it notifies the ECU, which retards the spark, reducing power and eliminating the knock. By simply monitoring air usage versus RPM, the ECU can tell if the engine is breathing more easily than the original restricted factory design. If the engine is doing better, the ECU will then invoke the anti-knock routines to retard the spark slightly, subtly reducing power.
It may be possible that in a similar way, the Variocam timing can be adjusted to reduce power. By installing these types of software routines, no matter what the Cayman owner does in the real world to allow his car to breathe better (snorkel,
plenum, exhaust), the engine will still not develop the power that it should.
Even an ECU software upgrade is unlikely to beat this, if the entire factory program is not examined for crippling routines. Since the anti-knock software routines are “safety” routines (to keep the engine from destroying itself), they typically would not be rewritten. That means that even with new maps for increased performance, the crippling routines will come in behind the new map, retard timing, and limit output.
The routine would be easiest to find if it is built directly into the anti-knock subsystem. If the system is comparing the output from the mass airflow sensor and the RPM, that would be a smoking gun.
More complicated would be if the limiting routines are buried elsewhere in the many lines of diagnostic and monitoring code. The routines may hide in these areas, but still set flags for the spark timing as if there was a knock. Most complicated would be if the limiting routines are encrypted, and as a part of the initialization of the ECU on startup, the routines are decrypted and put into effect. This would mean that the routines to not exist in readable form in the program except when the cars operate.
I HEREBY OFFER A $500 REWARD TO THE FIRST PERSON TO FIND AND PUBLISH THE CAYMAN LIMITING ROUTINE(S) and location(s) in the ECU program. I will arrange a $500 credit for the winner with a Cayman Club sponsor. “First” means first to post the solution in this thread. The judge will be either consensus by the forum, PCATECH (if he is willing to serve), or anyone competent named by K-MAN S. Happy Hunting!
